I'm DMing a campaign themed in the world of RuneScape and I'm adding a few Homebrew features to add to the flavor of the experience.
Pathfinder already has information on Bronze, Iron/Steel, Mithral, and Adamantine materials. They're close enough to RuneScape equivalents for me. I'd like to homebrew higher tier materials unique to RuneScape, like Runite and Dragon Metals. In RuneScape these materials don't have many defining qualities other than different tiers of equipment, so there's not a lot for me to go off of than my own imagination, and what I know about the game's lore. Runite should be considerably better than adamantine, and Dragon better than Runite.
Here are a couple ideas I souped up.
Runite: Runite is a rare sturdy metal with a natural magical conductivity, considered a delicacy among dragons.
Runite is easier to magically enhance than most other materials. Cost for applying magical abilities/enhancements to Runite equipment is treated as +2 less. It will still always cost at least +1 for the enhancement. For example: enchanting a Rune Longsword to be +5 Keen (+1) Flaming Burst (+2) would cost as much as a +6 weapon enhancement instead of +8. Runite equipment can effectively be enhanced to +12 this way, for the cost of a +10 enhancement. Runite equipment is always masterwork and costs more to make, as noted below.
Type of Item......Item Price Modifier
Ammunition.......+300 gp per item
Light armor.......+2,500 gp
Medium armor...+5,000 gp
Heavy armor.....+7,500 gp
Weapon............+15,000 gp
Dragon: Not to be confused with Dragonhide, this extremely rare ancient crimson metal is rumored to be forged by the dragon-kin. This craft has long-since been forgotten, so Dragon metal can not be forged by normal means. All items made of this material are considered artifacts.
Dragon Metal absorbs energies (acid, cold, electricity, or fire) that it's exposed to, and channels it to its wielder's advantage. Dragon equipment exposed to 10 points or more of energy damage (from mundane or magical sources) becomes charged for the next 2 rounds. Equipment can only be charged by one energy type at a time. Charged equipment charged by different energy type cancels the previous type, and gains the new one.
Charged Dragon Armor grants it's wearer Energy Resistance 5 of the appropriate type.
Charged Dragon weapons deal +1d6 points of energy damage to their attacks.
The equipment's ability to absorb energy can be enhanced if the source of energy is a dragon breath weapon, or the wielder is both wearing Dragon armor, and wielding a dragon weapon. Helmets, gauntlets, boots, a second weapon, and other equipment crafted from dragon metal do not count as Dragon armor for the purposes of this bonus unless specifically listed otherwise.
If one of these situations is applied, then the bonuses increase to energy resistance 10, 1d8 energy damage, and lasts for 4 rounds.
If both situations are applied, then the bonuses increase to energy resistance 15, 1d10 energy damage, and lasts 6 rounds.
These bonuses do not stack with energy resistance or damage enhancements such as flaming.
All dragon equipment is of masterwork quality. Because of the unique properties of the metal, it's more difficult to enchant. Cost to apply magical enhancements to Dragon equipment increases by +1.
Note: All dragon weapon artifacts already come with magical enhancement and properties to simulate special attacks from RuneScape, so further enhancing them shouldn't be necessary. Dragon armor does not come with any enchantments, but does come with (randomly) either spikes as spiked armor or ornamental runite and gold gilding trim that negates the increased cost to enchant.
I'd like some feedback about if these seem reasonably balanced.
If you're familiar with RuneScape, do you think they seem to fit the flavor?
Questions? Comments? Suggestions?
I'll start by stating I'm not even vaguely familiar with the setting your referencing.
Runite: I like the idea of runite, but I'd probably limit it to just a +1 (+11) instead of +2 (+12) and see how it goes from there. If it seems fine, raise it back to +2. It's a lot easier on players when you "buff" something, but can cause resentment when you "nerf it".
Dragon: I'd change the name to "dragonite" or something else, just using "dragon" will be confusing. Hell, here's a list I just came up with as possible alternatives: draconium, draconite, dracogium, dracordium, dracalt, dracantite, dragonsteel, dracorite, and dracanna.
I don't really have an opinion on your dragon metal in terms of mechanics; artifacts can vary widely in power, though I'd be cautious with the line:
Note: All dragon weapon artifacts already come with magical enhancement and properties to simulate special attacks from RuneScape, so further enhancing them shouldn't be necessary. Dragon armor does not come with any enchantments, but does come with (randomly) either spikes as spiked armor or ornamental runite and gold gilding trim that negates the increased cost to enchant.
Whether something "shouldn't" be necessary has never stopped a player from trying.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for the feedback, Da'ath!
Runite: I like the idea of runite, but I'd probably limit it to just a +1 (+11) instead of +2 (+12) and see how it goes from there. If it seems fine, raise it back to +2. It's a lot easier on players when you "buff" something, but can cause resentment when you "nerf it".
Originally I thought about making it +1, but eventually opted for the +2. If it was +1, then the cost to make would have to be about 1/3 of what I listed to be worth the cost on early enchantments. If it only gave +1 but still cost the listed price then a PC buying one would also have to pay for a +4 enchantment to have saved any money on the investment, at least at first. The material is supposed to be rarer and more valuable than adamantine. +2 is better justified by the listed cost than +1. In my eyes, 200k is a lot of gold. Whether that's for a +10, or a +12 weapon, they spent a lot.
You make a great point though that buffing something is easier than nerfing it, but the price I'd put on +1 and +2 would be different, so buffing it after someone's bought or enchanted a Rune item would require me to either charge them for the price difference, or make rune weapons more expensive for anyone who doesn't already have one, or both and it seems more like I'm taking their money than buffing them.
As opposed to the option of changing the +2 to +1, here are a couple other alternative changes I could make, if it's too powerful as is.
1. Runite equipment enchantment cost would still be decreased by +2, but the max would be +10.
This effectively means that Runite just costs less to enchant. I don't think that alone is enough to make it as good or better than Adamantine, which Runite should be.
2. Runite equipment enchantment cost would still be decreased by +2, and the max would still be +12, but no more than +5 of that +12 could be abilities. The rest can only be enhancement bonus.
This could effectively be rewritten as "Runite equipment has an inherent +2 material bonus that functions as an enhancement bonus, and stacks with any other bonuses applied." Which sounds boring to me; even if useful.
3. Runite equipment enchantment cost would still be decreased by +2. The bonus in either enhancements or abilities can be up to a max of +6, but not both.
This would effectively mean that the max is +11, and they can't have +7 in enhancements, +7 in abilities, or +6 in both. Runite equipment can be enchanted with an additional +1 enhancement or ability, but not both. I like this option.
4. Runite equipment enchantment cost would still be decreased by +2, and the max would still be +12, but no more than +6 of that +12 can be abilities.
This might be my favorite option, because you effectively get an additional +1 enhancement and +1 ability for just the static bonus cost of the material. It's not as powerful as +2 abilities, and not as boring as +2 enhancement.
Questions? Comments? Suggestions?
Dragon: I'd change the name to "dragonite" or something else, just using "dragon" will be confusing. Hell, here's a list I just came up with as possible alternatives: draconium, draconite, dracogium, dracordium, dracalt, dracantite, dragonsteel, dracorite, and dracanna.
I should have called it Dragonite from the start, but it slipped my mind. The PCs wouldn't have been confused, but Dragonite is an appropriate name for the material Dragon equipment is made of.
I don't really have an opinion on your dragon metal in terms of mechanics; artifacts can vary widely in power, though I'd be cautious with the line:
Note: All dragon weapon artifacts already come with magical enhancement and properties to simulate special attacks from RuneScape, so further enhancing them shouldn't be necessary. Dragon armor does not come with any enchantments, but does come with (randomly) either spikes as spiked armor or ornamental runite and gold gilding trim that negates the increased cost to enchant.Whether something "shouldn't" be necessary has never stopped a player from trying.
Hope that helps.
That "Note" wasn't part of the rules for Dragon equipment. It was just an explanation to viewers of this thread as to why the equipment is harder to enchant, mechanically. Dragon weapons already have nice magical properties, so the +1 to add enchantments isn't as big of a drawback as it might seem.
Thanks again for the feedback!
bump
One thing I would encourage: always run the math. One material should not be "better" than another in the sense that it gives you more stuff for less cost; rather, materials that give you better stuff should always cost proportionately more. In your examples above, I can think of no reason in the world why ALL weapons and armor of +3 equivalent or greater are not made of runite. "Do you want a +5 steel sword for 50K gp, or a +5 runite sword for 33K gp? They're otherwise the same in all respects!" is not good design -- all other materials would instantly become obsolete. If you want magic weapons and armor to be cheaper, just lower the prices. Assigning a new material to make them cheaper is a really convoluted way of doing it.
Taking that logic a step further, here's what I ended up doing:
Re: dragonite, "Because of the unique properties of the metal, it's more difficult to enchant. Cost to apply magical enhancements to Dragon equipment increases by +1" is somewhat awkward. Why not simply treat it as a +1 equivalent magical armor property?
One thing I would encourage: always run the math. One material should not be "better" than another in the sense that it gives you more stuff for less cost; rather, materials that give you better stuff should always cost proportionately more. In your examples above, I can think of no reason in the world why ALL weapons and armor of +3 equivalent or greater are not made of runite. "Do you want a +5 steel sword for 50K gp, or a +5 runite sword for 33K gp? They're otherwise the same in all respects!" is not good design -- all other materials would instantly become obsolete. If you want magic weapons and armor to be cheaper, just lower the prices. Assigning a new material to make them cheaper is a really convoluted way of doing it.
I see what you mean, but you don't seem to realize that this is a rare material. You can't just go to your local blacksmith or Armorer and expect him to have it in stock. You can only get Runite items by finding the material yourself in remote (often dangerous) areas, by receiving as a rare Major loot item from a high level encounter, or by buying from the limited stocks of prestigious guilds.
Re: dragonite, "Because of the unique properties of the metal, it's more difficult to enchant. Cost to apply magical enhancements to Dragon equipment increases by +1" is somewhat awkward. Why not simply treat it as a +1 equivalent magical armor property?
Sure. If my PCs think it's awkward I could explain it like that. It wouldn't make any mechanical difference.
I see what you mean, but you don't seem to realize that this is a rare material. You can't just go to your local blacksmith or Armorer and expect him to have it in stock. You can only get Runite items by finding the material yourself in remote (often dangerous) areas, by receiving as a rare Major loot item from a high level encounter, or by buying from the limited stocks of prestigious guilds.
Accepting that, it should work in the exact opposite way to how you're pricing it.
If a +3 superduperium sword is better than a +3 steel sword (because it's easier to add more enhancements to) and is also infinitely more rare, than it should cost way MORE, not less! Being more rare should not make it proportionately cheaper.
See, either you want a rules-crunchy material -- in which case the cost has to match what it does, and the rarity or lack thereof doesn't somehow make it cheaper -- or you want a no-rules material you can hand to people as a free gift in order to bypass weapon cost limits. The two are mutually incompatible, however, when we're working in a money-equals-power rule system like Pathfinder.
Functionally, runite saves its owner money. That's what its magical property actually does, in game terms. Some swords make it easier to hit, some sunder more easily, some damage lycanthropes, some steal the target's soul; this one saves you money. The total magic savings is between 16,000 gp (+1 to +3) and 198,000 gp (+1 to +10 equivalent), and that's, minimally, how much it should cost: +16,000 gp minimum, but more reasonably something closer to the mean of 107,000 gp. And that's not including a price hike for being so rare!
Or, forget about the material cost altogether and retain it as a DM fiat "gift," enabling you to provide people with weapons they otherwise couldn't afford. In that case, its cost is literally "priceless" -- there's no way to put a price tag on that.
Accepting that, it should work in the exact opposite way to how you're pricing it.
If a +3 superduperium sword is better than a +3 steel sword (because it's easier to add more enhancements to) and is also infinitely more rare, than it should cost way MORE, not less! Being more rare should not make it proportionately cheaper.
See, either you want a rules-crunchy material -- in which case the cost has to match what it does, and the rarity or lack thereof doesn't somehow make it cheaper -- or you want a no-rules material you can hand to people as a free gift in order to bypass weapon cost limits. The two are mutually incompatible, however, when we're working in a money-equals-power rule system like Pathfinder.
Functionally, runite saves its owner money. That's what its magical property actually does, in game terms. Some swords make it easier to hit, some sunder more easily, some damage lycanthropes, some steal the target's soul; this one saves you money. The total magic savings is between 16,000 gp (+1 to +3) and 198,000 gp (+1 to +10 equivalent), and that's, minimally, how much it should cost: +16,000 gp minimum, but more reasonably something closer to the mean of 107,000 gp. And that's not including a price hike for being so rare!
Or, forget about the material cost altogether and retain it as a DM fiat "gift," enabling you to provide people with weapons they otherwise couldn't afford. In that case, its cost is literally "priceless" -- there's no way to put a price tag on that.
The material does cost more. A Rune Longsword costs more than a Longsword of any other material. The property of the material does not make it cheaper, but it gives you +2 in extra enchantments for the same price. If you like, consider it a material with any +2 enchantment property you want, and that's what you're paying extra for.
I don't see how you justify making a material with only a +2 enhancement bonus advantage over a normal material cost over 100k.
One material should not be "better" than another in the sense that it gives you more stuff for less costI see what you mean, but you don't seem to realize that this is a rare material.
Like Kirth, I immediately assumed that any +4 (and up) item would automatically be made of runite, because of the cost effectiveness. I see now that you mean it to be rare, which is incoherent with the low price of runite. As Kirth says, "being more rare should not make it proportionately cheaper" for an equal value.
Everyone making magic weapons and armours will be looking for runite in order to get a good deal. Hell, owners of runite weapons/armours will be hunted down to melt down their items. This would economically boost the price of runite much beyond the indicated price.
The material does cost more. A Rune Longsword costs more than a Longsword of any other material.
No, because no runite longsword will remain nonmagical, just as no one uses diamonds as kitty litter. All runite weapons will be as powerful as the owner can find someone to enhance them; +3 is a bare minimum, to take advantage of its properties; the maximum is +10.
The property of the material does not make it cheaper, but it gives you +2 in extra enchantments for the same price. If you like, consider it a material with any +2 enchantment property you want, and that's what you're paying extra for.
Paying 15K extra to save at least 16K is paying at least 1,000 gp less, not more. Your material is cheaper than plain steel for everything it would ever be used for.
I don't see how you justify making a material with only a +2 enhancement bonus advantage over a normal material cost over 100k.
The math was off slightly; a correction follows: For a +10 weapon (best case), a steel weapon costs 200K gp, per the Core rules. A runite one, giving +2 enhancement for free, would cost (128,000 gp + materials costs). If 200,000 = 128,000 + X, X = 72,000 gp. And that's how much runite is potentially worth, when used for weapons.
Table of Cost Savings For Runite Weapons, Based On Your Pricing
Enhancement Bonus / Steel Cost / Runite Cost / Runite Cost Savings
+3 / 18,000 / 17,000 / 1,000 gp cheaper than steel
+4 / 32,000 / 23,000 / 9,000 gp cheaper than steel
+5 / 50,000 / 33,000 / 17,000 gp cheaper than steel
+6 / 72,000 / 47,000 / 25,000 gp cheaper than steel
+7 / 98,000 / 65,000 / 33,000 gp cheaper than steel
+8 / 128,000 / 87,000 / 41,000 gp cheaper than steel
+9 / 162,000 / 113,000 / 49,000 gp cheaper than steel
+10 / 200,000 / 143,000 / 57,000 gp cheaper than steel
Table of Cost Savings For Runite Weapons, Based On Your Pricing
Enhancement Bonus / Steel Cost / Runite Cost / Runite Cost Savings
+3 / 18,000 / 17,000 / 1,000 gp cheaper than steel
+4 / 32,000 / 23,000 / 9,000 gp cheaper than steel
+5 / 50,000 / 33,000 / 17,000 gp cheaper than steel
+6 / 72,000 / 47,000 / 25,000 gp cheaper than steel
+7 / 98,000 / 65,000 / 33,000 gp cheaper than steel
+8 / 128,000 / 87,000 / 41,000 gp cheaper than steel
+9 / 162,000 / 113,000 / 49,000 gp cheaper than steel
+10 / 200,000 / 143,000 / 57,000 gp cheaper than steel
I realize this. The main reason I didn't want the base material to cost more than 15k (for weapons) is because then they'd actually lose money buying Runite a weapon, and enchanting it to +3. Of course, they could easily make up for that loss with additional enchantments, but they'd only save money when buying many enchantments.
I don't expect players to have access to Runite equipment until around lvl 10+, so they may have invested a good amount of money in their weapons up to that point. If they're willing to sell their old weapons for half price to enchant a Runite weapon, how much would they really be saving? You'd have to cut half the value of their old weapons out of their savings.
I'm not sure it'd be necessary, but suppose I just increased the base price. If Runite weapons cost +35k, then players would have to buy at least a +6 enchantment to save any money on their investment, and enchanting to +10 would only save them 37k. Does that seem reasonable to you, or do you think they should pay +70k for the weapon, and have the the only advantage to the material be it's potential for +12?
On a similar note, I'd still be open to other suggestions for Runite properties, if cheaper enchantments really seems so unfitting to you.
On a similar note, I'd still be open to other suggestions for Runite properties, if cheaper enchantments really seems so unfitting to you.
Runite allows items to be enchanted up to +12. This could be the material's only ability.
Alternatively, spells cast on runite weapons could last twice as long, or benefit from a free metamagic. Perhaps all permanent magic qualities could be empowered, or flaming/frost/shocking deal 1d8 energy damage instead of 1d6 or something of the sort.
well after reading this rule
Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The
creator’s caster level must be at least three times the
enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an
enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the
two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or
a magic shield must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to
have any armor or shield special abilities.
what if it removed these prereqs?
On a similar note, I'd still be open to other suggestions for Runite properties, if cheaper enchantments really seems so unfitting to you.Runite allows items to be enchanted up to +12. This could be the material's only ability.
Alternatively, spells cast on runite weapons could last twice as long, or benefit from a free metamagic. Perhaps all permanent magic qualities could be empowered, or flaming/frost/shocking deal 1d8 energy damage instead of 1d6 or something of the sort.
Able to be +12 would be a good ability, but only available to those who can afford it, though maybe that would be appropriate.
Temporary magical enhancements last twice as long sounds like it could be useful.
I also had the idea to make certain valuable gems craftable into the hilts of weapons to increase the properties of certain weapon abilities; a ruby would make a flaming enchantment function as flaming burst, and things like that. It's not a fleshed out idea, but It's something I'd like to add. I probably won't make that a quality of Runite, but thanks for the thought anyway.
well after reading this rule
crb wrote:Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The
creator’s caster level must be at least three times the
enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an
enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the
two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or
a magic shield must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to
have any armor or shield special abilities.what if it removed these prereqs?
An interesting idea, but I'm not sure if any of the PCs intend to pick up Craft Magic Arms and Armor. If they don't, It'd only be useful for figuring out which NPCs can enchant equipment, and I'm not sure how I'm going to do that just yet. Also, it's a higher level material, so I don't think finding capable enchanters would be a problem once runite is available.
No +1 enhancement needed for abilities sounds useful, I guess, but wouldn't you want enhancement bonuses on your armor anyway?
An interesting idea, but I'm not sure if any of the PCs intend to pick up Craft Magic Arms and Armor. If they don't, It'd only be useful for figuring out which NPCs can enchant equipment, and I'm not sure how I'm going to do that just yet. Also, it's a higher level material, so I don't think finding capable enchanters would be a problem once runite...well after reading this rule
crb wrote:Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The
creator’s caster level must be at least three times the
enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an
enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the
two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or
a magic shield must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to
have any armor or shield special abilities.what if it removed these prereqs?
that would depend on the character and the enchantment in question. Armor less so, but getting say a flame weapon early might be cool.
that would depend on the character and the enchantment in question. Armor less so, but getting say a flame weapon early might be cool.An interesting idea, but I'm not sure if any of the PCs intend to pick up Craft Magic Arms and Armor. If they don't, It'd only be useful for figuring out which NPCs can enchant equipment, and I'm not sure how I'm going to do that just yet. Also, it's a higher level material, so I don't think finding capable enchanters would be a problem once runite...well after reading this rule
crb wrote:Creating magic armor has a special prerequisite: The
creator’s caster level must be at least three times the
enhancement bonus of the armor. If an item has both an
enhancement bonus and a special ability, the higher of the
two caster level requirements must be met. Magic armor or
a magic shield must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus to
have any armor or shield special abilities.what if it removed these prereqs?
Right, but as I said, it's a material that won't be available at lower levels, so that early flame weapon isn't really a likely senario. Still, thanks for the idea, nonetheless.
What about this?
Runite: Runite allows easier enchanting than normal steel. Instead of the +5 limit on weapon or armor enchantments, items made of runite can have enchantments equivalent to +7. This does not change the +10 enhancement bonus total limit.
I look at it this way: all +5 weapons, in the core rules, cost 50K gp plus materials costs. That applies to +1 frost flaming keen shock weapons, or +3 holy weapons, or simple +5 weapons, or whatever. The materials cost is always non-negative, unless the material is woefully unsuitable for weapons (low hardness/hp, broken condition, etc.), in which cas a flat, minor cost reduction is justified.
In short, the designers felt that +5 in properties is worth 50K. You can agree with them, or disagree and lower the cost of all +5 weapons, but there needs to be a baseline -- unless you don't care about mechanics at all, and just want a storytime game where numbers don't really matter (that's a perfectly valid choice, by the way, and can make for a very fun game, as long as you're honest about it).
"Runite" giving a free +2 is, essentially, an excuse for the DM to ignore the minimum pricing rules, and give people cheaper weapons. At the end of the day, that's all it is -- DM fiat in a fancy package. And again, as long as you're willing to be honest about that and not pretend like it's mechanically-balanced, then go ape. Remove the cost adjustment entirely, and don't limit it to +2, but rather make it variable by story need, because that's all the "material" is anyway: a deus ex machina for someone who needs better gear than they should really have. That's a valid choice, if that's what you're going for.
On the other hand, if you want it to be a legitimate, mechanically-balanced material, then it has to be priced according to the benefits it provides. Full stop. If you want it to provide a spell effect, cost it by the spell effects pricing rules. If you want it to provide a deflection bonus, cost that according to a ring of deflection. If you want it to be able to carry a straight +6 enhancement bonus, as opposed to max +5 (and thus be able to penetrate DR/epic), then a +6 runite sword would cost 72K gp plus material cost sufficient to account for that ability. Etc. But what you can't do is cost it LESS than properties costs + (non-negative) materials costs and then say, "well, that's its property -- it's cheap!" because that puts you squarely back where you started.
That's what I mean about "mutually incompatible" design goals.
What about this? Runite: Runite allows easier enchanting than normal steel. Instead of the +5 limit on weapon or armor enchantments, items made of runite can have enchantments equivalent to +7. This does not change the +10 enhancement bonus total limit.
Yeah, that would work. A +6 runite weapon would cost 72K gp + materials cost (TBD), and would penetrate DR/epic. A +7 runite weapon would cost 98K gp plus materials cost. What's a resonable cost for the ability to penetrate DR/epic? Maybe there's a splatbook spell somewhere and we can price it accordingly.
The only things that bypass DR/epic are other creatures with it, +4 Bane or Furious weapons, and with the new Mythic Adventures rules, weapon with enhancement bonuses and special abilities that add up to +6 or above.
The last one is horrible and I don't think many people are going to use that particular rule, though.
A +4 bane weapon is just +5, so it'd be 50,000 gold for bypassing one specific type of creature's DR/epic. Same with furious, but restricted to raging barbarians.
A +4 bane weapon is just +5, so it'd be 50,000 gold for bypassing one specific type of creature's DR/epic. Same with furious, but restricted to raging barbarians.
That's probably a pretty good basis, I think. If we look at bane or raging as a +1 weapon property, then look at the difference between +5 and +6 costs, we get 72K - 50K = 22K gp. So we make runite (the material) cost an extra 22,000 gp for weapons, and the effect of the special material is that they can handle an enhancement bonus of up to +6 or +7 or whatever, rather than the normal +5 -- and a +6 or better runite weapon can penetrate DR/epic. You've got a property that does something other than "make weapons cheaper," and you've got a reasonable pricing for it.
Again, that's if we want to be mechanical about it. If we want "runite" to be game-speak for "cheap powerful weapons," then we axe the cost and the mechanical specifics and leave it as DM fiat.
I'll start by stating I'm not even vaguely familiar with the setting your referencing.
The same applied to me. I googled "RuneScape" and learned it's an MMORPG. Further search turned up the following information on "runite":
Runite ore can be obtained through the Mining skill in various places throughout RuneScape by mining a Runite rock. The ore can be mined with a Mining level of 85 or higher, and doing so grants 125 Mining experience. The ore can be smelted with 8 heaps of coal through the Smithing skill to form a Rune bar, which can then be smithed into various rune weapons and armour. Mining runite can be very profitable, as 2 ores is comparable in value to nearly 2 inventories of yew logs, but takes less space and time to obtain. Some areas where the ore spawns, however, can be dangerous. After being mined, runite ore takes between 12.5 and 25 minutes to respawn, depending on the population of the Runescape world. The more people in that world will make the respawn times shorter. As a result of this length of time, miners tend to switch worlds rather than wait for the ore to respawn on a single world.
Further search indicates that a "rune" sword has "damage 612" (vs. 316 for a steel sword). That's roughly double, implying some degree of magical enhancement in Pathfinder terms, but nothing definite.
The same applied to me. I googled "RuneScape" and learned it's an MMORPG.
Oh, duh on me then. I usually google everything, not sure why I didn't on this.=)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, duh on me then. I usually google everything, not sure why I didn't on this.=)
I'll admit that I didn't think to do it, either, until I went back and re-read your post. So double duh on me!
What I'm doing is using the PF drop tables, and swapping out the "Specific Item" chance for "special material" chance. Most equipment will be the standard iron/steel, but minor equipment will have a slim chance of being bronze, and some old equipment, like that used by skeletons guarding an ancient tomb, might be bronze. Minor and medium equipment will have a certain chance to be mithral or adamantine, and then major items will also have a small chance of being Runite. I haven't made the tables yet.
I'll also let the PCs buy mithral and adamantine equipment from shops as usual, but Runite will be more limited, as I said before.
"You can only get Runite items by finding the material yourself in remote (often dangerous) areas, by receiving as a rare Major loot item from a high level encounter, or by buying from the limited stocks of prestigious guilds."
I'll most likely only let the PCs get dragonite items when I find it's appropriate or let the PCs discoverer clues about where they might be able to find them.
For what it's worth, different materials in RuneScape follow a general progression: Bronze < Iron < Steel < Mithril < Adamant < Rune < Dragon.
In RS, runite's main distinction is that it is used to make armor/weapons better than adamantite, which in turn is better than mithril, better than steel. The idea of runite being a good conductor of magic is an idea I souped up; not a quality that the material has in the game. In RS there are "runes" that are used to cast magic (like material components), and they can be crafted from "rune essence" imbued with magical power at certain altars around the world. I won't be adding any mechanics with runes to our PF game, but giving runite similar properties seemed appropriate. I also figured magical enhancements are the main thing that distinguish high level equipment from lower level ones, so relating runite's properties to that seemed a appropriate. Giving all runite equipment a cheaper +2 enchantment that stacked with other enchantments seemed like a good idea, but now I see how it can be problematic when the items and enchantments can be purchased.
To be fair, in RuneScape, all metal armor is a good conductor for magic, which is why melee armor has terrible block chance against mages.
Kirth's calculations seem sound, but if you just want higher damage, then you could just have runite weapons deal damage as a weapon one size category larger.
To be fair, in RuneScape, all metal armor is a good conductor for magic, which is why melee armor has terrible block chance against mages.
Kirth's calculations seem sound, but if you just want higher damage, then you could just have runite weapons deal damage as a weapon one size category larger.
In RuneScape metal armors conduct magic negatively. I wouldn't want to make that the case in pathfinder because magic works very differently, and I'd have to juggle some weird balancing for how magic and metal armor interact. Metal armor reduces saves to magic? Magical effects deal more damage to metal wearers? How would this scale for different armors, and would it be balanced?
Anyway, I also don't want runite equipment to just have higher AC/damage, especially without any explainable reason for it. I don't want it to be just better, I want it to have interesting properties that make it valuable to those who can get it. I like the idea of runite having inherent magical properties, making it optimal for enchanting.
How about this, rather than have runite default to a free +2, have it grant a virtual +1 bonus for every +2 enhancement bonuses the weapon possesses?
How about this, rather than have runite default to a free +2, have it grant a virtual +1 bonus for every +2 enhancement bonuses the weapon possesses?
You mean every enhancement bonus would be 50% more effective, so a +4 enhancement bonus would function as a +6 to attack and damage rolls?
You might be on to something, but I suspect this might interfere with some things based on enhancement bonuses. Some people were talking about how different enhancement bonuses on weapons will bypass certain DR, but I don't know where that's coming from.
I'll keep this idea in mind.
How about this, rather than have runite default to a free +2, have it grant a virtual +1 bonus for every +2 enhancement bonuses the weapon possesses?
I've been mulling it over, and I think this would be a pretty good way to make it work. There's not much difference mechanically. A +5 enhancement bonus would function as a +7, so it's still gaining +2 enchantments for no additional cost, other than the material cost. This could be a better way to give runite a similar effect.
I don't know about different degrees of enhancement bypassing DR, so I don't know how that would fit in.
From the Core rules:
Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.
Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.
DR Type : Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent
cold iron/silver : +3
adamantine* : +4
alignment-based : +5* Note that this does not give the ability to ignore hardness, like an actual adamantine weapon does.
Making the weapon +2 better under certain circumstances or with certain conditions is exactly what the bane and raging weapon properties do; they're priced as a +1 enhancement bonus equivalent, not as a flat materials cost, and if "rune weapons" do the same thing, then "rune" should be a +1 property, not a material.
However, speaking of defeating DR, there's no reason you couldn't forget about "free plusses" and instead simply make runite's property the ability to defeat any material-specific DR. You'd price it as something like (mithril + adamantine), with a discount if it doesn't also ignore hardness the way adamantine does.
Making the weapon +2 better under certain circumstances or with certain conditions is exactly what the bane and raging weapon properties do; they're priced as a +1 enhancement bonus equivalent, not as a flat materials cost, and if "rune weapons" do the same thing, then "rune" should be a +1 property, not a material.
Bane and Furious weapon abilities do more than just give +2. The runite property we're talking about would only give +1 or +2 depending on how much enhancement was already on it. No +2d6 damage. No boost to rage powers. Just +1 or +2 enhancement.
You seem to think that materials can't mimic or enhance the properties of magical enchantments, but there are already materials that do this from ultimate equipment.
Blood Crystal compliments wounding weapons.
Eel hide grants some electricity resistance.
Elysian Bronze grants a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls against magical beasts and monstrous humanoids much like a bonus +1 enhancement.
Fire and Frost forged steel can deal elemental damage and grant energy resistance.
All of these materials are considerably cheaper than what I've proposed for runite, so what's the problem?
However, speaking of defeating DR, there's no reason you couldn't forget about "free plusses" and instead simply make runite's property the ability to defeat any material-specific DR. You'd price it as something like (mithril + adamantine), with a discount if it doesn't also ignore hardness the way adamantine does.
If runite just allowed weapons to bypass material specific DR, and any other +3 weapon could do the same thing, then what's the benefit? What other material specific DRs are there?
Furthermore, what about runite armor/shields? What would their benefit be?I'm really leaning towards the idea that enhancement bonuses contribute +1/2 more on runite weapons/armor than other materials. It's a material that benefits more from magical enhancement, but otherwise functions as steel.
If your mind was already made up from the start -- why post asking advice?
That was sort of too brief, so here are some specific responses:
Bane and Furious weapon abilities do more than just give +2. The runite property we're talking about would only give +1 or +2 depending on how much enhancement was already on it. No +2d6 damage.
I would MUCH rather have +2 to attacks and damage against everyone, rather than +2/+2d6+2 against only one certain type. In other words, that's worth a lot more -- which is why it's priced at +2 in the core rules, instead of +1.
You seem to think that materials can't mimic or enhance the properties of magical enchantments, but there are already materials that do this from ultimate equipment. Elysian Bronze grants a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls against magical beasts and monstrous humanoids much like a bonus +1 enhancement.
All of these materials are considerably cheaper than what I've proposed for runite, so what's the problem?
+1 against two specific creature types (and not helping to bypass DR) << +2 against every creature type and better DR penetration. Also, if your material does essentially what a property in the Core rules does, it makes sense to price it that way, not look for non-analogius splatbook materials as an excuse to underprice it.
.Anyway, like I said, if you want it to be so much cheaper than it's worth, you should definitely go ahead and do that. I just think it's dishonest to do that while pretending you have a mechanically-balanced game element.
Also, if your material does essentially what a property in the Core rules does, it makes sense to price it that way, not look for non-analogius splatbook materials as an excuse to underprice it.
Anyway, like I said, if you want it to be so much cheaper than it's worth, you should definitely go ahead and do that. I just think it's dishonest to do that while pretending you have a mechanically-balanced game element.
So you think that fire/frost forged steel weapons should cost +38k because they can functions as a +1 ability, and that's how much +1 abilities can cost? Otherwise why would anyone buy flaming/frost abilities for their weapons, when they can just buy cheaper materials that can do the same thing? I understand what you've been saying about static prices for magic enchantment equivalents being unbalanced, but such a small difference isn't going to imbalance the game more than any other choice by the DM who determines which challenges the PCs face, how much gold they earn, and which items they can get.
I'm sorry if I've come off as stubborn or condescending. I don't mean to insult you. I appreciate what advice and incite you've contributed, even if it hasn't greatly changed my perspective.
So you think that fire/frost forged steel weapons should cost +38k because they can functions as a +1 ability, and that's how much +1 abilities can cost?
+1 abilities cost 6K, or 10K, or 14K, or 18K, or 22K, etc., depending on how powerful the weapon already is. This is a function of the "limited item slots" thing and the corresponding need to upcharge for adding functions, and of the fact that in Pathfinder, character power is directly proportional to the gold spent on it. (Personally, I dislike the setup, and have instituted a whole system of housreules to avoid it -- but, if we're playing Pathfinder, that's the system in place.) So, when you have properties that fall neatly into the "2000 gp x total bonus squared" system, it pays to stick with that unless your houserules go way beyond just adding new materials.
For your specific example, fire-forged weapons don't actually do what flaming weapons do (if they did, I'd argue they should be priced at +1 bonus equivalent). But they do less damage, for only 2 rounds, and only if you take fire damage while using them. All of that means, basically, that you're hardly ever getting any benefit from them, so a lower cost is warrented (although it's debatable that 600 gp is appropriate, since it seems to have been pulled out of the air). On the other hand, a weapon that gets a +2 enhancement bonus above its own, always, falls into the existing system: that's a +2 enhancement bonus equivalent cost. Because it does exactly what an extra +2 enhancement does.
I want to stress again that there's no reason in the world that the DM can't unload free upgrades on PC equipment if the campaign demands it. If you want to call that "runite" to make it seem more flavorful, more power to you! But just be aware that what you're doing is intentionally breaking the wealth-by-level and item pricing guidelines. Doing so is OK, but again, you're basically lying to yourself if you pretend you're not.