Post/Author/DateTime	Post
thorofasgard13 08-27-07, 01:59 PM	I was crafting an epic spell, raise island on a much bigger scale, that would require a ritual that would last a few days and many casters. the spellcraft DC ended up being zero and I can understand that. But what I don't understand is what would it cost to research and how much Xp would it cost?
Thegans 08-27-07, 02:32 PM	I was crafting an epic spell, raise island on a much bigger scale, that would require a ritual that would last a few days and many casters. the spellcraft DC ended up being zero and I can understand that. But what I don't understand is what would it cost to research and how much Xp would it cost? I think ther probably going to ask how you got it to zero.
Davus Antonius 08-27-07, 04:40 PM	I was crafting an epic spell, raise island on a much bigger scale, that would require a ritual that would last a few days and many casters. the spellcraft DC ended up being zero and I can understand that. But what I don't understand is what would it cost to research and how much Xp would it cost? And this is one of the many reasons that the Epic Spellcasting System needs to be rewritten. I personally have house ruled that you can't mitigate the spellcraft DC to below the base DC for the seed. If the spell uses multiple seeds, then you add up the base DC's and use the result as the minimum for that spell. My players seem to find that reasonable. To answer your question, that spell probably won't be allowed as written by your DM just because of the 0 spellcraft DC. Even if you've probably constructed the spell correctly any sane DM won't allow a 0 DC epic spell.
BillTheManiac 08-27-07, 07:41 PM	The problem isn't with a DC 0 spell. I would allow one if I was the DM. The problem is that ritual casting is way too easy. Bluemage55 has something to fix it in his revised SRD, the maximum mitigation from additional casters is your HD or something.
Starmage21 08-27-07, 09:18 PM	And this is one of the many reasons that the Epic Spellcasting System needs to be rewritten. I personally have house ruled that you can't mitigate the spellcraft DC to below the base DC for the seed. If the spell uses multiple seeds, then you add up the base DC's and use the result as the minimum for that spell. My players seem to find that reasonable. To answer your question, that spell probably won't be allowed as written by your DM just because of the 0 spellcraft DC. Even if you've probably constructed the spell correctly any sane DM won't allow a 0 DC epic spell. It doesnt need to be rewritten at all. Just as in every other case where a zero appears in D&D, treat it as 1/2. A DC 0 epic spell costs 4500gp and 4500/25 XP to create.
runestar 08-27-07, 09:29 PM	It doesnt need to be rewritten at all. Just as in every other case where a zero appears in D&D, treat it as 1/2. A DC 0 epic spell costs 4500gp and 4500/25 XP to create. Which is problematic in itself. You are easily getting week-long epic mage armours and stat boosters for that sort of DC.
fighter_mcwarrior 08-27-07, 10:37 PM	I was in a Monty Haul game where we all made DC 0 spells. Yes, we did abuse the system to its breaking point (one guy claimed to have made a DC 0 spell that did 10 rays of 50d20 hellfire damage each), but despite the fact that it is possible to commit such horrible abuses, there is always the problem of convincing your DM. This is one of the great ways to balance out the broken-ness that is constantly pointed out by epic players, since the DM can shoot it down very quickly and invoke the wrath of Boccob/Mystra, taking away the character's precious spellcasting. As for an appropriate DC, the lowest DC of an example spell in the book I believe is 28, and the epic skill checks begin somewhere around DC 40+. You really shouldn't be doing DC 0 spells because, as runestar pointed out, you will easily get rediculous augments that last for days, yet the caster is paying nothing extra to get that kind of power.
thorofasgard13 08-28-07, 03:34 AM	My Raise Island is as such. Seed(conjure): 21, change area to 10ft radius 30ft high cylinder: (+2), change Radius to 1/2 mile: (+1164), change height to 1000ft: (+133), casting time +10 mins(-20), casting time +180 days(-360), burn 10,000 xp (-100), ad hoc spell only works on water(-20), 80 casters giving up 5th level spell (-720), 20 casters giving up 2nd level spell (-60), 3 casters giving up 4th level spell (-21), 1 caster giving up 1 epic spell slot (-19) spellcraft DC :0 maybe the minimum of the spellcraft dc being the seed is a good idea.
BillTheManiac 08-28-07, 08:20 AM	No. Just use bluemage's epic SRD revision. Otherwise, epic leadership allows you to cast a DC [high] spell as something rediculously small like DC 14 or DC 19, depending on which seed is used. Broken.
Starmage21 08-28-07, 04:23 PM	I was in a Monty Haul game where we all made DC 0 spells. Yes, we did abuse the system to its breaking point (one guy claimed to have made a DC 0 spell that did 10 rays of 50d20 hellfire damage each), but despite the fact that it is possible to commit such horrible abuses, there is always the problem of convincing your DM. This is one of the great ways to balance out the broken-ness that is constantly pointed out by epic players, since the DM can shoot it down very quickly and invoke the wrath of Boccob/Mystra, taking away the character's precious spellcasting. As for an appropriate DC, the lowest DC of an example spell in the book I believe is 28, and the epic skill checks begin somewhere around DC 40+. You really shouldn't be doing DC 0 spells because, as runestar pointed out, you will easily get rediculous augments that last for days, yet the caster is paying nothing extra to get that kind of power. Even at practically no cost because of the DC 0, your caster still isnt getting everything for exactly free. He still had to give up an epic feat before ever trying to create the epic spell. As stated before, the key to the whole thing is DM approval. If your DM denies the spell, youre back to the drawing board. If he approves it, hopefully he thinks it wont unbalance his campaign.
Archtyrant Terevoth 08-28-07, 04:56 PM	Yeah the epic spellcasting system sucks period. It's more of a ritual casting system than a spellcasting system, as you can't actually cast anything worthwhile as a standard action, but give it a casting time of days and it becomes awesome. There's no real great solution but to ditch the entire thing. As a quick fix, you can use the following: -When figuring out cost, mitigating factors don't reduce the cost, they increase it by an amount equivalent to what they subtract. So if you have -150 points in mitigating factors reducing your spellcraft DC to 0, then your final score for determining cost to research is going to be 300, since you have 150 base and 150 in mitigating factors. It goes by the premise that developing a spell that requires more time or a ritual team is going to be more complex than a spell that one character can cast on his own.
BillTheManiac 08-28-07, 05:16 PM	Yeah the epic spellcasting system sucks period. It's more of a ritual casting system than a spellcasting system, as you can't actually cast anything worthwhile as a standard action, but give it a casting time of days and it becomes awesome. There's no real great solution but to ditch the entire thing. As a quick fix, you can use the following: -When figuring out cost, mitigating factors don't reduce the cost, they increase it by an amount equivalent to what they subtract. So if you have -150 points in mitigating factors reducing your spellcraft DC to 0, then your final score for determining cost to research is going to be 300, since you have 150 base and 150 in mitigating factors. It goes by the premise that developing a spell that requires more time or a ritual team is going to be more complex than a spell that one character can cast on his own. How about, when developing an epic spell, choose one of these options: 1) The spell's casting time becomes 1 standard action for free. You may not increase the casting time or make it a ritual (combat spell) 2) You may make the spell a ritual with only 3 additional participants. The casting time may not be 1 day or longer (short term buff) 3) The spell's casting time becomes 1 day with no reduction. The maximum number of additional participants is 20.
runestar 08-28-07, 10:19 PM	When figuring out cost, mitigating factors don't reduce the cost, they increase it by an amount equivalent to what they subtract. So if you have -150 points in mitigating factors reducing your spellcraft DC to 0, then your final score for determining cost to research is going to be 300, since you have 150 base and 150 in mitigating factors. Problem with that is the issue of cost. There is no point in trying to crank an epic spell's dc as low as possible, when the cost is so great that you have to be that high lv to afford it anyways. And when you are that high lv, there is no longer a need to reduce its spellcraft dc, since your own spellcraft check is probably high enough anyways. Or in the very least, mitigating factors seem more like a bane here. They nerf your spell, and make it more prohibitive to cast. For example, your given example would cost 2,700,000 gp. By the time I can afford it, I would probably be better off just mustering the 150 spellcraft dc check to cast the unmodified epic spell instead. Seems more like you are solving the wrong problem. I like the concept of mitigating factors in that it makes epic spells easier to cast, but the problem is how to prevent blatant abuse by inserting limitations which are really not limitations at all. A spell with a casting time of 10 minutes is no drawback when you are casting it at the start of each day and it easily lasts for days at end.
Thorsbjorn 08-29-07, 06:30 AM	Problem with that is the issue of cost. There is no point in trying to crank an epic spell's dc as low as possible, when the cost is so great that you have to be that high lv to afford it anyways. And when you are that high lv, there is no longer a need to reduce its spellcraft dc, since your own spellcraft check is probably high enough anyways. Or in the very least, mitigating factors seem more like a bane here. They nerf your spell, and make it more prohibitive to cast. For example, your given example would cost 2,700,000 gp. By the time I can afford it, I would probably be better off just mustering the 150 spellcraft dc check to cast the unmodified epic spell instead. Seems more like you are solving the wrong problem. I like the concept of mitigating factors in that it makes epic spells easier to cast, but the problem is how to prevent blatant abuse by inserting limitations which are really not limitations at all. A spell with a casting time of 10 minutes is no drawback when you are casting it at the start of each day and it easily lasts for days at end. Well said, runestar! Basically epic spellcasting is too weak for offensive spells and too powerful, much too powerful, for buff spells. I'm using the rule that you can't reduce the final DC of an epic spell below the combined DCs of the spells seeds. That doesn't really solve the problem, but it helps. I've also reduced the casting time to 1 action on spells that basically need to be cast in round-time, offensive spells for the most part. (I think on the summon seed I've reduced it to just one round.) I haven't really solved the problem of reducing the DCs through taking longer casting times, although the first rule I mentioned does at least mitigate the problem.
runestar 08-29-07, 07:02 AM	True, it has always irked me that the casting time of offensive seeds like destroy start off at 1 minute - that means that the dc is effectively +18 higher than listed (you will want the spell to have a casting time of no more than 1 standard action for it to be of any use in combat). It is a start, that's for sure.:)
Thorsbjorn 08-29-07, 07:07 AM	True, it has always irked me that the casting time of offensive seeds like destroy start off at 1 minute - that means that the dc is effectively +18 higher than listed (you will want the spell to have a casting time of no more than 1 standard action for it to be of any use in combat). Exactly! It is a start, that's for sure.:) I can't claim credit for it, but I agree that it's a good start, along with requiring a spell's DC to equal at least the sum of the its seeds' DCs. It was back a ways on the 3.5 Update thread. It might have been Rob or Bluemage who first suggested it to me. I guess I could go back and look, but it's a long thread now. :P
BillTheManiac 08-29-07, 07:33 AM	But, as long as the mitigating factors are balanced, you don't need that rule. If everyone wants to reduce Spellcraft DC to 0 it's a sign that the mitigating factors are too good, and all the Spellcraft DCs will be equal to the sum of seeds. Instead the system shoulud force hard choices? In my system, for example, a larger ritual imposes its own penalties, so it's often better not to go with a ritual.
Thorsbjorn 08-29-07, 07:54 AM	But, as long as the mitigating factors are balanced, you don't need that rule. If everyone wants to reduce Spellcraft DC to 0 it's a sign that the mitigating factors are too good, and all the Spellcraft DCs will be equal to the sum of seeds. Instead the system shoulud force hard choices? In my system, for example, a larger ritual imposes its own penalties, so it's often better not to go with a ritual. What are the additional penalties of a larger ritual? Do you mean just the need to get more NPCs? That can be easily done with the Leadership feat.
KRATOS_BLADE_of_SPARTA 08-29-07, 08:59 AM	As a quick fix, you can use the following: -When figuring out cost, mitigating factors don't reduce the cost, they increase it by an amount equivalent to what they subtract. So if you have -150 points in mitigating factors reducing your spellcraft DC to 0, then your final score for determining cost to research is going to be 300, since you have 150 base and 150 in mitigating factors. It goes by the premise that developing a spell that requires more time or a ritual team is going to be more complex than a spell that one character can cast on his own. That is actually the best Epic Spellcasting fix I have found so far, and everything Runestar talks about actually reinforces that belief in me. Using this fix an Epic Wizard cannot just take LEadership to cast an Uber Ritual because his followers' wealth is his own, thus he can't afford it. Instead he is forced to find "real" NPC Spellcasters that are willing to devote their time, and resources to the project. It also makes a world of sense from a logical point of veiw, if something is hard to do adding a way to achieve it easier should cost more not less. This is definately going to be imployed in my own campaigns from now on, well done and well thought out! :clap:
BillTheManiac 08-29-07, 09:54 AM	I said "in my system". A large ritual increases the casting time to a day without mitigating the cost, and 20 is the maximum number of additional participants. Kratos: Again, mitigation shouldn't be a system that makes a spell more easy. It should be an alternate power source that reduces the value of the spell by as much as it reduces the DC and research cost.
KRATOS_BLADE_of_SPARTA 08-29-07, 11:15 AM	Kratos: Again, mitigation shouldn't be a system that makes a spell more easy. It should be an alternate power source that reduces the value of the spell by as much as it reduces the DC and research cost. See I don't see it as that, I see it as a Spellcaster strainging to squeeze as much power as he can out of the Weave (or whatever he calls it), and in doing so he must use every resource at his dispossal, including Time (both in develloping and casting), money, all his social influence (in the form of Ritual Spellcasting and accessing extra funds), even his own life force is put into it (XP) and even then by pushing the boundaries so far the energies can devestate his body (backlash). I see the above fix as a perfect way to balance the potential power of ESC.
Starmage21 08-29-07, 11:51 AM	But, as long as the mitigating factors are balanced, you don't need that rule. If everyone wants to reduce Spellcraft DC to 0 it's a sign that the mitigating factors are too good, and all the Spellcraft DCs will be equal to the sum of seeds. Instead the system shoulud force hard choices? In my system, for example, a larger ritual imposes its own penalties, so it's often better not to go with a ritual. Mitigating factors that reduce the DC to zero do not make a spell "too good". Mitigating your spell down to DC 0 means youre over-penalizing yourself just to achieve a spell effect. Ritual casting with more than your own party members is impractical, but it is present, available for abuse. All those level 1 followers, if even one of them fails a concentration check because of some distraction during the ritual, everything fails and all that work is lost. To make matters worse, the DC for concentrating on the spell is at least 20 (10 base +10 spell level), a hard check to make for a level 1 NPC. XP cost always hurts, and a Rod of Excellent Magic only works 1/day, no matter the XP cost. Backlash Damage can only be used on instantaneous or low-duration spells. The damage can be healed, but if youre taking backlash in the middle of combat, the healers might not have time to heal you.
BillTheManiac 08-29-07, 01:04 PM	Mitigating factors that reduce the DC to zero do not make a spell "too good". Mitigating your spell down to DC 0 means youre over-penalizing yourself just to achieve a spell effect. Ritual casting with more than your own party members is impractical, but it is present, available for abuse. All those level 1 followers, if even one of them fails a concentration check because of some distraction during the ritual, everything fails and all that work is lost. To make matters worse, the DC for concentrating on the spell is at least 20 (10 base +10 spell level), a hard check to make for a level 1 NPC. Genesis. Conduct a ritual on your private demiplane XP cost always hurts, and a Rod of Excellent Magic only works 1/day, no matter the XP cost.No one uses it. Backlash Damage can only be used on instantaneous or low-duration spells. The damage can be healed, but if youre taking backlash in the middle of combat, the healers might not have time to heal you.Good mitigator for combat spells. Unbalanced for rituals. True. But if that is the best choice it is too good. You're saying these mitigating factors have weaknesses. That is true, as long as their weaknesses are large enough, insanely low DC epic spells aren't a problem, and we don't need the minimum DC rules, because low DC spells aren't overpowered. But clearly, people find them to be problems in their games. Therefore, the weaknesses aren't large enough. Instead of arbitrarily legislating a minimum, we should fix the problem that makes smaller numbers better. The mitigating factors add research cost rule: I think that makes mitigating factors a little too bad, considering how cheap skill bonuses are. Consider an X+1 DC epic spell, where X is what you can hit. Adding a +1 skill bonus to your item costs ((a+1)^2*100 gp-a^2*100 gp)=(2a+1)*100 gp. Mitigating by 1 DC costs 9000 gp and 360 XP. It's about 5 gp per XP so the total is 10,800 gp per point, meaning that skill bonus items are cheaper until you get a +54 competence item and a +54 insight item. That means over 100 DC epic spells will be the norm. And that's if you only have one epic spell. Not good.
Starmage21 08-29-07, 01:50 PM	True. But if that is the best choice it is too good. You're saying these mitigating factors have weaknesses. That is true, as long as their weaknesses are large enough, insanely low DC epic spells aren't a problem, and we don't need the minimum DC rules, because low DC spells aren't overpowered. But clearly, people find them to be problems in their games. Therefore, the weaknesses aren't large enough. Instead of arbitrarily legislating a minimum, we should fix the problem that makes smaller numbers better. The mitigating factors add research cost rule: I think that makes mitigating factors a little too bad, considering how cheap skill bonuses are. Consider an X+1 DC epic spell, where X is what you can hit. Adding a +1 skill bonus to your item costs ((a+1)^2*100 gp-a^2*100 gp)=(2a+1)*100 gp. Mitigating by 1 DC costs 9000 gp and 360 XP. It's about 5 gp per XP so the total is 10,800 gp per point, meaning that skill bonus items are cheaper until you get a +54 competence item and a +54 insight item. That means over 100 DC epic spells will be the norm. And that's if you only have one epic spell. Not good. Insight bonuses are extremely expensive to aquire, but competance bonuses are not. You might want to take that factor into account in your math.
BillTheManiac 08-29-07, 06:02 PM	OK, a +54 competence bonus item if you have one epic spell. If you have 2, +108, etc. Aren't unusual bonuses just x2? In that case, just divide those numbers by 2. Say you have 2 epic spells. You would have +108Competence +54 Insight 40-50 ranks Intelligence, Epic Skill Focus, etc. You're not going to use a mitigating factor. Ever. You have a >200 Spellcraft bonus.
runestar 08-29-07, 10:23 PM	Ritual casting with more than your own party members is impractical, but it is present, available for abuse. All those level 1 followers, if even one of them fails a concentration check because of some distraction during the ritual, everything fails and all that work is lost. To make matters worse, the DC for concentrating on the spell is at least 20 (10 base +10 spell level), a hard check to make for a level 1 NPC. How so? You cast the spell in the safety of your own demiplane, and then rest to regain all the slots expended in the casting of said epic spell. Your party is then ready to adventure at 110% strength, thanks to your 1-week duration buffs at virtually no cost. With leadership, you are easily looking at -100dc at least by virtue of all the adepts you are acquiring, plus a spellcasting cohort. Your party cleric can throw in a 9th lv slot as well, that is another -17.
Starmage21 08-29-07, 10:29 PM	How so? You cast the spell in the safety of your own demiplane, and then rest to regain all the slots expended in the casting of said epic spell. Your party is then ready to adventure at 110% strength, thanks to your 1-week duration buffs at virtually no cost. With leadership, you are easily looking at -100dc at least by virtue of all the adepts you are acquiring, plus a spellcasting cohort. Your party cleric can throw in a 9th lv slot as well, that is another -17. Cohorts and other spellcasting PCs arent the problem with rituals, its those ritual participants you gain from the Leadership feat. Your own demiplane isnt invincible, but definitely a safe place to cast those spells, but then youve got to deal with traveling back to your point of adventure to continue on. What if you dont have the luxury of being able to shift back to your demiplane to get those buffs cast in the presence of your ritual followers? What if youre blocked from shifting off the plane at all?! This is why its not practical to create ritual spells that require someone other than other party members to complete.
Thorsbjorn 08-29-07, 10:35 PM	Cohorts and other spellcasting PCs arent the problem with rituals, its those ritual participants you gain from the Leadership feat. Your own demiplane isnt invincible, but definitely a safe place to cast those spells, but then youve got to deal with traveling back to your point of adventure to continue on. What if you dont have the luxury of being able to shift back to your demiplane to get those buffs cast in the presence of your ritual followers? What if youre blocked from shifting off the plane at all?! This is why its not practical to create ritual spells that require someone other than other party members to complete. I have to agree with rune (as usual). I know of no other serious problem with Leadership, so it appears that the problem lies with the ritual mitigation factor and now with the Leadership feat. Some PCs might in fact have the problems you suggest, but in many campaigns such problems apparently rarely if ever arise. If such problems arose with sufficient frequency to substantially disrupt the use of ritual mitigation, we'd far fewer complaints about ritual mitigation.
Starmage21 08-30-07, 12:26 AM	I have to agree with rune (as usual). I know of no other serious problem with Leadership, so it appears that the problem lies with the ritual mitigation factor and now with the Leadership feat. Some PCs might in fact have the problems you suggest, but in many campaigns such problems apparently rarely if ever arise. If such problems arose with sufficient frequency to substantially disrupt the use of ritual mitigation, we'd far fewer complaints about ritual mitigation. If you really want to teach your players a lesson about abuse(and be mean at the same time), dispel their buffs early on in an encounter, then watch them squirm like fish out of water when presented with an encounter that wouldve been easy with the buffs, but is now as challenging as it shouldve been.
Thorsbjorn 08-30-07, 12:45 AM	If you really want to teach your players a lesson about abuse(and be mean at the same time), dispel their buffs early on in an encounter, then watch them squirm like fish out of water when presented with an encounter that wouldve been easy with the buffs, but is now as challenging as it shouldve been. With my players it's not yet a problem as the wizard hasn't had time to research his first epic spell since getting Epic Spellcasting. He's also an adult player so I don't have any problems with him abusing rules. I also don't have any desire to be mean to my players; I don't get my enjoyment out of treating them badly the way that some DMs do. I prefer a cooperative game to the old school where the DM tries as hard as possible to kill the characters. Nobody who plays with me for any length of time thinks I'm a Monty Haul DM or a soft touch either, but they recognize that I get my enjoyment out of sharing in the unfolding story with them rather than in seeing them fail. I provide substantial challenges to them, but I enjoy it when they find a way to prevail in the final reel. :-) With my current group I could probably get along just fine without having the rule limiting the minimum DC to the DC of the seed(s). I've had power gamers before, however, and I'll probably have them again. The player of the wizard, furthermore, likes having sensible rules that someone else would have trouble abusing. The thread here on the boards that contains poster epic spells contains a great many abuses of the ritual (and other) mitigating factors (or the same abuse, really, repeated ad nauseum :D) Having the rule also allowed me to suggest that he go look at that thread for ideas, knowing that he wouldn't pick up this particular abuse from the thread. I think the thread itself is a glowing testament to the widespread abuse of mitigating factors that makes me use the rule to prevent the abuse. :)
runestar 08-30-07, 06:22 AM	I am curious as to what you feel are "reasonable" epic spells. For example, I think I should be fine with epic mage armour (have its dc brought down from 46 to 28 by increasing its casting time to 10 minutes). However, I am not sure if I would allow the natural armour version of epic mage armour, since it apparently grants a greater benefit than armour bonus (and they both have the same dc). Though this is another of my gripes - buff spells effectively get a -18 dc subsidy for free. What about stat boosters? For dc29, you should be able to get +16 to +18 enhancement bonus to int. Or whatever stat you wish. There is also the issue of using fortify seed to get free inherent stat bonuses. Your thoughts?:)
BillTheManiac 08-30-07, 07:06 AM	I am curious as to what you feel are "reasonable" epic spells. Ones with DC <200 and have at least 1 mitigating factor? For example, I think I should be fine with epic mage armour (have its dc brought down from 46 to 28 by increasing its casting time to 10 minutes). However, I am not sure if I would allow the natural armour version of epic mage armour, since it apparently grants a greater benefit than armour bonus (and they both have the same dc). Is this because Ammy of Natural is more expensive the Bracers of Armor? Though this is another of my gripes - buff spells effectively get a -18 dc subsidy for free. I fixed that. What about stat boosters? For dc29, you should be able to get +16 to +18 enhancement bonus to int. Or whatever stat you wish. There is also the issue of using fortify seed to get free inherent stat bonuses. I don't really know about that. You're saying should according to balance or should according to the rules? Your thoughts?:) Before we balance anything else we have to balance mitigating factors, because they apply to all spells, not just some. Neither of your options do that, they make the optimal spell almost always either very high DC or very low DC. Mine will help some, giving combat spells a boost and reducing the power of ritual spells. In addition the maximum ritual is 21 people, which isn't that much compared with Epic Leadership.
runestar 08-30-07, 07:23 AM	Is this because Ammy of Natural is more expensive the Bracers of Armor? No, because an armour bonus will be far more prevalent than an NA bonus. A fighter will typically have fullplate+5 at least, and a wizard with bracers of armour+8 or twillight mithral chainshirt. Conversely, they are unlikely to have even 1 point of NA. Note that it grants you a NA bonus, not an enhancement bonus to your NA, so it would stack with your amulet of NA.
BillTheManiac 08-30-07, 01:23 PM	No, because an armour bonus will be far more prevalent than an NA bonus. A fighter will typically have fullplate+5 at least, and a wizard with bracers of armour+8 or twillight mithral chainshirt. Conversely, they are unlikely to have even 1 point of NA. Note that it grants you a NA bonus, not an enhancement bonus to your NA, so it would stack with your amulet of NA. Wow. That is a little overpowered. Just make it cost more.