Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cole-Terenzin 10-05-05, 12:33 AM	Hello all, after playing in game for a long while we now come to a stage where we have the resources to create magic items. The following is what my character is contemplating. +1 returning dagger of Tri-elememtal Bursting It is: +1 weapon +1 (returning) +2 (Flame Burst) +2 (icy Burst) +2 (shocking Burst) I have calculated this as being a +8 weapon. Cost I believe is: 128,000gp Also +2 Returning Dagger of Seeking +2 Weapon +1 (returning) +1 (seeking) I have calculated this as being a +4 weapon. Cost I believe is: 32,000gp finally +2 Returning Dagger of Harm Command word opperated able to action the Harm Spell 2/day +2 Weapon +1 (returning) Harm 6th level x 20th Level Cleric x 1800 216000 divided by 5/2 times per day = 86400 GP Therefore 86400 + 18000 = 104400 GP Would my calculations be correct regarding this. Especially the last item? If not could someone please set me straight on this.
RavenDrake 10-05-05, 04:27 AM	The first two are cut and dried. Just follow the pricing guide in the book. The last one is a very special case. Basically, it's a combined weapon and wonderous item. Note that your DM has the last say in what new items can be introduced. Now, in this context you're combining a spell-like ability onto a weapon. You used the right pricing guide for determining the base price... however, this is a weapon with "Multiple different abilities that dosen't take up a slot on the body". Not that you can weild as many weapons as you want, but that weapons don't count as "Body Slots". Therefore, the spell-like ability has an increase in price of 50%, meaning it will cost: 18,000+(86,400x1.5)=129,600 Not really that shabby for a 2 per day of freaking harm on command word. Of course, your DM may rule this needs in increase in cost because of the spell... or may not even be possible.
Merestil Haye 10-05-05, 05:15 AM	+2 Returning Dagger of Harm Command word opperated able to action the Harm Spell 2/day +2 Weapon +1 (returning) Harm 6th level x 20th Level Cleric x 1800 216000 divided by 5/2 times per day = 86400 GP Therefore 86400 + 18000 = 104400 GP Would my calculations be correct regarding this. Especially the last item? If not could someone please set me straight on this.Your first two calculations are fine. You've started the calculations for the Dagger of Harm correctly; pricing the weapon abilities at +3 is 18,000. Using the Wondrous Item pricing guidelines can be a bit dicy, but in this case, provided that the power is command-word activated and the activation is a standard action (ie it takes place instead of attack(s) for the round) I'll be OK with it. I would agree with a 50% increase in the cost of Harm in this case. Thus the price for the ability is 6 * 20 * 1,800 * 2/5 * 3/2 = 129,600. You might want to consider this, though. The Harm spell can be delivered at any caster level between 11 and 20. There are two things that vary with the caster level; damage dealt and ability to penetrate SR. The former is capped at 150 points delivered at 15th level. The cost of the power is 6,480 per caster level. Once you get above 15th level each 6,480 buys you only +1 to penetrate SR. If I were making this weapon, I'd set the Harm at CL 15 unless I expected SR to be a huge issue. That would make the cost of the power three quarters of the calculation above, or 97,200gp. So the price would be 18,000 + 97,2000, or 115,200. I would also require the crafter to have the Craft Wondrous Items feat in addition to Craft Magic Arms and Armour, Harm and other necessary prereqs.
tarkin 10-05-05, 10:55 AM	As others have stated, the Harm is very dicey. The main problem with it is basically stacking. Consider the following items. 1) Item that costs 43,200 gp that as a standard action that lets you cast Harm 1/day. 2) Item that costs 43,200 gp that as a standard action that lets you cast harm 1/day, and gives you +5 to hit with the touch attack needed for Harm, and does 5 additional damage points. Obviously the +5 to hit on the Touch spell is VERY valuable, not to mention the +5 damage that could easily kill someone. If the dagger itself can be used to deliver the Harm spell, this leads to abuses. If the dagger has NOTHING to do with the Harm spell, and just happens to be the item needed in your hand to cast, then your pricing is OK. ------------------------------------------ Strict Rule: Harm dagger simply not allowed. No where does it say you can add random spells to weapons. Loose Rule: Harm dagger allowed, prices as you said, but you can not use the dagger to do the touch attack created by Harm. The Harm must be done by a regular touch attack using your flesh, nothing else. Power Game: Harm dagger allowed, priced as a set +5 weapon enchantment cost (NOT +86,400), for a total cost as a +8 weapon, bonuses on dagger to hit help the dagger do the touch attack, but the damage from the Harm spell happens AFTER any damage from the dagger itself. Anything Goes Game: Harm dagger allowed, priced as you said, lets people get the bonus to hit, dagger damage occures after the Harm spell activates. (probable instant death)
kenichi 10-05-05, 11:37 AM	I don't have any cost calcs, but if I were to allow the applying of a harm spell when stabbing someone with a dagger, it would be a normal attack roll, not a touch, and the dagger damage would be dealt first and then the harm damage, so if the target makes its save it will still be alive as the dagger dealt its damage first. I would allow you to make a normal touch attack to deliver the harm, but you would loose any +s to hit and damage and most other abilities (except maybe ghost touch, but probably don't want to cast harm on most incorporeal creatures :D ) since when making the touch as you are not really making an attack with the dagger anymore, but just touching someone. Under my rulings I think the dagger is still useful as it allows you to cast harm twice per day, but not that much more powerful than just having an item that allows you to cast harm in that it is not an instant death for anyone who fails the save vs. harm (although the shear damage might do you in). (Edit: I just noticed that you plan on casting harm and throwing the dagger. This makes it much more powerful as the touch range spell would be given range. I would be more inclined to allow this if the dagger was an intelligent item with the ability to cast harm. Then the dagger could cast the harm spell as it was flying at the target and unleash the spell when it hits. Hmm... I kinda like this idea, but it will porbably make the item a bit more expensive, but maybe it should be.)
Cole-Terenzin 10-06-05, 06:34 PM	I saw the +2 returning dagger of Harm working this way. PC makes attack roll and does not get the +5 bonus for touch attack. Thus the character would get dex bonus + weapon bonus. If the dagger does damage then the PC has the option to include the harm spell activation. Thus this is only on a successful damage attack roll. In addition to the above the damage of the dagger and weapon damage bonus occur first. The harm spell would occur last. If I remember correctly the harm spell does either 150 points damage or reduces the target creature to 1 d4 hit points / which ever is less. what is everyones thoughts on this.
Merestil Haye 10-06-05, 08:01 PM	I saw the +2 returning dagger of Harm working this way. PC makes attack roll and does not get the +5 bonus for touch attack. Thus the character would get dex bonus + weapon bonus. If the dagger does damage then the PC has the option to include the harm spell activation. Thus this is only on a successful damage attack roll. In addition to the above the damage of the dagger and weapon damage bonus occur first. The harm spell would occur last. If I remember correctly the harm spell does either 150 points damage or reduces the target creature to 1 d4 hit points / which ever is less. what is everyones thoughts on this.I don't like it. The primary reason is that being able to activate the Harm as part of an attack means that the activation is a free action; this requires a caster capable of preparing a 10th level spell. (Or who possesses the SuddenQuicken feat, but that's another issue). I would therefore set the price as if the spell were a 10th level spell. Since this is Epic, so is a Quickened Harm implanted in an item, however it is implanted. At this point the price escalates beyond any non-Epic character's ability to pay.
Thaebius 10-06-05, 08:39 PM	It's not a free action. I would modify it from your proposal in the following way, to make it more palatable, as well as making it more in line with other limited use special abilities (ie- stunning fist, etc): You declare you are using one use of the special ability of your Dagger (which REALLY needs a cool name, BTW, a weapon that awesome deserves more than a generic descriptor). You make a normal attack roll as a standard action, NOT a ranged touch attack. If the attack is successful, regardless of whether or not it does damage (due to damage reduction, for example), the creature is affected as if by a "Harm" spell, CL 15 (Or 20 if you're not changing it, which you should, to make it less expensive for little loss to functionality). Any and all damage from the "Harm" spell is applied AFTER any damage from the dagger itself. If the attack is not successful, for any reason, the attempt fails, and that daily use is wasted. This then uses much the same mechanic as other "special attacks", does not allow its inclusion as part of a full attack, and is much more balanced. Some might argue the damage from the dagger itself should be eliminated as well to make it truly balanced, but I would disagree with those people, so.... there's my take on it, and how to make your pricing reflect accurately its worth. I am more in the "powergaming" league, the majority of the time, as tarkin would describe it, so please take my (and anyone's) advice with a grain of salt, and remember this needs to be run by the DM, and with this item in particular, doubly so. Ask him (or her) what HE (or she) feels is an appropriate price, run your price by, and ask him what modifications to the price or item, if any, need to be made to make it acceptable. I'm sure he won't mind. In fact, he might really appreciate it.
Cole-Terenzin 10-06-05, 08:45 PM	Merestil Haye, what changed your perception of this item as I interpreted your first post as you may allow this item. I am interested in what changed. I guess that you could have this as an item where you state that you are activating the ability before the attack. Thus you are not guaranteed of hitting. If this was the case then I would include the +5 touch attack bonus. Even with the +5 bonus for touch attack. Still no guarantee of success. but I detract. I understand that I got the pricing of the weapon bonus correct but I need clarification on adding spells with command activated ability. Eg spirital weapon (2nd level cleric spell) on a dagger used 2/day would essentially create a second weapon that would fight with the characters abilities cast at 20th level. 18000 weapon bonus and return capability + ((2nd lvl spell X 20th lvl Cleric X 1800) / (5/2)) {for command word and time/day restriction} + ((((2nd lvl spell X 20th lvl Cleric X 1800) / (5/2)))x50%) {for multiple abilities of item} would this be correct in the calculations? thus the above would be 18000 {Weapon and Return bonus} + (2 * 20 * 1800) {command word} = 90000 90000 / 2.5 {times per day} =36000 + (36000*50%) {multiple abilities} = 18000 18000 + 36000 = 54,000gp this would be for a +2 Returning dagger of Spiritaul Weapon for the original +2 dagger of Returning Harm 18000 {Weapon and Return bonus} + (6 * 20 * 1800) {command word} = 216000 216000 / 2.5 {times per day} =86400 + (86400*50%) {multiple abilities} = 43200 43200 + 86400 = 129,600gp Have I got this correct? if this is the case then what about the rules that states that if an item has unlimited charges but a restriction on number of times per day then you calculate the item as if it had 50 charges???
PlasmaBunny 10-07-05, 02:28 AM	It's not a free action. I would modify it from your proposal in the following way, to make it more palatable, as well as making it more in line with other limited use special abilities (ie- stunning fist, etc): You declare you are using one use of the special ability of your Dagger (which REALLY needs a cool name, BTW, a weapon that awesome deserves more than a generic descriptor). You make a normal attack roll as a standard action, NOT a ranged touch attack. If the attack is successful, regardless of whether or not it does damage (due to damage reduction, for example), the creature is affected as if by a "Harm" spell, CL 15 (Or 20 if you're not changing it, which you should, to make it less expensive for little loss to functionality). Any and all damage from the "Harm" spell is applied AFTER any damage from the dagger itself. If the attack is not successful, for any reason, the attempt fails, and that daily use is wasted. This then uses much the same mechanic as other "special attacks", does not allow its inclusion as part of a full attack, and is much more balanced. Some might argue the damage from the dagger itself should be eliminated as well to make it truly balanced, but I would disagree with those people, so.... This sounds about right to me as well. And chances are any damage done by the dagger will be superceded by the damage done by harm anyway.
James Wildspell 10-07-05, 04:03 AM	Several questions that I have to ask about this: 1: Why would a very high-ranking Cleric cooperate in the creation of any such weapon? 2: Why would a Diety allow such a power to be infused into any item? 3: If the item is powerful enough to cast a harm spell, what other abilities, castable spells and attributes does it have? 4: Why not go for a dagger of "limited wIsh" that kills anything that it contacts? Just some questions....
Merestil Haye 10-07-05, 05:30 AM	Merestil Haye, what changed your perception of this item as I interpreted your first post as you may allow this item. I am interested in what changed. I guess that you could have this as an item where you state that you are activating the ability before the attack. Thus you are not guaranteed of hitting. If this was the case then I would include the +5 touch attack bonus. Even with the +5 bonus for touch attack. Still no guarantee of success. (snip)You changed the specification of the item. I replied assuming that the Harm power was activated as a standard action. Since you have to give up casting other spells, and full attacks (and remember this could be put into a weapon used to deliver a single off-hand attack while you beat away with your main weapon) this was a significant cost. Making it activatable after you see the result of the attack roll (see post 6) means that the activation must be a free action, or you cannot do what you want. Since quickened 6th level spells require a 10th level spell slot to prepare, they are beyoond the power of nomal magic items, and fall under Epic construction rule. I should not have said "no" though, but "for this the cost would be 10 * caster level * 1,800 * 2/5 * 3/2 * 10 = 2,268,000gp" You can get the caster level to sub-Epic, but the item itself is still outside normal item construction abilities because of the requirement for a 10th level spell slot to normally prepare a quickened Harm. That's why I changed my mind - because quite frankly the item outlined in post 6 is something you should not have until the mid-20 levels at the earliest. The rules allow you to cast a touch spell and attack in the same action, or even cast, close and attack in the same round. I would be happy to allow either a melee touch attack delivering only the spell damage, or a normal melee attack that deals first the Harm damage and then the weapon damage. You would have to decide which before making the attack roll. One last thing. If this were put into a one-handed weapon the cost be subject to an additional modifier. I'd try +25%, and +50% for a 2-handed weapon. This is because of the synergy with the Power Attack feat and the damage being dealt after the spell damage. Those figures would be subject to change without notice.
Cathon 10-07-05, 03:52 PM	Might want to look into the intelligent items rules. I know you can get one that will cast heal, so harm would be at the same power level. If you have a good relationship with the weapon you can probably get it to use the power when you want it to.
Cole-Terenzin 10-09-05, 07:05 PM	item discussed is a +2 retruning Dagger of Harm. plus 3 weapon bonus = 18,000 having the spell harm imbued on the Dagger b/c it has unlimited charges but with a limitation on daily use you would need to calculate it at 50 charges thus command word needed: (6th level spell * 20th level Caster * 1800)=216,000 charges day would be 50 thus: 216,000 / ((5/50)=0.1)= 2,160,000 multiple different abilities multiply higher item cost by 2 thus: 2,160,000*2= 4,320,000 now recalculate the cost by 2 times per day thus: 4,320,000 / ((5/2)=2.5)= 1,728,000 Now this makes the item well and truelly unatainable for a 10th level Character or if you would like to know a 7th level Theith / 3rd level Shadow Dancer The only way that you could bring this cost down would be to make this weapon or indeed any weapon alignment or Class specific. This would reduce the cost by 30% Lets say that this weapon can only have all abilities activated/used by GOOD aligned characters 1,728,000+18,000=1746000 thus 1746000 - (1746000*.3)=523,800)=1,222,200 plus cost of master work item being 302 tus: 1,222,200 +302 = 1,222,502gp thus this weapon is still only available to the type of characters of epic levels. Name of this weapon would be: Terenzins Lawfully Chaotic Neutralizer Does this sound correct to everyone else?
Cole-Terenzin 10-09-05, 09:08 PM	Several questions that I have to ask about this: 1: Why would a very high-ranking Cleric cooperate in the creation of any such weapon? 2: Why would a Diety allow such a power to be infused into any item? 3: If the item is powerful enough to cast a harm spell, what other abilities, castable spells and attributes does it have? 4: Why not go for a dagger of "limited wIsh" that kills anything that it contacts? Just some questions.... Hello in relation to your questions. 1) Big war occuring many ongoing battles/skirmishes against evil foes and the like. 2) The Diety would possibly place trust in their Cleric about this sort of thing. Also if a restriction is placed on the item that it can only be used/activated by Good aligned characters then this limits its use by evil. EG: in the hands of a CN, LN, N, CE, LE, NE character the item is only a +1 Master Crafted weapon with magical abilities that cant be accessed. 3) The said dagger is a +2 Returning Dagger thus it returns to the Weilders hand start of the next round. Nothing else on it apart from the Harm spell that could be used 2 times / day 4) Now I think you are just being silly or sarcastic or serious..... hmm,mmm. Might have merit. have a nice day.
PlasmaBunny 10-10-05, 12:59 PM	command word needed: (6th level spell * 20th level Caster * 1800)=216,000 charges day would be 50 thus: 216,000 / ((5/50)=0.1)= 2,160,000 multiple different abilities multiply higher item cost by 2 thus: 2,160,000*2= 4,320,000 now recalculate the cost by 2 times per day thus: 4,320,000 / ((5/2)=2.5)= 1,728,000 Not quite right, the item would be use activated (since the weapon has to be thrown or stabbed in order to use the harm effect). And it wouldn't have cost derived from charges, that only applies to costly material components (If it did have a costly material component, he would need to provide 50x the material component to create it. Use Activated (With a spoken word) (6th level spell * 20th level caster * 2000) = 240,000 Recalculate the cost of 2 times per day: 240,000 * (2/5) = 96,000 This cost may be multiplied by 1.5 due to item affinities, I'm not sure... Probably not though, after looking at staves.
Ozymandias V. 10-10-05, 01:30 PM	+1 returning dagger of Tri-elememtal Bursting It is: +1 weapon +1 (returning) +2 (Flame Burst) +2 (icy Burst) +2 (shocking Burst) I have calculated this as being a +8 weapon. Cost I believe is: 128,000gp This is incorrect. The most you can have on a non-epic weapon is +5 enhancement and +5 special abilities. Having +1 enhancement and +7 special abilities is an epic weapon. As such, the cost is actually 1,280,000 gp plus the cost of the weapon itself. Crafting epic magic weapons requires Craft Epic Arms and Armor.
PlasmaBunny 10-10-05, 01:33 PM	Nope, epic weapons either have an Enhancement bonus of +6 or higher, or else a total equivalent enhancement bonus of +11 or higher (due to a combination of special abilities and enhancement bonuses)
Ozymandias V. 10-10-05, 01:39 PM	Interesting. According to the RAW you seem to be correct. I was under the impression that +5/+5 was as high as it could go. [Takes notes] From the SRD. Second paragraph under magic weapons. Reply With Quote ...which is why I said you're correct according to the RAW. :P
PlasmaBunny 10-10-05, 01:44 PM	In addition to an enhancement bonus, weapons may have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus. From the SRD. Second paragraph under magic weapons.
Cole-Terenzin 10-10-05, 10:58 PM	ok I have read the posts.
Cole-Terenzin 10-11-05, 06:41 PM	Ok then I have read through the posts. I guess what I am wanting a concensus on is what is the correct formula to use here. So we have: a weapon with a bonus an enhancement or ability eg : returning. spell ability usable 2 / day. So is this correct? weapon bonus (total) + (spell level * Caster level * 1800 for command word or use activated which would be 2000) divide by (5/times per day) + (spell component * 50) + (XP component * 50) * different ability modifier 1.5 Is this correct? if not then what is the correct formular to use in this respect please?
Cole-Terenzin 10-13-05, 09:05 PM	can anyone else shed light on this?
James Wildspell 10-14-05, 06:01 AM	Hello in relation to your questions. 1) Big war occuring many ongoing battles/skirmishes against evil foes and the like. 2) The Diety would possibly place trust in their Cleric about this sort of thing. Also if a restriction is placed on the item that it can only be used/activated by Good aligned characters then this limits its use by evil. EG: in the hands of a CN, LN, N, CE, LE, NE character the item is only a +1 Master Crafted weapon with magical abilities that cant be accessed. 3) The said dagger is a +2 Returning Dagger thus it returns to the Weilders hand start of the next round. Nothing else on it apart from the Harm spell that could be used 2 times / day 4) Now I think you are just being silly or sarcastic or serious..... hmm,mmm. Might have merit. have a nice day. Good answers, and yes I was being sarcastic with #4. It has no merit, please ignore it forethwith. As for #1: A dagger as a tool of a Good diety? And what Diety has both the Fire and Cold domains? Regarding #2: A Diety would be wise enough to realize that those restrictions could be removed. #3 includes a spell (Harm) which should be in the purview only of a diety or the direct agent of that diety. OK, I will stop now.
Lord of Dorkness 10-14-05, 07:15 AM	I really like that dagger :) and a note because you mentioned discounts due to skill/class/alignment restrictions (note, this is not RAW but IMO): the discount should only apply to the market price, not the base price. The workload remains the same, it's just harder to sell. Sorry, no constructive criticism this time. gotta run
Cole-Terenzin 10-17-05, 07:16 PM	what is IMO and what is RAW please? Also can anyone else help with the correct pricing of this item?
Thaebius 10-17-05, 07:39 PM	IMO is "In My Opinion" RAW is "Rules As Written". There is a resource somewhere that has ALL abbreviations like that commonly used on the boards, but I have no link to it from where I am (work). Maybe someone else will be so kind? As to price, I've already tossed in my :twocents: , and my opinion on how to do it in a balanced fashion remains the same. Best of luck to you, though!
Cole-Terenzin 10-17-05, 10:26 PM	As for #1: A dagger as a tool of a Good diety? And what Diety has both the Fire and Cold domains? Regarding #2: A Diety would be wise enough to realize that those restrictions could be removed. #3 includes a spell (Harm) which should be in the purview only of a diety or the direct agent of that diety. OK, I will stop now. 1/ Not sure which deity but I am willing to find out. 2/More adventure hooks for the GM to make use of. 3/Wands and staffs can have heal and harm spells on them. Some intelligent weapons also have the ability as well. These weapons are not always weilded by Clerics.
Vaelan 10-17-05, 11:11 PM	The dagger of harm should be priced how you originally had it, Cole-Terenzin. Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. That is from the sidebar on page 282 of the DMG. This dagger's spell-like function (harm 2/day) is not similar to the Returning property, nor is it similar to the +2 enhancement bonus and thus "their values are simply added together to determine the cost".
Cole-Terenzin 10-20-05, 08:13 PM	THANKYOU FOR EVERYONE WHO RESPONDED. I now understand the process and will now be able to rationalise it to the GM in question. I have further determine how to rationalise the above +2 returning dagger of Seeking harm to also have the reverse heal spell included for under 100K nuts and bolt are: +2 Weapon bonus +1 for returning. +1 for seeking total is +4 = 32,000gp HARM= S.L 6 X C.L 11 * COMMAND WORD 1800GP = 118,800 USABLE 2/DAY =47,520 HEAL = S.L 6 X C.L 11 * COMMAND WORD 1800GP = 118,800 USABLE 2/DAY =47,520 SUBTOTAL = 47,520 + 47,520 + 32,000 = 127040 restriction = can only be used by good aligned characters reduction of 30% 127040 - (127040 x .3) = 88,928 thus for an outlay of 88,928 you can use the harm spell twice per day & you can use the heal spell twice per day What do you all think
Cole-Terenzin 10-27-05, 09:08 PM	Hi All, I recieved an update on this issue. apparantly in the DMG adding a restriction to a magic item such as "usable only by CG characters" increases the cost of making the item but reduces the saleble cost of the said item.