SRD Talk:Magic Items

[edit] Missing Index

so where did the index go? there is no longer an alphabetized list. Zau 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Wiki's done got problems. JazzMan 22:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Weapon Enhancement Formula appears to be inconsistent

Discussion moved from Talk:Main_Page. —Sledged (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2011 (MDT)

So, while running through to find the correct value of the Harbinger, a artifact weapon that goes along with my Tirr setting, I noticed something rather... odd. I think that all of the weapon enhancement formulas, or at least I assume all, since I checked two others and found the same one, are incorrect or at least inconsistent.

They state that a weapon with a magical bonus equivalent to 11 or more would have an additional value of "+ bonus × bonus × 20,000 gp" (Honestly, that was a bit of a nugget to crack for me, since I've not been immersed in the game as much as some people. Why not just say Bonus²?), but everything else in the table follows "Bonus² × 2,000gp". For example, a Greatsword at +10 Bonus would be 200,000 gp, which stands to the 2,000 multiplier. At 11, or above, it becomes 2,420,000gp and plus, following the 20,000gp multiplier. While I believe this was done to assume the x10 multiple for being an epic weapon is considered, it does appear to be a little inconsistent with the rest of the tables, especially because this assumes that the weapon has magical value (I know, I know... I likely does, at that point, but this is a wiki. We owe it to viewers to be consistent and unassuming with raw data). Jwguy 23:46, 11 July 2011 (MDT)

See Epic Magic Items and Market Price in the page SRD:About Epic Magic Items. —Sledged (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2011 (MDT)

I don't think you understood the issue I was getting at. I admitted to that being the most likely reason for the sudden change in formula. I am simply saying that it is inconsistent, which can cause confusion amidst those not familiar with this. What if someone reads the note at the bottom, and doesn't know the formula already considers the multiple of 10, and multiplies it once more? They'll end up with an entirely erroneous value simply because of inconsistency. I know we shouldn't hold the hands of users at every second of every day, but again, we should at least do our best to counter things as simple as this.

Also, once more, why not simply used the squared superscript? It just seems more intuitive, I suppose. I know I speed-bumped at the "bonus x bonus" for a while because it just seemed silly. Jwguy 07:15, 15 July 2011 (MDT)

A +10 greatsword is not the best example since it doesn't cost 200,350 gp. It costs 2,000,350 gp because it grants an attack and damage bonus beyond +5. Whereas a greatsword with +10 worth of bonus and special abilities but whose attack and damage bonus is only +5 (e.g. a +5 vorpal greatsword) costs "only" 200,350 gp. So I'm not seeing where the formulas are inconsistent (confusingly complex and fragmented, however, you'd probably have a better argument). Admittedly though, I've been staring at these pages for years now, and have been familiar with the rules even longer before these pages were up.

"Bonus × bonus" was used to avoid confusion because superscripts are typically reserved for footnotes. If anything, it should have been "bonus squared" since that's what's used on this page. "Bonus × bonus" might have tripped you up a bit, but I'm willing to bet you figured it out pretty quickly, and you didn't confuse it for something else. Whereas I could easily see someone looking at "bonus²" and thinking that the superscript 2 refers to a footnote. —Sledged (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2011 (MDT)

I understand; You make a lot of sense with that. Upon reviewing the rules in the DMG pg.221, I believe I understand the reason for the formula's current presentation. Before, I believe I had been confused regarding the separation of Weapon Bonus and Special abilities.

Also, I had admittedly not thought of the possibility of confusing the item with the footnote items, though I would support the idea of moving the formula to say "bonus squared", since that does make alot more sense, if nothing else. Truth be told, however, my main concerns have been redacted due to these revelations. Jwguy 00:27, 20 July 2011 (MDT)