Main Pages
Design and Miscellaneous
Site Management
Aramar the Black (guest)
RSS: New posts
Aramar the Black (guest) 1251314772|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
I was looking over the enviroment rules, and noticed that while you changed damage from starvation and thirst to Con damage (instead of nonlethal damage); the lines about healing the damage taken in this fashion still refer to it as nonlethal.
Also, every now and then I attempt to download/open your grand Monsters file (the zip file). I am always unable.
Aramar the Black (guest) 1251332365|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
On your list of poisons you have Arsenic costing 120 gp (rounded down from 123, I assume), and note that this price is before rarity modifiers are factored in. Yet, in your example of how to calculate poison prices (at the bottom of the main Poison page), you achieve the figure of 120 gp by including rarity (a .5 modifier). Further, I think you missed a step in your calculations; that is, the increase in cost due to the Type of poison.
Arsenic is a mild nuerotoxin, so 60 gp (60 x 1) is added to the base price (25). The DC is 13 (+30) , primary damage 1 point (+20), secondary damage 4.5 (+45) for a subtotal of 180 gp. It's ingested, so multiply by 1.5, for a before-rarity-cost of 270 gp. This makes the final cost, including a 'common rarity' modifier of .5, 135 gp.
Arsenic is not the only victim of this error, if it is indeed an error.
Black adder venom is another mild nuerotoxin. Base (25), mild nuerotoxin (+60), save DC 11 (+10), primary damage 3.5 (+70), secondary damage 3.5 (+35), for a subtotal of 200. It's injury-based (x1), so the before-rarity-factor cost is 200 gp, not the 185 that you have listed.
Now, had you calulating with a DC of 12 (as it is in the DMG; you've since changed it to 11), and been forgetting the 60 gp due to Type costs (nuerotoxin = +60 gp x strength rating), and been multiplying secondary damage by 20 (as you did in the example, and not by 10, as the table says one should), then indeed the before-rarity-factor cost would be 185 gp.
I think the other poisons may have also been mispriced by the same errors; I have not checked all of them. I just thought I would bring this to your attention. Sorry if my post is hard to understand at any point.
Kerrick 1254621973|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Apologies for taking so long to reply; Wikidot is supposed to send me an e-mail when someone posts, but it's not - I think it's going to the spam box.
Re: Starvation and thirst: Good catch. I fixed that.
Re: poison pricing: You would be correct, sort of.
Base price: 25 gp
Save DC 13: +30
Mild neurotoxin: +60 gp
Primary damage (1 point): +20 gp
Secondary damage (4.5 points): 90 gp (this should be 45, not 90)
Subtotal: 225 gp
Ingested: Multiply by 1.5 = 337
Common: Multiply grand total by 0.5 = 168.5 gp, or 170 gp
Looks like we both got it wrong. =P Thanks for pointing it out, though - I'll go over all the prices again and make sure they're correct.
BTW: since the secondary damage cost is 45, not 90, the correct end price is 135 gp.
Joe (guest) 1257315815|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Another possible oversight in the sorcerer's Heritage abilities — in the alter probability tree:
1st level, the sorcerer can reroll any damage roll or caster level check he makes with a spell, but he must use the second roll, no matter the result. He can wait until the roll has been made to make the alteration.
At 16th level, the sorcerer can wait until the roll is made to decide whether or not to attempt a reroll – this simulates his ability to predict the outcome before it happens and choose another one.
This seems to be either a mistake, or it's unclear. It seems like 16th level is saying exactly what is bolded in 1st level. clarification?
LOVING this ruleset, by the way! Fantastic job! Keep it up. :-)
~Joe
Kerrick 1258683758|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
It's a mistake - delete the bolded sentence. A first-tier sorcerer must see the results of the action (i.e., roll the die) before he can affect it, whereas a fourth-tier can predict the future and alter it beforehand. I must have been thinking ahead when I wrote that part, or not paying attention.
Thanks for the correction, and for the support. :)
