« on: July 16, 2014, 06:41:01 PM »
For once I'm not asking for a specific rule or reference, because I know what the rule is, but it's incredibly vague. Please post your opinions (and arguments) on how the following rule should be interpreted:
"Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities."
There's only one place where this rule is "clarified," and that's a Rules of the Game article:
"An item with multiple similar abilities costs much less than an item with multiple different abilities, so what's the difference? In this case, "similar" abilities are functions that draw from the same pool of charges, or that can't be used at the same time (or at least don't provide a great deal of extra benefit if they are used together), or all of the above. Sometimes, an item has powers that receive this similar abilities price reduction when the item's multiple powers work together to produce an overall effect, or when an item's powers must be activated separately, but that's fairly rare."
Skip Williams goes on to give the example of staffs, which obviously conform to the 100%, 75%, 50% rule. But we already know how staffs are priced. What I want to know is, if you were the DM of a game with an item crafter PC, what items would you discount for him (besides staffs) based on this rule? I can't really think of anything. Everything seems to me to qualify for the writer's definition of "different" (which can be found in the context of those references) rather than "similar."
Most particularly, I want to know what you think of the line "Sometimes, an item has powers that receive this similar abilities price reduction when the item's multiple powers work together to produce an overall effect." This is so subjective, it could apply to a heap of things. What would your interpretation as a DM be? Simply ignore that line?