Um, call me slow, but I think the Powerstone Value table in G4e:Magic on page 20 is incorrect. Is this old news ?
My observations: 1. The "adjusted" gemstone values used are based on the chance that a critical failure will destroy the subject gemstone. p(critical failure )=1-0.9815 . 2. The "adjusted" labor values listed are based on the "quirk-free" chance of spellcasting p(ordinary failure or worse)= 1-0.9547 . In "reality", to get a quirkless powerstone, one should use the (1-0.9547) number for computing adjusted gemstone value, as well . This inflates the value of quirk-l ess Powerstones substantially. This makes sense to me, because depending on the quirk, many Powerstones will go "unfinished"-- why waste time and energy? For Powerstones with quirks, I can imagine a far more complex formula based on the probability of quirks, but don't want to try and derive it. Instead, I am inclined to use the base gemstone value (unadjusted--> 10*C^2+40*C) as basis, add in the labor cost of the actual ST of the Powerstone, then devalue a percentage based on the nature of the quirk. Arbitrary, but easier and somewhat more fair. I discovered this when recalculating the tables based on the notion that Master Enchanter mages should be more than "Comfortable" wealth. Given the difficulty and prerequisites of the Enchant spell, and the prerequisites of many desirable spells for enchanted items, it seemed to me that even on Yrth, where magi are "common", that good enchanters that know specific spells would be far less than common, and, therefore, better paid. I even had the notion that the value of a particular enchantment would be proportional with the spell prerequisite count (as well as the total energy cost). But the math and table referencing gets tedious. Thoughts? -vk _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
