Inconsistent pricing between DMG & MIC

[ChimericDream]

I have been unable to find errata for this on the WotC site, and nobody seems to mention it that I can find. A few party members in the group I'm DMing wanted to get rings of Universal Energy Resistance, Greater. This item is listed in the MIC as being 180,000gp to buy, but the DMG lists it as 308,000. This seems like quite a large discrepancy to me. Since I couldn't find any errata on the subject, I reluctantly let them have the rings at the lower price, since the MIC was released later. That said, has anyone else noticed this and know whether or where WotC addresses it?

 

[Greenfield]

The DMG/SRD rules list a Major ring of Resist Energy at 44k. According to the book, a second, similar ability in the same item would cost 75% of that, which is 33k. Any other similar abilities cost half, or 22k each.

So Universal Energy Resistance - Major would cost 44k + 33k + 22K +22K + 22k (there being 5 energy types to account for).

So I get 143 k for that ring, a total that doesn't match any of the other numbers provided.

Obviously, this item isn't priced by that hard formula. At this point you need to make a decision: Which price fits better in your campaign?

Also take a good look at the item descriptions: Do both provide the same protection? If one gives a 30 point Resistance and the other 10 or 20, the difference is explained.

Other than that, use your own best judgment.

 

[MerricB]

The price changes were intentional.

Here are the original Design & Development articles about the MIC:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070302a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070309a
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20070316a

 

[ChimericDream]

Greenfield, I know the items are identical because I compared their descriptions side by side. That said, I didn't go through the SRD item pricing guide to see what price I came up with.

MerricB, that was precisely what I was looking for. It sounds like they made a deliberate choice to lower the price of lots of items when they released the MIC. It makes me wonder, though, why they didn't release those changes as errata for items that are OGC content.

 

[Greenfield]

Sadly, while those articles make it clear that they intentionally reduced the prices on some items, they don't give anything resembling a functional guideline on how those prices were arrived at, how to reprice items from other sources, or how to derive the price for a proposed new item.

A man with a watch knows the time. A man with two is never sure.

 

[MarkB]

Sadly, while those articles make it clear that they intentionally reduced the prices on some items, they don't give anything resembling a functional guideline on how those prices were arrived at, how to reprice items from other sources, or how to derive the price for a proposed new item.

A man with a watch knows the time. A man with two is never sure.

I'm pretty sure they did eventually (around the time of the MIC) officially pretty much admit that the magic item pricing guidelines in 3.xe had to be taken with such a large pinch of salt that they were essentially irrelevant, and items should be pretty much priced on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Greenfield]

Oh, I'm sure that's the case.

But saying, "Judge on a case by case basis", without giving any guidelines at all is kinda useless. Can I at least buy a vowel?

 

[Deset Gled]

The price changes were intentional.

Here are the original Design & Development articles about the MIC:

These articles have always bugged me. I understand (and sometimes agree with) their description of the problems, but the "solutions" they created are completely antithetical to reasonable game design.

The MIC is pure power creep. It is blatantly and intentionally designed to give players more power for less cost. And that's something I'm not a fan of.

 

[Nezkrul]

The MIC is pure power creep. It is blatantly and intentionally designed to give players more power for less cost. And that's something I'm not a fan of.

Examples? I'm not one to just agree with a baseless opinion.

 

[Greenfield]

What was stated in the articles sounded well and good: Publish worthwhile and interesting items at prices that make them worth having. They discounted items specifically because most PCs buy items for AC, Saves and protections, Attack and damage bonuses, and stat buffs, and they wanted to give them a reason to look outside that narrow group.

The Ring of Universal Energy Resistance would be an example of an item every PC would want. So why drop the price on it? Did WOTC have too many in stock, so they priced them to move?

It's an example of place where what they said their intentions were differed sharply from what they actually did.

If they'd come up with a new and usable item pricing/creation system it would have been great. I've heard of more than a few complaints from the authors about DMG item creation, how it was rushed, how it was dumbed down, how bad it was. They had an opportunity in MIC to fix that, to publish a more comprehensive system, on where Craft Wondrous wasn't "Craft Anything", and where a Ring of True Strike, unlimited uses per day, wouldn't price out at 2,000 gp.

What they did was publish a discount toy shop, with no attempt to fix the system they were complaining about.

But "cheap power ups" have been the selling point for most of the Complete books, have in fact become the trend in the game's development over the years.