-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Magic Item Inconsistencies
- Thread starter Falling Icicle
- Start date
Why does it matter anyway?
It's just a rough estimate anyway and besides, people here have already made some good comments such as not all items being in a game. When you find certain items in my games, it's probably going to be the only one. Standard +1 magical armour doesn't exist in games, each set will have some additional extra property so no two suits are alike. Why does the value matter anyway?
It seems to me it's written in a way that allows people to tailor magic item appearance differently in their games.
It's just a rough estimate anyway and besides, people here have already made some good comments such as not all items being in a game. When you find certain items in my games, it's probably going to be the only one. Standard +1 magical armour doesn't exist in games, each set will have some additional extra property so no two suits are alike. Why does the value matter anyway?
It seems to me it's written in a way that allows people to tailor magic item appearance differently in their games.
Mouseferatu
Hero
Doesn't the book state somewhere that consumable items cost half of what "normal" items of their rarity cost?
Yes consumables cost half, and I would put consumable at the bottom end of the value range and divide that number by 2. For example a legendary potion of storm giant strength would be 25,000 gp, while a holy avenger would be 50,000+.
That is another issue the fact that legendary doesn't give a range just 50,000+ so that isn't much of a guildline. Some DM's might want to value the blue handled holy avenger at Spellmart at 50,000 and the golden handled one at 2.2 million.
But I think we are getting away from the main point of the thread which is inconsistencies in the rarity system. Like the ioun stone that give +2 strength (max 20) being more rare and more expensive than a belt of fire giant strength that gives you a 25 strength.
One is clearly better than the other in every way, both require attunment, but the belt gives a much higher strength to anyone who wears it and can be put on someone with an 8 and still give the full effect, while the ioun stone can be attacked and taken away from you in the middle of combat.
That is another issue the fact that legendary doesn't give a range just 50,000+ so that isn't much of a guildline. Some DM's might want to value the blue handled holy avenger at Spellmart at 50,000 and the golden handled one at 2.2 million.
But I think we are getting away from the main point of the thread which is inconsistencies in the rarity system. Like the ioun stone that give +2 strength (max 20) being more rare and more expensive than a belt of fire giant strength that gives you a 25 strength.
One is clearly better than the other in every way, both require attunment, but the belt gives a much higher strength to anyone who wears it and can be put on someone with an 8 and still give the full effect, while the ioun stone can be attacked and taken away from you in the middle of combat.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
This could partially explain why consumables (Potion of Fire Giant Strength) are rarer than they should be, relative to permanent items of the same power (Girdle of Fire Giant Strength): somebody drank the other potions! This suggests that what's actually wrong here is the crafting rules, not the treasure tables.
So, here's a suggested fix: for purposes of creating items, all consumables count as one level less rare than their actual rarity.
Except for Sovereign Glue and Universal Solvent, which count as uncommon instead of legendary. (My reasoning: those two are rare because they're very niche, so very little of the stuff was ever produced in the first place. And honestly, who would ever pay even 50,000 gp for a dose of universal solvent? At 500 gp it's at least plausible that someone might eventually make some.)
Rarity levels correspond to tiers and are meant to indicate what sort of items are "appropriate" at each tier. I think this idea of "appropriate" includes both story concerns and game balance factors.
That's why the correlation between rarity and power/utility is a bit inconsistent, making rarity not a great balancing factor. Considering how inconsistent gold distribution can be, I don't think price is a good balancing factor, either.
I wish they had given items a spell level equivalence. E.g. a flying item would say "equivalent to a 3rd-level spell," unless it's unlimited in use, then it might be 4th-level. That would let them re-use an existing power scale (see, for example, the magic weapon spell "at higher levels"). Then it would be easy to come up with price guidelines based on spell level, or maybe some other reasonable way to balance magic item distribution within the party, other than just "the DM eyeballs it."
That's why the correlation between rarity and power/utility is a bit inconsistent, making rarity not a great balancing factor. Considering how inconsistent gold distribution can be, I don't think price is a good balancing factor, either.
I wish they had given items a spell level equivalence. E.g. a flying item would say "equivalent to a 3rd-level spell," unless it's unlimited in use, then it might be 4th-level. That would let them re-use an existing power scale (see, for example, the magic weapon spell "at higher levels"). Then it would be easy to come up with price guidelines based on spell level, or maybe some other reasonable way to balance magic item distribution within the party, other than just "the DM eyeballs it."
S
Sunseeker
Guest
I think the missing value in the equation is the DM. Items are 'rare' given the party level and the type of campaign you want to run. The Book of Vile Darkness is probably always going to be incredibly rare, but depending on your level and the setting, an ioun stone might not be. I think the amount of bonus an item gives should give the DM a good idea at what level range its rarity is appropriate.
Remathilis
Legend
I think there are a few issues here
1.) Rarity is based on effect, not duration. A potion of fly and a carpet of flying both allow flight; which the game views as being very rare. Sure, the potion is a one-and-done, but the fact is if you need to fly, it doesn't matter HOW you do it, what matters is that you have an item that lets you do something impossible for no "cost".
2.) Rarity means more for the world than the PC. A +1 sword doesn't change how the world works; its uncommon because it really is only a step up from a regular blade (which still works, even if its an inferior good). A carpet of flying has no mundane equivalent; PCs fly via magic or they don't. A world where potions of flying are uncommon means people would have a reasonable* chance of finding one; which would mean more people have the ability to fly than expected.
3.) Potions are really measured by their own thing (as are scrolls), permanent items are another. Its not fair to compare them, even if they are the same rarity.
4.) Cost per rarity is a guideline; considering crafting is optional (as is buying/selling), their is no real reason to map out items to the last GP (and in 15 years of d20, its proven to be a fool's errand anyway) the costs are guidelines, and it seems lots of people are already modifying them to suit their own magic item distribution tastes. What the table does is provide a start point: does a +1 sword cost hundreds, thousands, or ten-thousand's of gold to make?
5.) Really, all rarity means is "this item is more powerful than a similar item one rarity level below it." Items don't map to one another in terms of power, nor does it mean that they are interchangable (4e tried that with magic items. Yawn). It basically a "hey, watch before you give a low level PC a staff of power". warning.
The system works fine in terms of goal-posts (a few oddities nonwithstanding) but trying to turn it into a system akin to 3e/4e is a lesson in disappointment.
1.) Rarity is based on effect, not duration. A potion of fly and a carpet of flying both allow flight; which the game views as being very rare. Sure, the potion is a one-and-done, but the fact is if you need to fly, it doesn't matter HOW you do it, what matters is that you have an item that lets you do something impossible for no "cost".
2.) Rarity means more for the world than the PC. A +1 sword doesn't change how the world works; its uncommon because it really is only a step up from a regular blade (which still works, even if its an inferior good). A carpet of flying has no mundane equivalent; PCs fly via magic or they don't. A world where potions of flying are uncommon means people would have a reasonable* chance of finding one; which would mean more people have the ability to fly than expected.
3.) Potions are really measured by their own thing (as are scrolls), permanent items are another. Its not fair to compare them, even if they are the same rarity.
4.) Cost per rarity is a guideline; considering crafting is optional (as is buying/selling), their is no real reason to map out items to the last GP (and in 15 years of d20, its proven to be a fool's errand anyway) the costs are guidelines, and it seems lots of people are already modifying them to suit their own magic item distribution tastes. What the table does is provide a start point: does a +1 sword cost hundreds, thousands, or ten-thousand's of gold to make?
5.) Really, all rarity means is "this item is more powerful than a similar item one rarity level below it." Items don't map to one another in terms of power, nor does it mean that they are interchangable (4e tried that with magic items. Yawn). It basically a "hey, watch before you give a low level PC a staff of power". warning.
The system works fine in terms of goal-posts (a few oddities nonwithstanding) but trying to turn it into a system akin to 3e/4e is a lesson in disappointment.
