Ahnehnois
First Post
If I were a vendor in a D&D world, I would. Supply and demand.
Inconsistent pricing between DMG & MIC
- Thread starter ChimericDream
- Start date
delericho
Legend
There would be a rebellion from the player base. It's always vastly easier to increase the power level, but any reduction is met with opposition, even if it is the best thing for the game.
It's a real shame. I really like 3e, and much of 3e's philosophy regarding purchase/construction of items. And I really like the Eberron Artificer class. But the system as it stands is very badly broken, and I don't see any easy way to fix it. Increasing the prices of those Bix Six, though, and also 'disposable' items such as potions, wands, and (especially) scrolls of low-level utility spells would be a good place to start.
Greenfield
Adventurer
Cutting item prices across the board is okay, if you also plan to cut the treasure tables and wealth guidelines while you're at it. But that's more about rebalancing the economy than about item creation issues. It belongs in another discussion
Would re-pricing magical ammunition equate to power creep? Perhaps. Right now, magical ammunition exists as a DM's convenience for lower level parties. A DM can hand out 10 +1 magic arrows as a relatively low end treasure, before the game gets up to the level where people start getting permanent magic items. That's good until what, level 2? 3?
After that a +1 magical bow isn't unreasonable, and the magic arrows get to sit around in someone's quiver, unused.
Was the increase of prices for some items during the 3.0/3.5 changeover a power reduction? Yes, in a way. A lot of PCs got converted and kept their now-expensive items. It effectively handed wealth to them, but it was wealth they woud probably never spend.
Now, is power creep a bad thing? Is it limited to items?
The first question is a philosophical one, without a clear answer. I don't like it, but the popularity of Pathfinder shows that there a lot of people who disagree.
The second question is a clear and resounding "No!". Later books started adding spells that gave more power at lower levels. Lesser Vigor, for example, is a 1st level healing spell that acts like a maximized Cure Light Wounds. While it doesn't grant the instant gratification of Cure Light, in that the healing takes place over a period of several rounds, it's clearly superior in pretty much every other way. You can even cast it on someone as they enter battle, so they fast heal as the damage comes in.
Similarly, the later books give new and better damage spells, protection spells, transport spells and utility spells, pretty much across the board, and all are at lower levels than any comparable counterpart.
Now, the only reason I bring that up, it being off topic, is that it impacts magic item creation. Wands, potions, staves and rings of these new spells are inherently more powerful, for the same spell level, than items from the DMG, yet they're still priced by the DMG formula even if you never even glance at the MIC.
Would re-pricing magical ammunition equate to power creep? Perhaps. Right now, magical ammunition exists as a DM's convenience for lower level parties. A DM can hand out 10 +1 magic arrows as a relatively low end treasure, before the game gets up to the level where people start getting permanent magic items. That's good until what, level 2? 3?
After that a +1 magical bow isn't unreasonable, and the magic arrows get to sit around in someone's quiver, unused.
Was the increase of prices for some items during the 3.0/3.5 changeover a power reduction? Yes, in a way. A lot of PCs got converted and kept their now-expensive items. It effectively handed wealth to them, but it was wealth they woud probably never spend.
Now, is power creep a bad thing? Is it limited to items?
The first question is a philosophical one, without a clear answer. I don't like it, but the popularity of Pathfinder shows that there a lot of people who disagree.
The second question is a clear and resounding "No!". Later books started adding spells that gave more power at lower levels. Lesser Vigor, for example, is a 1st level healing spell that acts like a maximized Cure Light Wounds. While it doesn't grant the instant gratification of Cure Light, in that the healing takes place over a period of several rounds, it's clearly superior in pretty much every other way. You can even cast it on someone as they enter battle, so they fast heal as the damage comes in.
Similarly, the later books give new and better damage spells, protection spells, transport spells and utility spells, pretty much across the board, and all are at lower levels than any comparable counterpart.
Now, the only reason I bring that up, it being off topic, is that it impacts magic item creation. Wands, potions, staves and rings of these new spells are inherently more powerful, for the same spell level, than items from the DMG, yet they're still priced by the DMG formula even if you never even glance at the MIC.
Ahnehnois
First Post
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not that bad. It's virtually impossible to create new material without at least a small increase in overall character power. Even if you have old option X and new option Y and they are perfectly equivalent choices, the new option allows players more customization and better combinations of abilities.
There's also an inherent drive to "fix" the game by creating new character types or increasing the viability of old ones; it's much more crowd-pleasing to do that by powering up weak characters than by trying to power down the strong ones.
So it seems to me that D&D, with all its supplements, is pretty much bound to some level of power creep.
Absolutely not. The most important source of power creep is players. They become much better over time. And then there's all those rules that aren't items.
Last edited:
Loren Pechtel
Explorer
And I'll say that's a *VERY* short limb.
Ahnehnois
First Post
Alright, what's the case against power creep, and how can it be avoided?
Loren Pechtel
Explorer
??
I'm saying if your position is going out on a limb it's not going very far out on one. The more perfect the fit between available items and your character design the more powerful your character even if you didn't increase the power of the items at all.
Greenfield
Adventurer
Adding variety in spells and items can effectively increase the power of some classes or builds without messing with the PC economy. It's a subtle power creep, but still a power creep.
Adding a thousand or so at-or-above the middle point items, usable by just about any class or build is something else.
Repricing existing items by giving them a 40% discount is a blatant power creep, nothing subtle about it. Revolution,not evolution.
Now, to be fair, some classes could use a bit of fine tuning. Monks and Bards come to mind immediately. The best Bard builds revolve around ceasing to be a Bard as soon as possible. Not sure there actually is a "best Monk build". Or, to be more accurate, there may be a "best" Monk build, I'm not sure that there's a good one.
But the MIC isn't class or build specific. It powers everyone up pretty equally, and in a not very subtle way.
Adding a thousand or so at-or-above the middle point items, usable by just about any class or build is something else.
Repricing existing items by giving them a 40% discount is a blatant power creep, nothing subtle about it. Revolution,not evolution.
Now, to be fair, some classes could use a bit of fine tuning. Monks and Bards come to mind immediately. The best Bard builds revolve around ceasing to be a Bard as soon as possible. Not sure there actually is a "best Monk build". Or, to be more accurate, there may be a "best" Monk build, I'm not sure that there's a good one.
But the MIC isn't class or build specific. It powers everyone up pretty equally, and in a not very subtle way.
Similar Threads
