D&D 5E Sane Magic Item Prices

[Lanefan]

There hasn't been an edition of D&D where this was true. During 3e, the most magic mart edition, there weren't any hard choices. It was the same few easy choices that were made over and over and over and over and over. The prices were borked and weren't at all priced to make people make hard decisions. Choosing optimal was easy, though.

Yes, 3e pricing was all over the place. This is one area where some deep and serious playtesting would have helped point out the most egregious headaches in time to be fixed before release.

Item pricing was also put player-side for the first time, which IMO is and remains a thunderous error.

And I don't make random prices. I price something where an item of that power level should be.

I throw a bit of variability in just for kicks, but in general I'm close to what you do.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

And I don't make random prices. I price something where an item of that power level should be.

And where is that? I (and I think others are too) am very interested in some examples. Especially since I find it very hard.
How about some flight items comparatively, a +2 chain shirt, and a +1 scale mail vs a +1 plate. Throw in a amulet of health to get us started.
Thanks.

 

[Lanefan]

And where is that? I (and I think others are too) very interested in some examples. Especially since I find it very hard.
How about some flight items comparatively, a +2 chain shirt, and a +1 scale mail vs a +1 plate. Throw in a amulet of health to get us started.
Thanks.

OK, I'll bite, using my own 1e-based homebrew pricing:

Ring of Flight: 7000
Broom of Flying: 10000 (its flight speed is higher than a ring, it's easier to carry a passenger on, and it doesn't use a ring slot)
Flying Carpet: 18000 (give or take depending on size/passenger capacity; it's faster yet, and can hover in place unlike a broom)
+2 Chain 3500 (chain mail, I don't have chain shirts as a separate thing)
+1 Scale Mail 1500
+1 Plate Mail 2000

I can't relate to an Amulet of Health as such. A Periapt of Health, if that's close enough, is 10000.

I've intentionally kept the prices of +1 armour and weapons fairly low, then prices go up dramatically as + values go up; which is why the +2 Chain is so much more than the +1 Scale even though (in my game) they give the same AC - I long ago reversed the positions of scale and chain on the armour table such that chain is root AC 6 (14) and scale is root AC 5 (15).

By comparison, +3 Chain is 8000 and for +4 if you have to ask you probably can't afford it.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Thanks.
The reason why I asked about the armors is because due to bounded accuracy, the plusses that don't break the max AC for light, medium and heavy armor should have little impact on price. So magic plate should be the heavy armor you base pricing on.
What I see is that you totally ditch rarity as a framework for pricing and go full utility (+3 armor is legendary), thus confirming the uselessness of WotC's not-effort.

Edit: And you value the bounded accuracy breaking +1 to a plate at only 500 gp!

 

[Lanefan]

Thanks.
The reason why I asked about the armors is because due to bounded accuracy, the plusses that don't break the max AC for light, medium and heavy armor should have little impact on price. So magic plate should be the heavy armor you base pricing on.
What I see is that you totally ditch rarity as a framework for pricing and go full utility (+3 armor is legendary), thus confirming the uselessness of WotC's not-effort.
(and I meant periapt)

Edit: And you value the bounded accuracy breaking +1 to a plate at only 500 gp!

Keep in mind my pricing is for a modified-1e game, not 5e; and that all armour in theory goes to +5.

As for basing price on utility: I price +1 Leather higher than +1 Studded even though the studded is one AC better, mostly due to demand: Thieves can wear leather but suffer penalties if they wear studded or ring mail or anything heavier; ditto Rangers and Assassins,, and so leather is way more popular. The rarity factor of the higher plusses is in finding them: my treasure/availability tables heavily skew toward the lower end.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Keep in mind my pricing is for a modified-1e game, not 5e; and that all armour in theory goes to +5.

As for basing price on utility: I price +1 Leather higher than +1 Studded even though the studded is one AC better, mostly due to demand: Thieves can wear leather but suffer penalties if they wear studded or ring mail or anything heavier; ditto Rangers and Assassins,, and so leather is way more popular. The rarity factor of the higher plusses is in finding them: my treasure/availability tables heavily skew toward the lower end.

Right. Again, thanks for your go at this. But this discussion is about 5e, so I don't think your examples are that relevant.
I'd be very interested in your take on those items I suggested in 5e, though.

 

[Lanefan]

Right. Again, thanks for your go at this. But this discussion is about 5e, so I don't think your examples are that relevant.
I'd be very interested in your take on those items I suggested in 5e, though.

++shrug++

Wouldn't have a clue. Given 5e's paucity of treasure, maybe I'd just divide all my prices by 5 and see where that went.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Utility is one thing. Rarity and-or ease of acquirement is another. Both are valid factors to consider in pricing.

I mean, sure, if all items are equally common then utility becomes the only differentiator. But when commonality also varies it has to be considered. Example: +1 longswords are in most games fairly common; +1 bardiches, much less so. Therefore, the +1 bardiche in theory should be a bit more costly due to rarity - say, 2250 g.p. instead of 2000.

That, however, brings in a third factor: overall demand for an item. Here my bardiche example goes the other way: many more people use longsword than use bardiche, so maybe the +1 bardiche will end up costing (or selling for!) less than the sword. This factor, however, is more likely to vary by campaign/table, so is best left to the DM to sort out.

I think where this needs to be considered more is on the player facing side.

A magical item that changes the color of your hair and clothes might be in high demand, because as a fashion item that the rich can use it would be highly sought after for making social statement.

For players it is an oddity and not worth more than a few seconds thought. While fun, they don't really need it.


For most people, a Staff of Fire isn't terrible useful. It has a lot of damage potential, but it is only utilized in combat and requires a spellcaster, so the majority of people could care less about it unless they are a spellcaster going into constant war or conflict... Which is exactly what the PCs are. This is an item they will potentially care a lot about.


Or, to put this in different terms, if you have an item that costs a lot of value (in time, resources, ect) to obtain, it needs to have value for the people using it. Plate Armor of Invlunerability that gives resistance to all damage is amazing.... unless you are giving it to a party of rogues who can't wear plate. To them, it is a glorified paperweight and maybe something to sell off, because they can't get any value out of it otherwise.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Balance. Pure and simple.

That million-g.p. character would - if it had any more brains than a shoe - spend some of that money on the best adventuring equipment available: warhorses; war dogs; field plate (if a warrior); every spell in the book (if an arcane caster); masterwork everything; hordes of retainers and henches; and - most important - any and all useful magic items it could find. All before ever theading out into the field.

And it would still have enough left over to buy a castle and the village next to it.

Meanwhile here comes Joe with his scale mail and shortsword because he can't afford splint and a longbow.

Now I don't usually give a flying fig about in-party balance but this is over the top even for me.

Okay, so it is only a problem for game if

1) The player only uses it for themselves, creating disparity in the party.

2) If they can or want to buy things that disrupt game balance. Yes, a player could try and hire 50 Veterans to fight all their battles for them. But, the potential to do something doesn't mean that has any interest for them. They might not want to sit back and have the DM describe how their kill squad went and won the fight again... but they might want to have that kill squad go and handle something else.

Would it be wrong for the party to use that gold to hire those mercenaries to go and deal with a lesser problem while they deal with a bigger one? I actually had a character drop a hefty amount of gold once to hire people to recover an NPC companion of ours... because we needed to delve in the opposite direction to prevent the villains from getting a superweapon that could be used to annihilate cities. And everyone was fine with that. We clearly had more important things to do, but we also didn't want to abandon our person.

Also, looking at your list.. a lot of that is of iffy value. Masterwork weapons don't do anything in this edition. A masterwork Greatsword is the exact same as a mundane greatsword. Warhorses are of debatable value, unless you are fighting in open fields. Even full plate armor doesn't turn you into something that can't be challenged by low-level play. It makes you harder to hit, sure, but with bounded accuracy a guy in plate can still be brought down by goblins and kobolds.

Some of this stuff is potentially problematic, but transferring gold into magic items or hordes of retainers is not easy to do, and if it would impact the game, that is when the DM starts asking what the goal is. But... there aren't rules hiring mercenaries. It is all DM fiat for the parts of this that are game-breaking.

Saving the world's all well and good but at the end of the day most characters IME want a payoff.

Yes, but they don't tend to get paid in gold. And also, they don't expect to get paid in gold, so it isn't an issue I've run into.

That's cool - until they turn around and sell 'em.

Has never once happened. Legit. And I've given (and made up on the spot do to insanity) plenty of cool things.

 

[Chaosmancer]

More Strawman. I didn't say you can't earn free money. In fact, not only is free money is all over the downtime system.........................free money with a range of amounts you can get based on a roll. but I've explicitly said you should get a roll to see how much free money you get.

You are trying to game the system by avoiding that and just poofing in maximum money.

Ignoring the larger point by calling out strawmen

Then let it go. It's over and done with and at this point is only detracting from the conversation.

Refusing to listen

Or else I just missed it. Not everything has some ulterior motive.

Maybe you did. But the other four people? And not a single other person has come forward to say that they missed it? Only you?

Not everything is surface level.