Are magic arms and armour overpriced?

[Quartz]

There've long been comments about how combat types are overshadowed by the spellcasters at high levels. Inspired by this thread, I'm wondering if part of the problem is the way the cost of arms and armour are calculated. Basically, they're expensive, and interesting items can only start to be enjoyed when the characters' levels are in the low teens. When a mage is creating a multifunction device that isn't arms or armor, all the functions are costed seperately and then added together; but with arms and armour, you add up the 'plus equivalent values' of the functions first, then calculate the cost. This doesn't seem quite right - or fair - to me.

Now, having a 'plus equivalent value' seems to me to be a necessary evil to stop players taking the piss and having their arms and armour insanely enchanted.

How about if the cost of the basic plus of the item and the cost of the 'plus equivalent value' enhancements were seperated out? So, for example, the cost of a +5 Holy Avenger would not be based off (5+5)^2 but off (5^2)+(5^2). Equally, a +1 sword with a minor (+1 equivalent) enchantment would be based off (1^2)+(1^2) instead of (1+1)^2. And since there's a limit of +5 on either side, this would stop people creating +1 weapons with +9 in PEVs and then boosting them with Greater Magic Weapon.

This would allow fighter-types spare cash for more interesting items.

What do you think?

 

[EyeontheMountain]

I do think that weapons are overpriced, and probably should be dropped about 25% or so. Weapons are generally pretty straightforward, with few powers that can overy affect the game, so a lower price would help fighter types out a lot. 18,000 for a +3 equivelent weapon is a fortune for any fighter type playing up from the low levels.

As far as mages putting pmultiple uses on an item, this is something that should be restricted by DMs. Magic item slots are precious, and letting players make items with 2 or 3 functions (for cheaper even) that all occupy the smae slot leads to a lot of imbalance with magical items. Having a cloak of resistance to spells and energy is far better than two.

Most magical items are single function in RAW, butthose rreation tables in the DMG are a source of serious problems.

I would like to see a detailed list of otehr abilities a weapon or armor could grant somewhat like the varied weapons in Weapons of Legacy.

 

[Delta]

There've long been comments about how combat types are overshadowed by the spellcasters at high levels. Inspired by this thread, I'm wondering if part of the problem is the way the cost of arms and armour are calculated.

Note, of course, that the WOTC designers in that linked article are basically arguing that everything in the entire game except arms and armor are overpriced.

 

[Stalker0]

Note, of course, that the WOTC designers in that linked article are basically arguing that everything in the entire game except arms and armor are overpriced.

And for much of the dmg I agree with them, there's a ton of stuff in there and in newer books that isn't worth the gold. I think unique items are the worst, some of those things are crazy expensive.

But also notice they weren't always saying overpowered in terms of "price" but sometimes in terms of "actions". An item that costs 100 gp and as a standard action gives me a +1 to attack rolls for 1 round is garbage no matter how cheap because I would never give up a round worth of attacks for such a piddly bonus. Now if the item did it as a free action that would be infinitely more useful, and of course should cost more. There are many items whose powers are fine for the price if they were swift or free actions, but not worth it when they are standard actions.

 

[wayne62682]

I've always felt that weapons and armor are far too expensive. I don't know how many times I've wanted a cool weapon for a character but said screw it and just got a bog-standard +1 weapon because the damn thing costs such a large amount of money it'd take up most, if not all, of my wealth!

 

[pawsplay]

No. The last thing the game needs is ACs and magic bonuses going through the rough. You think the game is magic and gear oriented now?

 

[Felix]

Armor does have enhancements that cost a straight gp price to add to a piece of armor. Silent Moves, for example, costs 3750gp regardless the power of the armor you're adding it to.

Other enhancements like Spell Resistance increase the equivalent magic bonus.

The result is that less powerful abilities like Silent Moves increase the armor's price geometrically as you add more on, while more powerful abilities like Spell Resistance increase the price exponentially.

I think this is an elegant solution: it provides cheaper and more unique magic armors without making them either too expensive or too powerful. It would be nice if similar lesser enhancements were available for weapons as well.

 

[Stalker0]

I think this is an elegant solution: it provides cheaper and more unique magic armors without making them either too expensive or too powerful. It would be nice if similar lesser enhancements were available for weapons as well.

Agreed. They made this move when they went to 3.5, many things got shifted to a flat gp cost instead of a +X bonus. It works a lot better in many cases. The only augments that should have a +X on them are ones that get improved by other bonuses.

+1 Bane, vs +4 Bane. The extra +3 means I hit more often, bane gets a better chance to do its damage. +X modifier.

+1 SR 13 armor vs +4 SR 13 armor. The AC doesn't change my SR one little bit. Should be a flat number.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

No. The last thing the game needs is ACs and magic bonuses going through the rough. You think the game is magic and gear oriented now?

Actually armor is a minor source of AC. A fully magical armor is only +5 AC over a mundane suit. It is rings of deflection, Amulets of Natural armor and such that give sky high armor classes.

 

[frankthedm]

Actually armor is a minor source of AC. A fully magical armor is only +5 AC over a mundane suit.

Shields double that.