D&D 5E (2014) [+] Design & Development: Magic Item Pricing

[Kinematics]

[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] - at this stage I think we better call off our discussion.

slotting items based on level? gold is useless? all of this money and nothing to spend it on? the cost always adjusts? money not a reward??

I must have rolled a critical failure of the highest order since to me, you appear to have gotten it completely and utterly backwards.

This will have to end here - I have replied three or four times already... but nothing I say seems to get across, like at all.

Best of luck in your future endeavors
Zapp

Eh, I think he has a pretty good point on at least one aspect.

The question is: Are player wealth level differences significant to what the DM is trying to do? Or, to illustrate, suppose I give out 10k gp wealth by level 8, and you give you 20k gp wealth. Is this just an artifact of how we're generating the wealth at each table, or am I deliberately restricting the wealth of the players (or you deliberately being generous with the wealth of the players)?

If it's merely an artifact of the game, then ⅓ of the player wealth will keep the two games in line, even though the wealth ends up at different values. However if it's a deliberate choice for a low-wealth campaign, then you can't just use the ⅓ metric for pricing items. What costs ⅓ of a player's wealth in your campaign should cost ⅔ of a player's wealth in mine. If it doesn't, then my attempts at a low-wealth campaign end up meaning nothing.

So I would suggest baselining the prices based on the expected wealth from the DMG, and thus give prices in gp, not levels. From there, if a DM lowers or raises the player wealth levels, it should have a corresponding effect on actual wealth — the ability to buy said magic items — rather than just shift around which numbers you happen to use, but not creating any difference in actual wealth between the campaigns.

That's not to say that determining the price does not use the level you'd like a character to be able to acquire it at, but once you determine what the price should be for a baseline wealth curve, the price shouldn't change. Once you have a price that's appropriate to the expected wealth curve, the DM can raise or lower the actual wealth curve for his game without also having to recalculate the prices on every single item. That's much simpler for everyone involved.

 

[Kinematics]

So, I worked out the numbers over in this post to smooth out the wealth curve when accounting for getting occasional tier N+1 hoards while still at tier N. Once you examine how experience is granted by difficulty level, and how that translates to the number of hoards expected per tier, it's fairly easy.

It does, however, significantly shift the expected wealth of characters by level.

In addition, I wanted to look at how it compared to the Pathfinder curve from post #21. I had to kind of guesstimate the numbers in the image, and I extrapolated the numbers after level 16 based on the rate of increase in the previous few levels (4 levels in a row with a +30% increase over the previous one). And I ended up with this:
[sblock=Pathfinder]
https://i.*****.com/pIoVDYF.png
[/sblock]

Up to level 13, they basically match up. From level 14 on, though, the 5E results go much higher than the Pathfinder results.


In any case, before this bit of rethinking, I had considered using the wealth at end of tier as a gauge for how much an item might cost. That is, how much of the wealth that you expect to earn over the levels 5 to 10 would you feel is appropriate to spend on your +1 weapon? Armor? And various other magic items. Rather than a fraction of the wealth you have at the level you expect to be able to buy it, have it a fraction of the amount of wealth you'll have available to use during the period you're likely to use the item. Once you get to level 11, and start looking for a +2 sword, you've used up the 'value' of keeping the +1 sword.

This was easier to consider when the expected wealth at level 10 was 20k gp. Now that it's at 70k gp, things aren't quite so reasonable.

And, giving it more detailed thought, I realized that there are mistaken assumptions in the idea that players will get loot hoards from tiers higher than their own. Namely, that the hoards have to be from single mobs, or else the CR falls back into the current tier. My experience is somewhat limited, but I rarely find myself dealing with fights of just one enemy. Those tend to be very do-or-die encounters, where you end up with quick deaths on one side or the other, depending on whether the players can counter the big problem that the enemy brings into the fight.

So, I did a re-analysis of the problem, and came to a different set of conclusions. Post here.

Copies of the important graphs:
[sblock=Graphs]
https://i.*****.com/93xtUD5.png
https://i.*****.com/Uxn9Tz8.png
[/sblock]

This puts things closer to the original assumptions, but with a chance of one over-tier encounter on the last level of tiers 2 and 3. Basically, you get a boost in wealth (and possibly things to spend it on) as you near the end of each of the middle tiers, either to deal with the campaign-ending fight, or to get a little running start towards moving to the next tier of play.


As such, it's more reasonable to consider pricing based on the idea I was working on: Price relative to total wealth gained on this tier, but not counting the last level of the tier (for tiers 2 and 3).

Prices for tier 1 items should be relative to 640 gp.
Prices for tier 2 items should be relative to 18,000 gp.
Prices for tier 3 items should be relative to 100,000 gp.
Prices for tier 4 items should be relative to 750,000 gp.

Since the wealth listed per tier includes the run-up level (ie: level 10 is part of tier 3, level 16 is part of tier 4), you don't have to worry about accounting for that when taking a fraction of a tier.

Note: Tier 2 is actually closer to 17,000, but 18,000 works better for getting fractions of a tier.

So, for example, what fraction of a tier of leveling is having a +1 longsword worth? 10%? 20%? 33%? You do need the armor to go with it, too, and possibly a third item, and you do want to be able to acquire it before it's effectively obsolete as you move to the next tier.

If you make it 1/6, and maybe get an armor to go with it, you might get one item at level 5, and one item at level 6, and have the use of them for the next 4 levels. That doesn't seem unreasonable. And if you're presented with another magic item option, you might think about whether it's worth delaying picking up the sword by ½ a level, or the armor by a full level, etc. If that's what it feels like it's 'worth', then you have an idea of how to price it relative to the other items.


So that would be my approach: What fraction of this tier's time is that item worth?


Note: This is separate from the question of what the minimum level to acquire an item should be. If you don't want the players having a greatsword+1 til level 9, just don't have them available in the shops. If you want sovereign glue to cost 100 gp, but not be available to players below level 17, it's likewise a perfectly reasonable combination.

 

[CapnZapp]

Eh, I think he has a pretty good point on at least one aspect.

The question is: Are player wealth level differences significant to what the DM is trying to do? Or, to illustrate, suppose I give out 10k gp wealth by level 8, and you give you 20k gp wealth. Is this just an artifact of how we're generating the wealth at each table, or am I deliberately restricting the wealth of the players (or you deliberately being generous with the wealth of the players)?

If it's merely an artifact of the game, then ⅓ of the player wealth will keep the two games in line, even though the wealth ends up at different values. However if it's a deliberate choice for a low-wealth campaign, then you can't just use the ⅓ metric for pricing items. What costs ⅓ of a player's wealth in your campaign should cost ⅔ of a player's wealth in mine. If it doesn't, then my attempts at a low-wealth campaign end up meaning nothing.

So I would suggest baselining the prices based on the expected wealth from the DMG, and thus give prices in gp, not levels. From there, if a DM lowers or raises the player wealth levels, it should have a corresponding effect on actual wealth — the ability to buy said magic items — rather than just shift around which numbers you happen to use, but not creating any difference in actual wealth between the campaigns.

That's not to say that determining the price does not use the level you'd like a character to be able to acquire it at, but once you determine what the price should be for a baseline wealth curve, the price shouldn't change. Once you have a price that's appropriate to the expected wealth curve, the DM can raise or lower the actual wealth curve for his game without also having to recalculate the prices on every single item. That's much simpler for everyone involved.

Okay. No, I did not understand that. Thank you.

I would say I assumed someone would choose the blue curve over the red, say, because you have strong opinions on the heroes swimming in gold. Ending up with 880,000 gp is not nearly as ubiquitous as in d20, and something I did not want to take for granted.

But if my players end up at around 30,000 gold at 20th level a price tag of 100,000 gp for a 20th level item is useless to me. It's so much more than what I've given my players it gives me no clue what multiplier to use.

Instead I recommend that anyone looking for a "low wealth" campaign choose a curve, then halve its amounts. But you still choose a curve.

In other words, one curve is not meant to support "low wealth" or "high wealth". Don't choose a curve depending on your preference for relatively poor or rich adventurers (compared to Shoppe price tags).

Instead, first pick a curve based on your general world-building opinions. Should full plate remain out of reach for long? Should rich adventurers be able to buy entire inns, entire towns? Should looting dungeons make you a millionaire?

Traditionally, the answers have been "no", "yes", and "maybe" (I really don't remember if AD&D heroes reached a million gold, but I suspect they did)

But does 5e mandate it? Certainly not. If you issue 20,000 gold to a starting level 17 character per DMG guidelines, chances are, the other heroes won't have ten times as much.

Instead chances are you simply dislike the way D&D heroes traditionally swim in gold at high levels.

This should then be completely independent of our ability to provide magic shoppes for you. If your heroes have 30,000 gold, a much more appropriate price for a top of the line item would be 12,000 gp.

If you want a low-cost campaign AND a low-wealth campaign, you'd choose the low curve AND halve it's amounts.

That item still costs 12,000 gold, but now you only have 15,000 gp in total, so you can no longer afford it alone.

If you like gold AND want a high-wealth (or high-magic) campaign you might want to select the Pathfinder curve and then double that.

I trust you see the difference.

Let me also thank you for bringing lowkeys point across, and for giving me this opportunity to hopefully explain why I've suggested using levels as price.

 

[Kinematics]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] — I think you're overcomplicating things. Requiring the DM to both choose a curve, and potentially reprice everything relative to that curve? That's never going to fly. It's way too much work for way too little value.

You need to have as few moving parts as possible. From my analysis, that means:

1) There is only one curve: The 5E Treasure curve. Why? Because the other curves are for other systems, and we're not playing other systems; we're playing 5E. There are tables provided; use them.

2) There is only one set of prices: Those balanced against the 5E Treasure curve.

3) If you want to adjust the treasure output, apply a multiplier to the suggested rewards from the 5E treasure tables. Maybe a direct multiplier, or maybe you always give the minimum or maximum amount of money possible from the dice rolls. This allows you to scale the actual amount of wealth (what they can actually purchase with the money they have) given to the players by tweaking only a single knob.

This is also something you can adjust on the fly. If the players are getting "too rich", tone down the money rewards. If they can't afford things, bump up the rewards. At no point do you ever need to adjust the prices (which would be a headache-and-a-half).


As far as starting wealth for levels higher than 1? All that means is that the characters have already spent their accumulated wealth on other stuff — such as the magic items they are granted as part of their starting equipment. No matter what tier they start in, they're going to very quickly accumulate a good bit more as they level (at a rate appropriate to their tier), so you don't need to tweak anything. If you feel really guilty, give them an extra magic item that their characters "saved up for".

 

[CapnZapp]

I would have agreed, except for one teensy weensy detail:

I don't like it [emoji6]

Meaning, any curve ending up in the 880s I personally find absurd.

And it's kind of important to me that I do stuff I actually can use myself...

Apologies for the self-indulgence [emoji3]

Z

Ps. Actually I don't agree, since I don't believe 5e prescribes any wealth distribution, and there are even official adventures that don't match up to this Typical curve at all. I would much rather we simply call it Typical wealth, rather than dismissing every other curve as "not proper 5e". Thank you.

 

[CapnZapp]

I can promise you this, however.

If we do manage to reach a first draft, I will personally make a table that only includes the Typical gold prices with no mention at all of levels or alternative curves.

How does that sound?

 

[CapnZapp]

Next up - scrolls.

Here's a wild idea.

Let's assume 5 consumables equal 1 permanent (item). That's 20%, twice the d20 default but less than half the official 5E suggestion. So a "bundle of scrolls" would be 5 scrolls, or 2d4 if you like randomness.

Now, what if we assume it would be appropriate for a character to have one scroll bundle, given scrolls of the highest level he or she could cast?

That is, the price of a 3rd level scroll bundle (that you can use at 5th level) is "5th".

The price of a 9th level scroll bundle is 17th.

How about that, to make scrolls feel precious and not simply a means to break the spells/day limits?

Instead of a staff or robe appropriate for your level you could pick a scroll bundle.

At the very least we would end up with way different prices than d20 (and Sane) - prices I've come to find creates a 3E feeling I do not desire in my 5e game.

 

[CapnZapp]

In general, I believe we should move away from absolute pricing formulas, such as "bonus squared in thousands of gold" used for magic weapons.

It worked for d20 partly because there was only a single wealth curve, partly because the game needed lots of items to rain down on the heroes.

But neither assumption holds for 5th edition.

Another way to put this is, if you're content with the 3e wealth per level curve (or the Pathfinder one) you can use the Sane price list, and you don't need this thread ☺

 

[Kinematics]

and there are even official adventures that don't match up to this Typical curve at all

<bangs head on desk> Why, Wizards? You have treasure tables in the DMG. Why u no use them?

since I don't believe 5e prescribes any wealth distribution

Well, they sorta kinda do, though the DM is free to ignore it. In my last campaign, when we ended at level 13, the grand total of party wealth for 7 characters was about 11,000 gold, vs the 80,000 gold per character that the treasure tables suggest. Though we spent very little money over the campaign; most of the gear we got was, "We need you to help us in this war. You can pick out whatever you want from the royal armory, if you're willing to help us."

In general, I believe we should move away from absolute pricing formulas, such as "bonus squared in thousands of gold" used for magic weapons.

What do you think of my suggestion of, "fraction of time of this tier you're willing to devote to acquiring the item"? Though it's rather more subjective, it scales easily enough for different curves. And you can get a vaguely objective element for it, often enough.

For example, a +1 weapon is an increase in average damage of about 20%, varying slightly based on target AC, or weapon damage die, and varying more with advantage/disadvantage. But overall, +20% works. That means "time to do damage" is 5/6 what an NQ weapon would be, so you can start with an estimate of 1/6 of a tier. Probably below that, though, because you want it to be an actual net gain. Maybe 1/8 of a tier?

Basically, you want to allow a decent amount of gain relative to the investment involved, and feel that the time investment was worth it. At the same time, whoever is selling it wants to make it as high a price as possible while still allowing you to think that the purchase was worth it. The real question is, what are the upper limits on "worth it"?

 

[CapnZapp]

<bangs head on desk> Why, Wizards? You have treasure tables in the DMG. Why u no use them?


Well, they sorta kinda do, though the DM is free to ignore it. In my last campaign, when we ended at level 13, the grand total of party wealth for 7 characters was about 11,000 gold, vs the 80,000 gold per character that the treasure tables suggest.

I completely understand and symphatise with any Dungeon Master that decides to hand out (much) less gold than what the treasure tables would indicate.

This is because gold is essentially worthless in 5th edition, once you've scraped together your first two thousand gold pieces.

http://theangrygm.com/nothing-here-but-worthless-gold/
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47604/without-a-magic-item-economy-what-is-gold-for
https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2grg5k/the_value_of_gold_in_5e/
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?424641-What-s-the-point-of-gold

Luckily, this thread is aiming to fix exactly this problem!