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

[CapnZapp]

The final conversation piece I would like to add at this time is magic armor. Hopefully we agree 5E's idea to make magic armor more expensive (rare) than weapons is a good one. We've also talked about how to handle the stacking issue, and I've argued only one source of AC bonuses can be "cheap" (relatively speaking) - all others need to be priced with the assumption they will add on top of armor.

So let's start somewhere. What about defense costing 2 levels higher than offense, and stackable defense costing 2 levels higher than that? (I'm open to the argument this is still too cheap, and that "deflective" bonuses needs to be a whole tier higher in cost)

Putting numbers on this, we get:

Item		Level	Red	Burgund	Blue
+1 Armor	8	3100	11330	4780
+1 Shield	10	5300	21330	9720
+1 Ring of	10	5300	21300	9700
+2 Armor	13	11700	40000	27900
+2 Shield	15	19700	55000	40000
+2 Ring of	15	19700	55000	40000
+3 Armor	18	43300	88300	183900
+3 Shield	20	73300	118300	296500
+3 Ring of	20	73300	118300	296500

"Ring of" means a magic ring that only provides AC. We haven't talked about saving throws yet. Ring of Deflection, perhaps?

 

[Kinematics]

I have read your post twice, but I can't understand if you're actually making any comment regarding this thread's suggestions or if you're making Xanathar calculations. Maybe you are suggesting I should drop my idea to bundle spells together (that is, to price them as permanent items), but I'm not sure. If so, why?

I'm saying that Xanathar's already provides prices for scrolls, and, when compared with the idea of using 1/3 of a target level's wealth (ie: one "slot") for a magic item's price, it comes out to be very close to a value of one scroll costing one slot of its appropriate level. That is not an unreasonable baseline when you consider that one slot can pay for 5 to 10 scrolls (1 or 2 bundles) of lower-level spells.

Thus your original idea comes very close to officially-established pricing guidelines, as long as you consider that bundles should only be considered "slot" material once you're above that spell's level, and are expecting to use them as expendable resources.

The price of a bundle arises naturally from the baseline cost of a single scroll, scaled as you grow in levels. Thus you don't need to define specific "bundle" costs; just take the basic scroll costs, and allow them to be bought in bulk as your wealth allows it.

Just to expand this, to give an indication of how the final result will look like, let's add a "smaller" weapon (the dagger) and a "bigger" one (the greatsword). I don't see how I can argue for greater price variations than this, meaning that while you may believe the glaive or the rapier should cost more than the greatsword and the longsword (and you may well have a point), any such price differences will be minimal (less than a level's worth), and thus something I'll put on the back burner for the time being.

Item		Level	Red	Burgund	Blue
+1 Dagger	5	1400	2170	1360
+1 Longsword	6	1900	4670	2500
+1 Greatsword	7	2400	7700	3600
+2 Dagger	10	5300	21300	9700
+2 Longsword	11	7000	28300	15800
+2 Greatsword	12	9000	33300	21800
+3 Dagger	15	19700	55000	40000
+3 Longsword	16	25700	65000	71200
+3 Greatsword	17	33300	75000	127600

Okay, so what's your thoughts about this?

It looks reasonable. The balance of cost between the weapons seems appropriate.

The final conversation piece I would like to add at this time is magic armor. Hopefully we agree 5E's idea to make magic armor more expensive (rare) than weapons is a good one. We've also talked about how to handle the stacking issue, and I've argued only one source of AC bonuses can be "cheap" (relatively speaking) - all others need to be priced with the assumption they will add on top of armor.

So let's start somewhere. What about defense costing 2 levels higher than offense, and stackable defense costing 2 levels higher than that? (I'm open to the argument this is still too cheap, and that "deflective" bonuses needs to be a whole tier higher in cost)

The main thing I would change is that "top-tier" armor, for a given armor type, should be notably more expensive than the mid-tier stuff. +1 leather has no risk whatsoever of breaking bounded accuracy, because it's effectively the same as studded leather. Full chainmail +1 is still less than full plate. It's only when you push above the bounds of what normal armor of a given class could provide that you have to really start worrying about balance issues.

I'm not sure offhand where I would place them yet, though.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm saying that Xanathar's already provides prices for scrolls

Sure, but it seems you conclude you need to spend 1/3 of your wealth to buy a single scroll of "your level". Not a bundle of scrolls. Doesn't this mean you think I'm five times too cheap?

Your "slot" terminology makes me guess you're talking about the DDAL guidelines in XGE, but I haven't read XGE in detail, so it's just a guess.

expecting to use them as expendable resources.

Sorry, but isn't that the only way to use a consumable?

The price of a bundle arises naturally from the baseline cost of a single scroll, scaled as you grow in levels. Thus you don't need to define specific "bundle" costs; just take the basic scroll costs, and allow them to be bought in bulk as your wealth allows it.

If you simply mean you suggest I list scroll prices for individual scrolls, I'm all in - the final price list won't say that a bundle of scrolls costs 1000 gp, say, it will say one scroll costs 200 gp.

If you mean something else, I apologize.

The main thing I would change is that "top-tier" armor, for a given armor type, should be notably more expensive than the mid-tier stuff. +1 leather has no risk whatsoever of breaking bounded accuracy, because it's effectively the same as studded leather. Full chainmail +1 is still less than full plate. It's only when you push above the bounds of what normal armor of a given class could provide that you have to really start worrying about balance issues.

I'm not sure offhand where I would place them yet, though.

I agree that just like weapons, armors come in different degrees of desirability, and yes, for armor this can be quite extreme (Ring Mail +3 is hardly worth more than mundane Plate Mail, for example).

I swear I did discuss this up-thread, but maybe I'm imagining things. Anyway, my conclusion is to focus on the "best in class" armors only (Studded leather and Plate Mail, basically - and maybe, just maybe, Breast Plate and Half Plate too).

And not do what I'm doing for weapons - worrying about "inferior" armor. Why? Because there really is only a single axis to base our value on (AC). And because overcosted items isn't really a problem, only a nuisance. We'll leave the pricing of specific suits of armor up to the DM, based on this. Leather +3? Use Armor +2! Chain Mail +2! Use ~1500 gp! Etc...

The DM can still add the armor's base cost to the final price to reflect how light armor is less expensive than heavy. If our price list says Armor +1 should cost 10,000 gp, you can easily say this is 11,500 gp for +1 Plate. This is polish I'll worry about later.

This probably means you think the suggested armor prices are too cheap.

 

[Kinematics]

Your "slot" terminology makes me guess you're talking about the DDAL guidelines in XGE, but I haven't read XGE in detail, so it's just a guess.

I used the word "slot" so I wouldn't have to keep repeating "1/3 of your expected wealth at level X".

Sure, but it seems you conclude you need to spend 1/3 of your wealth to buy a single scroll of "your level". Not a bundle of scrolls. Doesn't this mean you think I'm five times too cheap?

I'm only asserting that the provided costs in the official materials for a scroll of a given level fits quite neatly into the scaling of 1/3 of expected wealth at level X. From there, it's easy to then scale as 1 per slot, 2 per slot, 5 per slot, or whatever, at the current level of the spell.

The question then changes from, "What price do I set this scroll to?", to "How many scrolls of the current level is it reasonable to allow the player to buy and use, relative to a single 'slot' expense?" The latter question is one of balance, and is much easier to analyze and decide on, and once you've decided on that, it automatically defines the price.

I agree that just like weapons, armors come in different degrees of desirability, and yes, for armor this can be quite extreme (Ring Mail +3 is hardly worth more than mundane Plate Mail, for example).

I swear I did discuss this up-thread, but maybe I'm imagining things. Anyway, my conclusion is to focus on the "best in class" armors only (Studded leather and Plate Mail, basically - and maybe, just maybe, Breast Plate and Half Plate too).

And not do what I'm doing for weapons - worrying about "inferior" armor. Why? Because there really is only a single axis to base our value on (AC). And because overcosted items isn't really a problem, only a nuisance. We'll leave the pricing of specific suits of armor up to the DM, based on this. Leather +3? Use Armor +2! Chain Mail +2! Use ~1500 gp! Etc...

The DM can still add the armor's base cost to the final price to reflect how light armor is less expensive than heavy. If our price list says Armor +1 should cost 10,000 gp, you can easily say this is 11,500 gp for +1 Plate. This is polish I'll worry about later.

This probably means you think the suggested armor prices are too cheap.

I pretty much agree. I just have this nagging feeling that something might be getting forgotten along the way, so I'm holding off on saying "Yes, do that."

 

[CapnZapp]

I used the word "slot" so I wouldn't have to keep repeating "1/3 of your expected wealth at level X".

Ah, gotcha.

I'm only asserting that the provided costs in the official materials for a scroll of a given level fits quite neatly into the scaling of 1/3 of expected wealth at level X. From there, it's easy to then scale as 1 per slot, 2 per slot, 5 per slot, or whatever, at the current level of the spell.

The question then changes from, "What price do I set this scroll to?", to "How many scrolls of the current level is it reasonable to allow the player to buy and use, relative to a single 'slot' expense?" The latter question is one of balance, and is much easier to analyze and decide on, and once you've decided on that, it automatically defines the price.

Sounds simple... but there's several assumptions in there.

Not just that we picked "one third of your gross wealth" and "five consumables equals one permanent item" out of hats. Also "the official guidelines are useful"

Your method means treating scrolls as something special. I'm hesitating to go for different ratios for different consumables (ammo, potions, etc), at least not until we end up realizing it doesn't work otherwise.

I think I prefer to keep the problem defined using the questions: "Is 20% a reasonable discount for a single-use item?" and "Is caster level a reasonable price level for spellcasting items?". If we answer yes to both questions, this is what we end up with

That doesn't mean I think a scroll is equal to a potion. I'm well aware previous editions price them differently, simply because potions can be used by more characters than scrolls. The big question is: is the accessibility of a potion worth an entire level's worth?

If potions are generally available for most spells, and generally maintain concentration for you, then the answer is a resounding "yes". But if potions are limited to the specific items of the DMG, I'm not so sure. Then it might be better to price each potion individually.

And oh, just as with weapons and armor there are plenty of variance with spells. Just like armor, we're gonna focus on the spell scrolls you actually want to purchase. Other spells might be overpriced just like ring mail +3, but figuring out individual discounts is something to worry about much later, if at all.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sooner or later I'm gonna have to confront the issue I talked about upthread, namely: assume item X that has the same Sane price as Armor +1 (say).

Now, we're increasing this price. Should Item X follow along?

Let's pick Bracers of Defense as our first example.

Both Sane and Pathfinder etc prices it the same as any other armor (with the same AC bonus of course). They have it simple In 5e, the Bracers are rare while +2 armor is very rare. But rarity is FUBAR anyway so suggesting bracers should be essentially free compared to armor is about par for the course. (sigh) Now Bracers take an attunement slot, which "vanilla" armor does not. Big difference. Finally there aren't +1 and +3 versions of Bracers in 5th like there was +1 to +5 Bracers in d20.

It does beg the question: how much of a discount is attunement worth?

Should we even view attunement as something that's worth a discount? Maybe it's better the other way around, where we view attunement as standard (at least for "Big Six" items) and instead put a surcharge on items without it?

It boils down to the question: should the tools you "need" for your job eat up your attunement slots or should attunement bring extras on top. It's clear WotC decided requiring attunement for every +1 sword and armor didn't end up well (since it pretty much would mean "if you play a fighter, prepare yourself for having only one attunement slot in practical play").

In the end, I'm choosing to price Bracers at the same level as armor, despite attunement. It's a "specialist" item, rather than a "must have". I think attunement signals this. I'm open to changing my mind.

Item		Level	Red	Burgund	Blue
+2 Bracers	13	11700	40000	27900

 

[Stalker0]

Just skimming the thread it feels you have too many conversations at once. You are trying to capture everything but haven’t really settled on anything.

To me first order of business, really decide on a price for the +1 +2 and +3 grestsword. Then the same for plate armor. Those are the anchor points to start your conversations with other combat items.

 

[CapnZapp]

My plan is to collect a few key items (including weapons and armor which you just missed by a few posts) and then start a new thread, initially presenting a single price list just like folks are used to. You're right, it will hopefully make it easier to give feedback.

I guess what became known as "the big six" back in d20/PF really is only "Big Four" nowadays:

Big Six:

+ attack
+ AC (armor)
+ prime stat
+ AC (enhancement)
+ natural armor
+ saves


Big Four:

+ attack
+ AC
+ (prime stat)
+ saves


As we've seen, treating all AC equally isn't gonna work, and we're going to split AC into "armor" and "everything else". Essentially, mirroring the split between what sets your base AC and what adds to it. Natural armor, on the other hand, is just gone. Stat boosters play a much smaller role in 5th edition (at least the boosters that are maximized at 20), so that's why I put that in paranthesis.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Stat boosters play a much smaller role in 5th edition (at least the boosters that are maximized at 20), so that's why I put that in paranthesis.

Every fighter and his grandmother will be looking for Belts of Giant Strength - I really think they are in a category for themselves, breaking bonded accuracy the way armor can do.

 

[CapnZapp]

Every fighter and his grandmother will be looking for Belts of Giant Strength - I really think they are in a category for themselves, breaking bonded accuracy the way armor can do.

Indeed. I was talking about maximized items, at least initially.

What level do you feel would be appropriate for a Str 21 Belt?

(Pricewise. I'm fully aboard with an answer of "it is never appropriate", but we're talking price here, and just like with magic armor, we need to assume the DM wants to include the item and just want our best shot at pricing it, relative to other items)