CapnZapp
Legend
This thread covers only buying off-the-shelf items.
In my opinion, balanced free crafting is a much harder problem to solve. Let's worry about crafting later, after we're done with pricing.
D&D 5E [+] Design & Development: Magic Item Pricing
- Thread starter CapnZapp
- Start date
In my opinion, balanced free crafting is a much harder problem to solve. Let's worry about crafting later, after we're done with pricing.
CapnZapp
Legend
Let me see if I can't produce a more jovial reply, now that I've gotten a good night's sleep, [MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION]
When I speak of the generic +1 weapon, I mean the best-in-class +1 weapon.
In some sense, I could agree to make the rapier that weapon. But at least in game with feats, all my players that has created martial characters has opted for the "big guns", and so two-handed weapons see much more use, relegating one-handed weapons to specialist usage (such as Rogues and Monks).
So in my view, the +1 weapon we need to price first is the two-handed weapon. Whether we end up selecting the glaive, the greatsword or the hand crossbow is, in my opinion, not a primary issue, and I'm happy to leave that for later. After all we're in agreement it ain't the longsword or the sickle and that's good enough for now!
But you might have missed this up-thread: I have argued this is not as large a problem as it may appear.
Why? Since overpriced items is much less of a balance issue than underpriced items.
Meaning that for our first pass, if we stick to the best-in-class items, we get a "good enough" structure imo, even if it means nobody will ever buy a +1 sickle as long as there's also a +1 glaive available.
Then, when we have an actual price structure, let's go back and discuss how much less that +1 dagger could cost, to make the choice between the two interesting (which I think we agree is the ultimate goal here).
Regards
Oh, I agree. I just think there's no good reason to make the longsword the average. In general D&D-iana, it might be considered the "standard" weapon. But we've seen enough "nobody's using longswords" threads to know that is not reflective of the truth in this edition. And this thread is meant to be reflective of 5th edition specifically.
When I speak of the generic +1 weapon, I mean the best-in-class +1 weapon.
In some sense, I could agree to make the rapier that weapon. But at least in game with feats, all my players that has created martial characters has opted for the "big guns", and so two-handed weapons see much more use, relegating one-handed weapons to specialist usage (such as Rogues and Monks).
So in my view, the +1 weapon we need to price first is the two-handed weapon. Whether we end up selecting the glaive, the greatsword or the hand crossbow is, in my opinion, not a primary issue, and I'm happy to leave that for later. After all we're in agreement it ain't the longsword or the sickle and that's good enough for now!
We agree the d20 approach where every weapon are priced much like every other weapon, and where every armor is priced much like every other armor, is not good enough.
But you might have missed this up-thread: I have argued this is not as large a problem as it may appear.
Why? Since overpriced items is much less of a balance issue than underpriced items.
Meaning that for our first pass, if we stick to the best-in-class items, we get a "good enough" structure imo, even if it means nobody will ever buy a +1 sickle as long as there's also a +1 glaive available.
Then, when we have an actual price structure, let's go back and discuss how much less that +1 dagger could cost, to make the choice between the two interesting (which I think we agree is the ultimate goal here).
Regards
CapnZapp
Legend
By this time I feel the thread has collected much of the essential gotchas we need to take into account. Here's one more before it's time to create a first draft.
If we end up placing a price on a standard item such as the +1 weapon that considerably differs from the d20 baseline (for instance at 5000 gp instead of 1000 gp), should we or should we not consider "moving up" all/most/some items of equal value?
I mean, if a +1 attack bonus, a +1 AC bonus, and Cloak of Elvenkind previously all cost 1000 gp, it stands to reason we should at least ask ourselves the question:
Did that cloak cost 1000 gp because it was deemed of equal utility of a +1 sword? If so, it should be bumped up in price.
Or did that cloak cost 1000 gp because that was what it was worth. Then the fact it had a similar price to the +1 sword was coincidental, and its price should not be bumped up in price.
On the third hand, the relative differences of prices is just as important than the absolute prices, so even if the changes that 5E has brought about makes a +1 sword relatively more valuable than the 5E implementation of the cloak, a case can still be made to have the cloak move upwards if the sword moves upwards, at least part of the way, simply because we deem it undesirable for our pricing structure to let one sword cost as much as five cloaks.
On the fourth hand, we might be prepared to argue that, yes, the 5E cloak is indeed only 20% as useful as the 5E sword, so it should be priced at only 20% of the price.
Thoughts?
If we end up placing a price on a standard item such as the +1 weapon that considerably differs from the d20 baseline (for instance at 5000 gp instead of 1000 gp), should we or should we not consider "moving up" all/most/some items of equal value?
I mean, if a +1 attack bonus, a +1 AC bonus, and Cloak of Elvenkind previously all cost 1000 gp, it stands to reason we should at least ask ourselves the question:
Did that cloak cost 1000 gp because it was deemed of equal utility of a +1 sword? If so, it should be bumped up in price.
Or did that cloak cost 1000 gp because that was what it was worth. Then the fact it had a similar price to the +1 sword was coincidental, and its price should not be bumped up in price.
On the third hand, the relative differences of prices is just as important than the absolute prices, so even if the changes that 5E has brought about makes a +1 sword relatively more valuable than the 5E implementation of the cloak, a case can still be made to have the cloak move upwards if the sword moves upwards, at least part of the way, simply because we deem it undesirable for our pricing structure to let one sword cost as much as five cloaks.
On the fourth hand, we might be prepared to argue that, yes, the 5E cloak is indeed only 20% as useful as the 5E sword, so it should be priced at only 20% of the price.
Thoughts?
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
The "+0 weapons" were as mentioned, a theoretical construct used to judge when it was appropriate for a party to have magical attacks with no bonus or equivalent enchantment. As you have said, simply penetrating magic resistance/immunity is a significant benefit, possibly on-par with the actual attack/damage bonus. When trying to judge utility/appropriate level for when to start introducing magic weapons to the PCs, it helps to at least think about when they should get one benefit rather than jumping straight in with two. Furthermore we have a baseline for no-bonus, but magical attacks from the Monk and Moon Druid to use as a guide for when they should get these theoretical +0 weapons, and so we can then start staging the +bonus (or equivalent weapons) over the later levels.
Getting both magical attacks and a bonus to hit and damage on everything you fight is a significant power upgrade on just magical attacks, and thus it would be appropriate for characters to have to wait until several levels after level 6 (no-bonus magical attacks). If a +1 weapon is the lowest tier of magical weapon however, you may have to fudge this a bit and make them available earlier.
I picked the longsword as an example of the middle ground between "emergency backup only" weapons and "significantly more powerful when optimised" weapons. If you're taking the more powerful weapons as the baseline, then just shuffle everything up a bit.
Fair enough. When it comes to the time for a more detailed breakdown however, I would suggest access to additional attacks would push glaives and handbows over greatswords.I picked it as a middle ground between So in my view, the +1 weapon we need to price first is the two-handed weapon. Whether we end up selecting the glaive, the greatsword or the hand crossbow is, in my opinion, not a primary issue, and I'm happy to leave that for later. After all we're in agreement it ain't the longsword or the sickle and that's good enough for now!
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
CapnZapp
Legend
This issue has already a solution.
We will express price as a level.
But when it comes to examples, it is much easier to understand gold values. These simply assume a certain "wealth curve".
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
CapnZapp
Legend
Well, simple multiplication does not work since we need to reconcile various exponential curves.
This is most easily shown by noting level 20 wealth: it can differ between ~30,000 and almost one million gold.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
CapnZapp
Legend
[MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] this is because your example is misleading - exponential curves don't differ by a static multiplier
Besides, a multiplier can't account for the varied shapes of our curves. Just look at the Pathfinder and DMG treasure curves (green and red, respectively) and how the red curve seems to catch up with the green at level 17. What you don't see in that graph is that Pathfinder races ahead to end up at a significantly higher gp amount at level 20 (I think the green curve ends at 900K while the red curve ends at 600K roughly speaking IIRC Edit: IRI or I Recalled Incorrectly: both graphs actually end at roughly the same point)
In stark contrast, expressing wealth as level is just as simple a number as a multiplier, only it automatically off-loads the "curve calculation" onto each user.
Obviously I intend for my final table to use gp values, probably selecting a single curve as a showcase example. How to serve users of other wealth curves is still unclear at this early stage.
Besides, a multiplier can't account for the varied shapes of our curves. Just look at the Pathfinder and DMG treasure curves (green and red, respectively) and how the red curve seems to catch up with the green at level 17. What you don't see in that graph is that Pathfinder races ahead to end up at a significantly higher gp amount at level 20 (I think the green curve ends at 900K while the red curve ends at 600K roughly speaking IIRC Edit: IRI or I Recalled Incorrectly: both graphs actually end at roughly the same point)
In stark contrast, expressing wealth as level is just as simple a number as a multiplier, only it automatically off-loads the "curve calculation" onto each user.
Obviously I intend for my final table to use gp values, probably selecting a single curve as a showcase example. How to serve users of other wealth curves is still unclear at this early stage.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
