Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7347191" data-attributes="member: 12731">My final replies to page 1 posts. Phew!To keep the project from becoming overwhelmingly large, the idea is to begin with a few key items and set 5th-ed-appropriate prices on those. Then other items have to come along for the ride, meaning that, say, if Staff of Defense cost 5000 gp in 3E and now is priced at 10000 gp, all comparable items that also cost around 5000 gp should probably cost 10000 gp, unless we can make a case for saying "they were about equal before, but the particularities of 5E means that no longer holds true".Just as a starting point, I mean. We need to start somewhere.A few semirandom thoughts:Consumables generally cost 10% of the comparable permanent item. That 1/50th was an outlier - it applied to wand charges, and it was the reason for CLW wands. Luckily we won't have to deal with that. So 10% is a good starting point, at least compared to the horrible 50% the DMG tries to convince us of. But we'll see where we end up (thinking of scrolls).Class restrictions feel like way too specific to go into already at this stage. I'll simply say that in 5E "anyone can be a caster". Restricting an item to "spellcasters" only doesn't mean that much.Not sure what you have in mind for the third bullet point.Capabilities like flying needs to be expensive. Soon I'm up to double-digit levels for the third campaign, and yet nobody has cast Fly even once. (They did get a trained Griffon this time around). Things like boots of flying can and should be priced much more like the luxury it is in 5E than the common commodity it was in 3E. Since invisibility is less powerful in 5E (since you still need Stealth for it to mean more than disadvantage to attacks), and climbing and swimming speeds is way less powerful in 5E since you still have to make checks, such items doesn't need a price premium like Fly. Spiderclimbing is an exception and works much like 3E. But you're right - they all are much more expensive to make happen (thanks to Concentration) and so the 3E pricing isn't really a good starting point.Yes, the only function of rarity is to guide the DM in stocking his shops. If "very rare" means "you find it very rarely for purchase" that's okay. It's when they decided to couple rarity to price the system stopped working (for our purposes).Once an item is in the shop, the only thing that keeps it balanced is its price. Its price relative to the other items on the shelf. It is the item's usefulness (to adventurers) that is the important thing when you assign prices. At least, for purposes of this thread.This doesn't mean you can't sell a Ring of Invisibility for 35 gp if you want it to fall into the hands of 1st level characters, only that it is out of scope for this discussion. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />On the contrary, it is helpful in so far that at minimum, we agree it is a parameter to ignore."Everything in the DMG" is not the goal here. To keep this project from becoming impossible, we must establish that the DM's input in what to stock the shoppes with remains essential."Everything in the DMG" is pretty much the equivalent of free item creation, and that's way harder to keep balanced. No, our assumption must be that each DM doesn't just go into autopilot when stocking shoppes. If the adventure would have been trivialized by flying, we must assume the DM places no such items in his shoppe. If the characters are as good at optimizing as mine are, the DM should probably not place any +AC items (or set exorbitant prices). And so on.Good phrasing. Yes, this project aims "only" to provide prices for a curated list.The question about armor and shields that stack (also raised by others) boils down to:Does the introduction of magic shoppes necessitate having stricter rules on bonus stacking?The only way (imo) around it is to treat shields (and "deflection" bonus such as Rings) as a premium stacking category. That is, there can be only one "base" AC bonus category (and it pretty much needs to be armor). Everything else must be priced with its stackability in mind (ie much more expensive).This is the only way to make sure +1 armor plus +1 shield isn't much cheaper than +2 armor, which doesn't make sense since you get the exact same benefit.Meaning that if you like how +1 armor and +1 shields cost about the same, you probably need either to artificially limit the availability or add a "magic bonuses from armor and shields don't stack" rule, or simply accept that one character will gain a stratospheric AC.It all depends - if its the least minmaxing character, this might actually help the game.But yes, in general, the point is that all ways to gain +2 AC should cost about the same. That's what utility-based pricing means, after all.So let's create an example and make up some numbers! If +1 armor costs, say, 4000 gp, and +2 armor costs 16000 gp, then +1 shields (and +1 rings of defense) need to cost somewhere around 12000 gp. (Since a shield requires a hand we'll probably end up giving it a discount, but if the ring of defense requires an attunement slot, it too needs a discount).You might not like that, and prefer that +1 armor and +1 shields cost the same. You might choose to ensure your actual heroes never find a matching set of armor and shield, or not, encouraging sword and board builds. And that's fine. But it kind of defeats the purpose of having this discussion <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> For the purposes of the thread, shield bonuses need to be more expensive than armor bonuses. (or vice versa, but not really) Hopefully you see what I mean.</blockquote>

Verification