Inconsistent pricing between DMG & MIC

[Greenfield]

Universal Energy Resistance is too pricy to be commonly used. But Rings of Fire Resistance are very common, as are Lightning, Cold and Acid. Sonic doesn't come into play that much, but it's still in the running.

As I said, multiple or "universal" resistance rings are far more rare, largely because of the price.

If the goal is to lower the price on this type of item so that they're more commonly used/available, the Power creep" factor has to be considered.

Normally a PC has to choose what type of resistance they want to send their money/ring slot on. (The slot is often more of an issue than the money). A slotless ring costs twice as much. Getting the second one added to an existing ring is actually cheaper than the second, slotted ring. The third one is even cheaper.

But even at "cheaper", PCs run into money woes. Even at a discount, it gets too expensive.

Selling the same item at a lower price, as the MIC does, is simply a way of saying "Here's more power that's within your budget".

Again I ask, how is that anything but power creep?

 

[Nezkrul]

what level can a pc just spend 180,000 gp on said ring? not power creep, simply giving people options they never had to help try to either a) balance the game a little, or b) because after multiple supplements the writers figured that the new items were necessary due to the "theory" of the CR system

 

[Greenfield]

Some call it "efficiency". Some say "It's just more options". You ask when someone can drop 180k for a ring.

The answer to your question is, "Several levels earlier than they could drop 300+k for the same ring".

So call it "efficient", call it "options", call it "earlier development", the bottom line is that a character of level X buying under the new guide will be more powerful than an equally funded character of the same level X who bought under the DMG system. And that was pretty much what the author of those articles said they wanted.

So mince words as you will, nit-pick particular cases if that makes you happy, but the hard fact is that more power at lower level/budget equals power creep.

 

[N'raac]

Some call it "efficiency". Some say "It's just more options". You ask when someone can drop 180k for a ring.

The answer to your question is, "Several levels earlier than they could drop 300+k for the same ring".

So call it "efficient", call it "options", call it "earlier development", the bottom line is that a character of level X buying under the new guide will be more powerful than an equally funded character of the same level X who bought under the DMG system. And that was pretty much what the author of those articles said they wanted.

So mince words as you will, nit-pick particular cases if that makes you happy, but the hard fact is that more power at lower level/budget equals power creep.

The other interpretation is that a player will choose this option, and would not before. In other words, it is a choice someone would take at the lowered price, but would never have selected at the old, higher cost. How much lower do we need to price a Helm of Underwater Action in order to persuade you to to select that for your headgear slot? If we raise the price of magical weapons to 50,000 gp for +1, and the same exponential growth we have now, would that change your decision on the priority of acquiriing a +1 sword?

 

[Greenfield]

So my 3rd level fighter never chose the option of +5 weapon and armor, but might now that the price gets dropped? Wow, why didn't I think of things like that?

That isn't power creep, it's just making PCs more powerful for their level. </sarcasm>

Okay, I admit, I laid it on kind of heavy. The delicate touch doesn't seem to be working.

Call it options, call it choices, call it a taxi, I don't care. More power at lower levels is power creep, no matter how you try to spin it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So my 3rd level fighter never chose the option of +5 weapon and armor, but might now that the price gets dropped? Wow, why didn't I think of things like that?

That isn't power creep, it's just making PCs more powerful for their level. </sarcasm>

Okay, I admit, I laid it on kind of heavy. The delicate touch doesn't seem to be working.

Call it options, call it choices, call it a taxi, I don't care. More power at lower levels is power creep, no matter how you try to spin it.

People buy +5 weapons and armor when they can afford it.

People don't buy most of the items because they're too expensive for the benefit other than in niche situations.

Things are properly balanced when you see PCs making a variety of choices. When they consistently make one choice either that option is too cheap or the alternatives are too expensive.

 

[Greenfield]

So Rings of Energy Resistance are too expensive? They needed to have the price cut, so PCs would buy them?

Sorry, but it's one of the more popular rings out there.

Now, will someone in my party buy a Helm of Underwater Action? (Leaving aside the fact that someone at my table actually did.) It depends on whether or not a given campaign has a lot of sea travel, or undersea activity.

If they want people to invest in things like that, how about some meaningful underwater adventuring rules? Good enough that someone actually wants to adventure there.

Nobody, and I mean nobody will buy an item like that unless they have some need, no matter what the price. It's supply and demand, and for that particular item there isn't much in the way of demand.

 

[billd91]

Nobody, and I mean nobody will buy an item like that unless they have some need, no matter what the price. It's supply and demand, and for that particular item there isn't much in the way of demand.

Arguably, that's a major problem with having a market for magic items in the game. Anything that isn't in constant (or at least really frequent) demand will be sold for something that is more consistently a factor in a PC's abilities. This can make it very hard for a GM to seed magic items in the game that will be useful for adventures down the line - by the time the helm of underwater action they got from the seashore smuggler's cave is useful for looting some important maguffin from a sunken wreck it has long been sold for a ring of protection or magic sword.

You don't even have to put significant pressure on the PCs to get them sell off less frequently useful oddball items for consistently useful. They'll do it simply because they have the opportunity.

 

[N'raac]

billd91 makes a good point. These determine seling price, not just purchase price.

Greenfield, if I give your Martial PC a choice between a Greater Ring of Universal Energy Resistance and a +5 weapon, +5 armor and a +5 shield (all three, not a choice between them), which will you choose? At present, those +5 everthings cost 100,000 gp, so at the ring's original cost, you have considerable cash left over if you sell it. At the revised price, you have to top up 10,000 gp. Is that ring really a bargain at 180,000 gp? It seems very overpriced at 308,000 when compared to these options, at least to me.
Why? I suspect because the formula pricing does not consider that we can switch between Resist Energy types whenever we change spells, but a ring of only one type will never help against another. Item prices fail to consider whether how situational their benefits are.

So, is the ring overpriced, or are magic weapons and armor underpriced? Perhaps that is the real question - maybe the "big 6" should have their prices raised until they are no longer the clear and obvious choices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why? I suspect because the formula pricing does not consider that we can switch between Resist Energy types whenever we change spells, but a ring of only one type will never help against another. Item prices fail to consider whether how situational their benefits are.

No, because the price is just what you get when you put the 5 rings together into a single item and people aren't saying the individual rings are overpriced.

What this actually reflects is that not all energy types are equal threats.