Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 8339577" data-attributes="member: 6932123">I had some meandering thoughts about weapon pricing, but the post was lost, so I'm going to just summarize instead.Armor: Looks reasonable, though the stuff in the 500 tier likely needs tweaking. Since a bunch of it is baseline armor which we don't have prices (I just pulled from the PHB), it's likely to have already been done. Each +1 to AC has a lifespan of a couple levels.Shield: Has a different scaling from armor, but I think it's workable. The [rare] +1 entry starts at half the price of armor (1000 vs 2000), the +2 is close to the next tier of armor (7000 vs 8000), and the +3 continues the x7 rate to push it to 49,000. Because of the way shield AC interacts with armor AC, but conflicts with high damage weapons, I think this scaling rate works. Each shield has a lifespan of 6-7 levels.Weapon: I don't like the scaling for weapons.  I starts as half the shield rate — 500 → 3500 vs 1000 → 7000, but only goes up to 8000 for the +3. That means the +2 only has value for a couple levels, severely diminishing its utility lifespan (compared to about 5 levels for the +1).There are a lot of weapons with specialized extra buffs (extra damage to dragons, undead, constructs, etc)  that are priced in that intermediate area between +2 and +3 weapons (mainly 5000-8000).  Of course most of them also require attunement, which should lower their costs because they're competing with other items for attunement slots.The specialized weapons are largely better than a +3 weapon in their specialization, but are weaker outside of that.  If all of these weapons were fully swappable, then the competition for gold would be somewhat reasonable. But since the +3 is better than those weapons outside their specializations, and it doesn't require attunement, then the scaling just feels wrong.I have varying ideas that it should be priced somewhere between 12,000 and 16,000 GP, but it depends on how the designers want these weapons to interact with the rest of the system.  For example, there's the focus on level 10 in the new leveling structure, and the designers may want the +3 to be acquirable by that level. (Wand of the War Mage, for example, also tops out at about the same price point.)Wand of the War Mage: These magic items are useful, but limited. Only a small portion of a magic user's spells will involve attack rolls, and these only boost to-hit, not damage (unlike weapons). As such, they seem to be priced to more rapidly reach the +3 tier for magic users. However, to smooth out the progression ladder, I'd suggest the +2 have its price reduced to 2000. That will make each +increment worth about 4 levels.While this makes this portion of a magic user's purchases cheaper, there are plenty of other wands competing for his gold as well (though usually requiring attunement, so not really as much as one might expect).ThoughtsIt seems like there's a trend to price "top-end" stuff such that it's something you can get by level 10 (~8000 GP), rather than scaling up into the late teens (aside from, say, +3 full plate plus a +3 shield). Given the focus that level has in the new system (with level 10 being a "Paragon" level in heritage), this makes a certain amount of sense, but it brings into question game balance vs monetary balance.On the other hand, is a +3 weapon truly that momentous a difference compared to a +2, especially if specialization features can be added (as was hinted at earlier)?  Is it OK to just allow it to show up at level 10?</blockquote>

Verification