Magic Weapon Pricing Question

[Gromm]

The cost of such a weapon would be so insanely high that it would be balanced, so I don't see it being an issue, unless your players have several hundred thousand gold and years of downtime.

 

[kreynolds]

The cost of such a weapon

Which kind? The kind that simply add the price of +6 to strength or the kind that would supposedly use pluses?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

No, I am talking about the possibility of having a weapon with 10 plusses (the max allowed) plus having other properties tagged on as well.

Yes, it would be expensive. But, if the prices of the "plusses" and the "wondrous item" type cost are simply added together, it could get really, really powerful at much less of a cost than if the additional properties were priced out as "plusses."

That's all I meant.

Possibly.

It is not going to be a problem if you model the "wondrous item" style enhancements as slotless in costs, as kreynolds did above.

The real problem is that weapons and armor with unusual abilities & combinations are often rather expensive compared to similar Wondrous Items, even after taking into account slotless modifiers to build the combinations.

I prefer to see interesting themed weapons & armor at a reasonable price for the power of the item, rather than slavishly insisting that we must follow a geometric progression.

Besides, the DMG already breaks its own guidelines on weapons. The price of an intelligent weapon is pretty weakly tied to the actual power of the extra abilities.

 

[Nail]

Besides, the DMG already breaks its own guidelines on weapons. The price of an intelligent weapon is pretty weakly tied to the actual power of the extra abilities.

I played with equations for generating these costs (cost for intelligent weapons) awhile back. Keep in mind the penalties for weilding a weapon of a differing alignment, and the potential problems associated with Ego. (Preview: Fighter's Will saves suck = dominated fighter.)

It works out that these requirements (alignment and Ego) must decrease the cost, somewhere between 40 and 60%. So actually, the costs for intelligent weapons does make sense.

 

[Kilroy]

That doesn't always work though. A +6 to strength bonus, if slapped onto a weapon would add 72,000gp. If slapped onto a pair of gloves, it would be 36,000gp.

This is pretty absurd, if you think about it.

If it's on the weapon, it's only usable with the weapon. If it's on a belt, it's usable all the time. Why would a DM charge more for something that does less? (And the first person who makes a "but this way if they're de-belted but still armed they get the bonus" type comment gets prestidigitated purple.)

If the item is created as a "6 str unslotted wonderous device" then the extra cost is worthwhile, because it frees up a belt slot, but the weapon doesn't need to be wielded to get the str bonus, just carried.

If the item only gives the + while wielded, count it as a the gloves would be.

 

[kreynolds]

This is pretty absurd, if you think about it.

I've made a boat load of magic items over the last couple of years, so believe me when I tell you that it's not absurb at all. I'll try to explain why, but I didn't sleep well last night so I'll do my best.

If it's on the weapon, it's only usable with the weapon. If it's on a belt, it's usable all the time. Why would a DM charge more for something that does less?

This is generally true, but not always. Not all abilities of a weapon are only available while they are being wielded, and it doesn't even state that in the DMG. Most of them, however, do only function while wielded, while other abilities just make sense to be available all the time.

For example, you might say that a weapon that grants a bonus to initiative does not have to be carried in hand in order to gain the bonus, it just needs to be carried on your person. It makes sense too. What is a bonus to initiative after all? It's your ability to better react to any given situation with greater speed than normal.

You have to use your best judgement when designed a magic weapon. Make up a list of all of the abilities of the weapon and go down that list one by one, making your decisions as to whether or not that ability requires the weapon to be carried in hand. Just make sure that your decision makes sense.

For example, if I made a weapon that granted a deflection bonus to AC, I would design it function only while being carried in hand, and the description of the weapon would probably have something like this in it, "This weapon seems to guide your hand in combat, helping you deflect the blows of your enemies."

If the item is created as a "6 str unslotted wonderous device" then the extra cost is worthwhile, because it frees up a belt slot, but the weapon doesn't need to be wielded to get the str bonus, just carried.

It depends on the enhancement. Some shouldn't function that way, as it wouldn't make any sense. For instance, if a weapon granted spell resistance, it wouldn't kill the game if it worked simply while carried on your person instead of having to be carried in hand. It just depends on the ability.

If the item only gives the + while wielded, count it as a the gloves would be.

A weapon is a slot-less item, for the reasons I gave above. Not all of the abilities of a weapon should require it to be carried in hand. It would be a mistake to assume so, as it would also be a mistake to 100% adhere to the magic item pricing guidelines, as the results of those formula's don't always work.

However, there are really only three types of magic items. Slotted, slottless, and those that don't fit into either category, such as wands. Weapons are always slotless, and anything you place upon a weapon is doubled because of that. Slotless items are always more valuable than slotted ones, and weapons shouldn't be the exception to the rule, so I suggest that you always consider the weapon a slotless item, no matter what you're placing on it.

But like I said, the thing that balances out the cost is that some abilities shouldn't require that the weapon be carried in hand, like a spell resistance bonus. Others, however, should require that they be carried in hand, such as a deflection bonus to AC.

For the record, I would also require that the weapon be carried in hand for you to receive the Strength bonus.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

This is pretty absurd, if you think about it.

If it's on the weapon, it's only usable with the weapon. If it's on a belt, it's usable all the time. Why would a DM charge more for something that does less? (And the first person who makes a "but this way if they're de-belted but still armed they get the bonus" type comment gets prestidigitated purple.)

Minor point: A combat related ability that is only usable while using the sword is in fact just as good as slotless most of the time. Strength is the perfect example.

Slotted items take a slot. Once you get to ~10th or 11th level or so, you could easily have a minor item filling every slot. The hidden cost of every poweful slotted item is the useful 1000-3000 gp item that you could have had instead.

Some characters will befriend a weaponsmith and put all their expendable cash into their weapon. It is hardly an unusual strategy for those Focused, Specialized, Improved Crit sword wielding combat monsters. Throwing a useful ability onto that sword makes sense because you expect to never lose the sword while you may consider your other equipment expendable.

 

[Nail]

<snip>....For example, you might say that a weapon that grants a bonus to initiative does not have to be carried in hand in order to gain the bonus, it just needs to be carried on your person.

<snip>

A weapon is a slot-less item, for the reasons I gave above. Not all of the abilities of a weapon should require it to be carried in hand. It would be a mistake to assume so....<snip>

krey is a great rule-monger, but I disagreed with him here. Although weapons are not listed in the "slotted" list in the DMG, the notes to that list indicate that it is not complete; that is, there could be other items listed. I think a weapon could be plausibly argued to be on the "slotted" list. (This is clearly an "IMC" call.)

To be on the slotted list, an item must be usable only if worn/carried in a unique position. (I'm arm-waving a bit here, but bear with me.) The intension, I'm sure, is to distinguish cost between Gloves of Dexterity and a "Pearl of Dexerity". The pearl could be carried anywhere to be effective, whereas the gloves are only effective when worn on the hands. The aforementioned pearl should cost more as it's more valuable.

In other words, with limitations come lower cost.

So a weapon would be a slotted magic item if its powers were only effective when drawn and held. If you think about it, wands and staves also fall into this category; they must be held to be effective. Thus their lower cost. They are effectively slotted items.

In fact, all magic items that are not wondrous items can be concidered "slotted". Being able to be "slottless" is really a hidden power of the Craft Wondrous Items feat. All other items must be slotted; the creator has no choice: potions, scrolls, rings, rods, etc. If you start thinking about it this way, the mechanisms behind the pricing scheme become transparent. ....

I'll stop there, before I confuse ye, ye soup-brained kobold-kin!

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Nail,

Sure.

If you really want to make a Sword of Strength with no plusses to hit or damage I suppose that would be a fair at a slotted item cost.

If you want that sword to have even a tiny +1 enhancement you need to figure out some way to add the costs together. There is more than one way to look at it. kreynolds answer is a pretty solid starting point IMO.

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

Ridley's Cohort:

Minor point: A combat related ability that is only usable while using the sword is in fact just as good as slotless most of the time. Strength is the perfect example.

But all abilities are combat abilities. Str helps just about everyone, Dex helps just about everyone, Con helps everyone, Wis helps monks and divine spellcasters, Int helps the Rogue and the Wizard, and Cha helps the Rogue and spontaneous casters.

A better question is whether or not there would be situations where the character would need both his hands free and the Str bonus. The answer, of course, is that he would. Imagine if you will that the fighter is forced to swim while in full armor. The check penalty for this is gonna kill him... literally. He really needs the extra bonus from the sword, but if he holds on to it, his DM is going to (probably) give him extra penalties to the check that more than make up for the extra Str.

In short, the benefit of not taking up a wearable item space is counteracted by not always being active. If the benefit is always active, then the effect should have the 2* cost multiplier, but if it's only active while wielded, it should occupy a virtual item slot.