D&D 5E Rating magic items on a 1-10 scale

[aco175]

[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] You are right, if you overdo it with + on weaponry and armor, then you have to shift the bounded accuracy to make it work again, e.g. give the Mobs more hitpoints use more of them or increase their armorclass or attack bonus. Also that kind of equipment does inherently lower the caster classes damage output in relation. But to counter such a thing is still far more easy than to rewrite your complete campaign, because some gimmick teleported the party to another plane, which you have not had in mind at all to ever play some role in your campaign or even if you slightly considered it, you might not have prepared material for this scenario.

I have done away with traditional HP in some situations when the PCs have gotten to a high enough level. I had 10th level PCs fighting a mob of goblins which only have 7-10hp each. I just made them one-hit and dead from any of the PCs. Some of the tougher creatures I made 2-hit, or would place a red ring on them when they were not quite dead and needed only a bit more damage. It made things easy on me for large groups.

The +3 weapon did not make a difference much here, but certainly does against the BBEG. At 10th level though I was only getting ready to hand out the first +2 weapon, but all the PCs has +1 something or +0 with a cool thing like returning, or can cast a spell 1/rest.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not sure that rarity is the best indication of the true value of a given magic item.

Understatement of the year.

Instead of a scale from 1 to 10, I suggest a scale from 10 to ~100,000.

Let us furthermore call these points "pieces".

And why not make them available as rewards throughout the adventure. We could even make then out of gold: "gold pieces"

Then, when your rating is complete, an item rated at, say, 2000, could be purchased for 2000 such gold pieces.





Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

On topic:

5E is significantly different from d20, so anyone telling me "just use the gp values of that edition" has no idea what they're talking about.

In no partiuclar order, a number of guidelines:
* abilities like Darkvision or Fly are significantly more useful if EVERYBODY in the party has them, than if only one (or everyone but one) party member has them. This is why druid and shadow monk "pass without trace" abilities are so valuable
* items replicating high-level spells (6th level up) needs to have a steep premium to reflect the fact these spells come in very short supply in 5e
* In my campaigns I have never seen Fly in action. Probably because of the previos point - it simply is no good if only one party member has it. The spellcaster wants to do more actively himself; spending your Concentration slot on enabling the fighter to become the hero is a low priority
* consumables are NOT worth half as much as a permanent item. Come on, that's preposterous. I suggest 1/10th at a minimum.
* Potions that do away with Concentration are highly valuable. Obviously this goes for permanent items too. I am not kidding if I suggest that "no Concentration required" should be given a TEN TIMES multiplier
* plus bonuses to attacks are much less disruptive than plus bonuses to defense. A +3 Longsword won't break your game. A +3 Shield just might. I suggest you simply never hand out any AC bonuses that increase the maximum attainable, like ever.
* pricing every +1 AC bonus equally is a joke. +1 Leather armor is merely equal to non-magical studded leather after all, and should be priced accordingly. That is +1 could be worthless in some cases.

As written the difference between a +1 weapon and a +2 weapon is only +5% to hit and +1 damage. I have a hard time justifying any serious price multiplier for this reason alone (no matter your source, each plus multiplies the base price by somewhere between 4 and 10).

The idea that a +3 weapon is as valuable as a +5 weapon in 3E simply doesn't hold water. As soon as you have a magic weapon in 5E you're basically done. Besides, 5E is very generous with elemental damage cantrips. Few parties will be without SOME means of damaging a Troll, or Werewolf, even not counting the ability to cast Magic Weapon.

To create a meaningful price differentiator (i.e. to be able to justify the existing price range) we really need to make resistance to non-magical weapons a function of CR, like so:
CR 1-10: Resistance* to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage... remains as written
CR 11-15: ...becomes Resistance* to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage made with a +1 weapon or lower
CR 16-: ...becomes Resistance* to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage made with a +2 weapon or lower
*) and immunity

This way, it becomes possible to argue a +2 Longsword should cost 4000 or 10000 or whatever, and a +3 Longsword should cost 32000 or 50000 gp.


I could continue...

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=25643]ca[/MENTION]pZapp Very good Analysis especially on the difference between +1 and +2 weapons and the no concentration pots.With the + on armor you have to differ between two cases: The dex 10 fighter getting a +1 plate armor is not the Problem.The Problem is the rogue with 20 dex and an elven chain mail for 21 ac. I got a rogue in my campaign and i rule elven chain being ac 15+x with x=1 MinimumAnd he happened to get one of these. Luckily he has not maxed out dex yet but i either Need Magic or heavy hitters to get a hold on this one.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

On topic:

5E is significantly different from d20, so anyone telling me "just use the gp values of that edition" has no idea what they're talking about.

In no partiuclar order, a number of guidelines:
* abilities like Darkvision or Fly are significantly more useful if EVERYBODY in the party has them, than if only one (or everyone but one) party member has them. This is why druid and shadow monk "pass without trace" abilities are so valuable
* items replicating high-level spells (6th level up) needs to have a steep premium to reflect the fact these spells come in very short supply in 5e
* In my campaigns I have never seen Fly in action. Probably because of the previos point - it simply is no good if only one party member has it. The spellcaster wants to do more actively himself; spending your Concentration slot on enabling the fighter to become the hero is a low priority
* consumables are NOT worth half as much as a permanent item. Come on, that's preposterous. I suggest 1/10th at a minimum.
* Potions that do away with Concentration are highly valuable. Obviously this goes for permanent items too. I am not kidding if I suggest that "no Concentration required" should be given a TEN TIMES multiplier
* plus bonuses to attacks are much less disruptive than plus bonuses to defense. A +3 Longsword won't break your game. A +3 Shield just might. I suggest you simply never hand out any AC bonuses that increase the maximum attainable, like ever.
* pricing every +1 AC bonus equally is a joke. +1 Leather armor is merely equal to non-magical studded leather after all, and should be priced accordingly. That is +1 could be worthless in some cases.

As Zapp says, the value of a particular magic item (whether measured on a 1-10 scale or in GP) is going to vary a lot on party composition. Add into that differences in setting, DM style, and their current campaign, and you have even more variation.
Coming up with a consistent rating or value of actual utility that works for every party isn't really feasible.

As written the difference between a +1 weapon and a +2 weapon is only +5% to hit and +1 damage. I have a hard time justifying any serious price multiplier for this reason alone (no matter your source, each plus multiplies the base price by somewhere between 4 and 10).

The idea that a +3 weapon is as valuable as a +5 weapon in 3E simply doesn't hold water. As soon as you have a magic weapon in 5E you're basically done. Besides, 5E is very generous with elemental damage cantrips. Few parties will be without SOME means of damaging a Troll, or Werewolf, even not counting the ability to cast Magic Weapon.

To create a meaningful price differentiator (i.e. to be able to justify the existing price range) we really need to make resistance to non-magical weapons a function of CR, like so:
CR 1-10: Resistance* to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage... remains as written
CR 11-15: ...becomes Resistance* to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage made with a +1 weapon or lower
CR 16-: ...becomes Resistance* to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage made with a +2 weapon or lower
*) and immunity

This way, it becomes possible to argue a +2 Longsword should cost 4000 or 10000 or whatever, and a +3 Longsword should cost 32000 or 50000 gp.


I could continue...

The main value in a magical weapon is the face that it is magical. The additional plusses are less valuable than the ability to bypass resistance or immunity in the first place.
Thus a score based on the actual utility of a magic weapon might start at 6 for a +0 weapon, but +1, +2, and +3 weapons are only rated at 7, 8, and 9 respectively.
In GP terms of utility, a +0 magic weapon should be very expensive, with additional pluses not adding much to that price. This is a direct contrast to the existing 5e and 3.5e pricing where cost was proportional or even exponential to the pluses.
If you're taking rating or price as an indication of when such items should become available to a party, the utility of magic weapons would probably put them out of reach of most groups until high level, at which a +3 weapon isn't that much harder to get hold of than a +0.

 

[CapnZapp]

Coming up with a consistent rating or value of actual utility that works for every party isn't really feasible.

This is akin to saying "since we can't achieve absolute justice we might as well have total anarchy" or "let's kill them all and let gawd sort them out".

In other words, definitely not a good reason to keep the clusterfrack of a system that comes with 5E. Neither is it a good reason to not provide a version of the utility-based magic item creation and pricing system of d20 updated and improved for 5E.

The main value in a magical weapon is the face that it is magical. The additional plusses are less valuable than the ability to bypass resistance or immunity in the first place.

That's exactly what I said.

 

[CapnZapp]

pZapp Very good Analysis especially on the difference between +1 and +2 weapons and the no concentration pots.With the + on armor you have to differ between two cases: The dex 10 fighter getting a +1 plate armor is not the Problem.The Problem is the rogue with 20 dex and an elven chain mail for 21 ac. I got a rogue in my campaign and i rule elven chain being ac 15+x with x=1 MinimumAnd he happened to get one of these. Luckily he has not maxed out dex yet but i either Need Magic or heavy hitters to get a hold on this one.

Thanks.

As any decent game designer would know, to achieve balance you must look at the extremes.

In this case, any light armor should be priced with +5 Dex in mind.

This means that: not really, you don't need to differ between the two cases, because you'll price the armor for "best case scenario". If it's balanced for the minmaxer its balanced for everybody.

Do note that a +0 Dex character is assumed to simply choose something else to buy for her money (where she isn't at a disadvantage). There is no reason to "go soft" on that character, because if you can choose rationally, you will always pick an item where you're at or near the best case scenario.

All of this assumes competive play. If your players don't care about efficiency or balance, then you don't need to respond because none of this matter. Again, since accurate prices only matter for people that care, prices should be accurate.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

This is akin to saying "since we can't achieve absolute justice we might as well have total anarchy" or "let's kill them all and let gawd sort them out".

No, its akin to saying "absolute justice cannot be achieved". If you believe that that means it is pointless to try, fair enough, but its not something that I'm putting forward.

In other words, definitely not a good reason to keep the clusterfrack of a system that comes with 5E. Neither is it a good reason to not provide a version of the utility-based magic item creation and pricing system of d20 updated and improved for 5E.

Speaking of clusterfracks, are you referring to the 3.5 D&D system, or including 3.0 and Pathfinder in there as well?
I found that while there was more granularity, there were definitely prices in there that did not reflect actual utility. I'm guessing that you probably found the same. The issue of course being that the off-price items in there are likely to have some differences between your list and mine.

That's exactly what I said.

Indeed. I quoted the post that I was supporting.

 

[dinsdale]

Does anyone have thst link for thst wonderful pdf thst remade pricing based on utility?

It’s bascially exactly what the op wants, but even more exact

Is this what you were referring to?
Forum post: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?424243-Sane-Magic-Item-Prices
Document: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XAiXpOfz9cMWt1RTBicmpmUDg/view?usp=sharing

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Does anyone have thst link for thst wonderful pdf thst remade pricing based on utility?

It’s bascially exactly what the op wants, but even more exact

I'd love to see that.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using EN World mobile app

What, Sane Magical Prices?