D&D 5E (2014) Why is "Frost Brand" rarer than "Flame Tongue"?

[CapnZapp]

Here we are, in year three of 5th edition, and STILL no magic item pricing module! I can barely believe it... :-(

 

[GM Lent]

Here we are, in year three of 5th edition, and STILL no magic item pricing module! I can barely believe it... :-(

It's almost like they're sticking to their guns and don't plan to do one.

 

[Mercule]

Tradition! (Cue the Fiddler on the Roof)

In 1E, they had the following stats:

Sword +1, Flame Tongue, +2 vs. regenerating creatures, +3 vs. cold-using, inflammable*, or avian creatures, +4 vs. undead. Sheds light only when its possessor speaks a command word or phrase, and this flame illuminates the area as brightly as a torch. Note that the flame from this sword easily ignites oil, burns webs, or sets fire to paper, parchment, dry wood, etc. Cold-using creatures are those whose attack mode involves cold (ice toads, white dragons, winter wolves, yeti, etc.)

Sword +3, Frost Brand, +6 vs. fire-using/dwelling creatures. Bestows the +6 bonus in a self-explanatory manner. The weapon does not shed any light, except when the air temperature is below 0 F, but it does give special benefits against fire, for its wielder is protected as if he or she were wearing a ring of fire resistance and whenever it is thrust into fires it has a 50% change of extinguishing them in a 10' radius -- including a wall of fire but excluding a fireball, meteor swarm, or flame strike.

Clearly, the Frost Brand has lost a bit of power, over the years. It originally (I have no experience w/ OD&D) was as potent against cold-based critters as the Flame Tongue was (+3) and was significantly better against its target foes. Plus, it had the resistance bit and the ability to dispel some magical effects.

Even in 5E, it's somewhat more potent, if not much. The difference between the two could be that they're just on either side of the line, with the Flame Tongue being 4500 gpv and the Frost Brand 6000 gpv (or whatever you decide). Those broad price ranges are just categories. I wouldn't expect a Frost Brand to range anywhere from 5,000 to 50,000 gpv. Instead, I'd expect it to be categorized as rare because it's assigned/list price was relatively static, but happened to fall somewhere in that range.


* Note: Gygax used "inflammable" synonymous with "flammable".

 

[delericho]

Here we are, in year three of 5th edition, and STILL no magic item pricing module! I can barely believe it... :-(

Year three? The Starter set didn't release until July 2014, so by my count we're still at the tail end of year two.

 

[Oofta]

Rarer items are harder to produce and take more time. This doesn't necessarily mean the item is more powerful granted, but it is one possible interpretation.

I think that a frost brand is still more powerful, but the gab between the two seems to have been narrowed.

Actually it was probably more like people sitting at a conference room table going something like

Jim: "Ok, we've decided that you aren't going to just slap elemental damage types onto weapons any more. But we have to represent at least a couple of different elements"

Chris: "Well, flaming swords are pretty iconic..."

Jerry: "Don't forget we have to support Drizz't wannabes or there will be riots in the streets. We have to have a cold weapon that gives you resistance to fire."

Jim: "Ok, so we want them to have a different feel, and one does just damage and the other does damage and gives you resistance and damage."

Chris: "Yep. So if the fire one is rare..."

Jerry "Then Icing Death ... err ... Frost Brand has to be very rare."

Chris "Stop interrupting me! It's getting ..."

Jerry "Annoying? I know!"

A small riot breaks out as Chris and Jerry start a nerf-sword battle. The ruling stands.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Here we are, in year three of 5th edition, and STILL no magic item pricing module!

Here we are, coming up on year three of 5th edition, and I STILL haven't needed a magic item pricing module!

 

[Mercule]

???

Inflammable is synonymous with flammable.*

While I will be the first to gently mock High Gygaxian, there's nothing odd about the usage.

*Strangely, flammable is the more modern, and unnecessary, word. IMO.


(EDIT- I was just unclear on the purpose for your clarification? I would think that one of the few places that the whole "inflammable = flammable" thing would not need to be explained is on a D&D forum. Or, um, a shed containing nitroglycerin and napalm.)

Agreed. I'm familiar with the etymology, but my experience is that those who aren't tend to assume inflammable is antonymous to flammable. I've also seen it used (incorrectly) as an antonym to flammable. I figured the call-out was prudent. My wording may have been a bit overly lenient towards linguistic (d)evolution.

 

[Khisanth the Ancient]

The designers basically took a dump on the desire to have magic otem pricing make sense.

I think magic item economy is not supposed to be a thing in 5E.

 

[Oofta]

I think magic item economy is not supposed to be a thing in 5E.

It's also easy enough to add in if you want. There are guidelines for how much items could be sold for based on rarity. Just go through and make a price list if you want.

They wanted to get away from the magic-mart treadmill and make magic items a reward, not something you were expected to have as you leveled up.

Personally I can't be bothered to care what my players want*, so I came up with prices and let them shop for themselves (with my approval of course).

*I'm kidding. I need to know what players want so they can never, ever get it. Dang whiners.