Why is magic item pricing exponential instead of linear?

[Quasqueton]

Since most rules make balance sense in D&D (3+), there must be a reason why magic items have exponential costs rather than linear. I'm trying to see the balance and reasoning behind this.

Can someone explain to me why:

A +4 stat boosting item costs as much as four +2 stat boosting items? I could get a +2 intelligence, +2 dexterity, +2 charisma, and +2 wisdom for the same cost. Why is this?

A +2 weapon costs as much as four +1 weapons?

A +3 weapon costs as much as nine +1 weapons? NINE! In 3.0, damage reduction played a part in this price increase, but in 3.5 a magic weapon is a magic weapon -- enhancement bonus doesn't matter to DR.

This goes against all sense to me, but I suspect (hope) there is some strong reasoning to this that I just don't get. Help me please.

Quasqueton

 

[Wippit Guud]

For the same reason it's faster to go from 0-60mph than it is to go from 60-120mph. Adding to something that's empy takes less effort than increasing to a highter level of magic from an existing level.

 

[Darklone]

Everything in D&D is rather exponential than linear... players win in every regard, not just only hitpoints or only BAB or only saves or only... Good example: Spellcasters get more spells of more levels

 

[orangefruitbat]

Well, in practical terms, it limits the availability of the more powerful items, forcing characters to adventure for the big stuff, and to only have one or two really powerful items and lots of little ones. Also, when they kill things and take their stuff, they can be rewarded with magic items without the DM worrying that they'll trade in their bracers of defense +2 for a vorpal sword.

But such princing schemes are not reserved to fantasy worlds. Look at real-world examples, a chevy cavalier and a Ferari Enzo. While the Ferari is significantly faster than the cavalier, it is not 10x as fast. Yet the price differential is more than that. Look at it like one is a car+1 and the other is a car+5.

 

[Flyspeck23]

A +4 stat boosting item costs as much as four +2 stat boosting items? I could get a +2 intelligence, +2 dexterity, +2 charisma, and +2 wisdom for the same cost. Why is this?

The first (+4) takes up one item slot, while the latter (+2, +2, +2, +2) take up four.
Additionally it's waaay better to enhance your most important ability then to spread the boon.

A +3 weapon costs as much as nine +1 weapons? NINE! In 3.0, damage reduction played a part in this price increase, but in 3.5 a magic weapon is a magic weapon -- enhancement bonus doesn't matter to DR.

But a +3 weapon (this may include special abilities like flaming etc., which a +1 weapon just can't have) is better in every regard. A +3 to hit is a much greater boon than a +1 - and what would you want nine +1 weapons for?

Keep in mind how treasures are generated. If characters of lower levels (the time when there are some +1 and the occasional +2 weapons around) could just collect six +1 weapons, sell them for half the price, and switch straight to a +3 weapon is just plain wrong.
With exponential prices, they've got to find 18 +1 weapons (again, sold at half price) to be able to afford a single +3 weapon.

 

[MarauderX]

My explanation, though it may be campaign driven, is there are less higher level mages than there are lower level. As there are less higher level guys around to make stuff all day, there are less higher level items. Using a simple supply-demand curve, we see the price rising exponentially as every warrior regardless of level would choose a +2 sword over the standard issue +1. Bidding war ensues and the end result becomes the prices in 3.X.

That and look at the XP you are costing the maker. You have to give a wizard more cash to get him to do greater items that he doesn't even want and he has to spend the XP for it. If you were a starving wizard, sure, take the cash and subtract the XP. But if you aren't a starving wizard, why bother to help out a party of miscreants when it's only going to bring you that much further from leveling? Why not just make them a +1 whatever in less time and call it a day? And this isn't even taking into account the attention you would draw to yourself by sitting in a lab churning out magic items (hazard pay?).

 

[Rel]

My explanation, though it may be campaign driven, is there are less higher level mages than there are lower level. As there are less higher level guys around to make stuff all day, there are less higher level items. Using a simple supply-demand curve, we see the price rising exponentially as every warrior regardless of level would choose a +2 sword over the standard issue +1. Bidding war ensues and the end result becomes the prices in 3.X.

Bingo. There are simply fewer artificers high enough level to make +2 or +3 weapons than those capable of making +1 weapons. And, like anybody who reaches the upper eschelons of their profession, those guys charge more for their time and effort.

Where this theory falls apart is with Rings. I can't figure out why a wizard high enough level to take the Craft Ring feat would sell a ring of Feather Fall or Sustenance so cheaply.

 

[LordAO]

My explanation, though it may be campaign driven, is there are less higher level mages than there are lower level. As there are less higher level guys around to make stuff all day, there are less higher level items. Using a simple supply-demand curve, we see the price rising exponentially as every warrior regardless of level would choose a +2 sword over the standard issue +1.

That explanation makes sense from an economoic standpoint, but it is a theory with problems. For one thing, it actually costs a character 4 times as much gold, experience, and time to make a +4 stat boosting item as it does a +2 item. If supply and demand was the sole reason for the high value of these items, why is that the case?

In fact, it has nothing at all to do with supply and demand. Though such economic factors can influenece the market value of an item, the cost to create a magical item is simply not affected by such factors (nor should it be). It costs a Wizard in a worn torn land with a high demand for magical arms the exact same amount of gold and experience to make a +1 sword as it does another wizard in a land where such items are not needed or wanted by anyone. How much he may charge his customers to purchase the weapon, however, is a different matter entirely.

The reason for the scaling of cost makes perfect sense to me, not only from a game balance perspective, but also from considering the substantial increase in difficulty in trying to make something more powerful. As far as game balance is concerned, a +4 item will usually have a far greater impact than two +2 items. This is especially true of items that give a boost to the primary ability score of a spellcaster.

And making a +5 sword should understandably be much more difficult than making five +1 swords. If it weren't, +5 weapons wouldn't be so rare and special, now would they?

 

[tensen]

But a +3 weapon (this may include special abilities like flaming etc., which a +1 weapon just can't have) is better in every regard. A +3 to hit is a much greater boon than a +1 - and what would you want nine +1 weapons for?

nine +1 throwing daggers is better than a single +3 throwing dagger. But I guess that isn't exactly where you were going with it.

 

[Henry]

Mostly because scaling of character wealth is such that they don't want you to be able to afford that +3 weapon until higher level (around 12th or so). It would be possible I suppose to rework the entire wealth tables for equipment and supplies such that it was more linear, but that's not what they did. As such, it gives you the idea that you need to be 12th level or so to afford that +3 item.


You can explain it many ways (rarer and more dangerous components to make, etc) but the real reason is in balance of the magic items with respect to the level you SHOULD have them.