Consequences of Making Weapons and Armor Cheaper

[NerdHut]

Particularly when people get into the power disparity between Martials and Casters, I've seen (and experienced) a lot of frustration with the price of magic weapons and armor in D&D 3.5 (and by extension, Pathfinder). The logic goes that the equipment is poorly priced, and results in further gimping martial options beyond their already precarious position within the game. It's not impossible to play this way, but I agree that it could be better.

I haven't seen much more than complaints, though, so I came up with a couple potential homebrews to alleviate the situation. But I want to run them past the playground to vet the ideas before I even consider putting either option into my games.

So go wild(ish), and please point out anything potentially game breaking that would come from such a change.


Option 1
This one I've seen before, and it's the simpler one. Cut the gold price of anything that uses an enhancement bonus in half. A +1 Flaming Burst weapon is a +3 equivalent, and so adds 18,000gp to the price of a masterwork weapon. In this variant, it would only add 9,000gp. Sizing does not modify the total/effective enhancement bonus, so it keeps its price tag of 6,000gp.

I've also seen versions suggesting other fractions of the default price, but half is most common.


Option 2
This option is more complicated, but I personally like it better.

First, split the Enhancement Bonuses and Special Qualities into their own sides. Calculate them separately.

Second, the Special Qualities' effective enchancement bonus cannot exceed the straight Enhancement Bonus. So The +1 Flaming Burst weapon above would not be a legal option. You'd need to bump it up to a +2, or remove the burst.

For example, a +2 weapon would be identical to one found in the standard rules. A +2 Flaming Burst weapon would be calculated differently. The +2 costs 8,000gp, and the Flaming Burst quality, being +2 equivalent, costs the same. You would add them together for a total price of 16,000gp, instead of the normal 32,000gp. If it was a +2 Flaming weapon, the +2 would be the same, but Flaming only costs +1, so it only adds 2,000gp (for a total of 10,000gp).

You still can't have anything higher than +5 on either side, as in the default rules.

To help visualize this option, I'll include a table for weapons in the Spoiler.


Enhancement bonuses across the side, Special Qualities across the top. Note that the Special Qualities cannot exceed the value of the enhancement bonus.



+0
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5


+0
0
-
-
-
-
-


+1
2
4
-
-
-
-


+2
8
10
16
-
-
-


+3
18
20
26
36
-
-


+4
32
34
40
50
64
-


+5
50
52
58
68
82
100




So that's what I've got right now. Have at it, and let me know if I'm an idiot, but please use kinder words than idiot.

[Khedrac]

It's an interesting idea, and certainly worthy of further consideration, but my gut feel is that it is going to hurt martials more than casters...

It's a good point that weapon enchantments are too expensive, especially as they are must-haves for martials and only moderately useful for casters, but your proposed system adds a cost you may not have noticed.

At low-medium levels you are making magic weapons cheaper (the example flaming burst sword goes from 18,000 to 16,000) but at higher levels I think you will find the cost of the extra + enhancment required offsets the difference.
Consider a +1 holy ghost touch weapon (the basic choice for fighting undead) - currently +4 eqv = 32,000gp
Proposed is a +3/ghost touch holy (+3) which = 18k + 18k = 36,000gp - now more expensive.

The weapon will do more damage (+3 v. +1) but with the old weapon the martial will usually find that one of the casters will drop a greater magic weapon on it (so quite possibly it is now +4 not +3) - under the new system, not only is there no justification for the gmw, but the caster can use the spell slot on something other than a party boost - thus increasing the disparity!

[NerdHut]

Consider a +1 holy ghost touch weapon (the basic choice for fighting undead) - currently +4 eqv = 32,000gp
Proposed is a +3/ghost touch holy (+3) which = 18k + 18k = 36,000gp - now more expensive.

Solid point. Part of what I had in mind with this option was to make sure I don't make things TOO cheap, and this particular example is an unexpected consequence.

If we lifted the restriction to make a +1 ghost touch holy weapon an option again, but kept the new method of calculation, we'd end up with a +1/ghost touch holy (+3), for 2k + 18k = 20,000gp. That would bring the price back down, without being as cheap as the straight half-price option.

Part of my restriction of what special qualities you can add is tied to my own feeling that low enhancement bonuses with lots of special qualities makes for a weird weapon (or set of armor). So that may be affecting my priorities.

[noob]

Solid point. Part of what I had in mind with this option was to make sure I don't make things TOO cheap, and this particular example is an unexpected consequence.

If we lifted the restriction to make a +1 ghost touch holy weapon an option again, but kept the new method of calculation, we'd end up with a +1/ghost touch holy (+3), for 2k + 18k = 20,000gp. That would bring the price back down, without being as cheap as the straight half-price option.

Part of my restriction of what special qualities you can add is tied to my own feeling that low enhancement bonuses with lots of special qualities makes for a weird weapon (or set of armor). So that may be affecting my priorities.

It does not makes a weird weapon or armor.
Imagine a wizard wanting to make a set of armor that protects against the energy of death.
The enchantment for doing that is hard to weave with the armor enchantment against physical harm because the energy of death is not physical and thus the two defenses does not combine well.
So the wizard skimps on the physical protection part to make weaving the two enchantments easier.(which is why there is so many deathward armors that are +1)
Generally making weapons that are +1 ghost touch holy weapons corresponds to weapons that are anathema to evil spirits so it could just be some story about the weapon being more sacred than enchanted and of the holy power in it not wanting to help against creatures other than evil creatures.

[Blue Jay]

Solid point. Part of what I had in mind with this option was to make sure I don't make things TOO cheap, and this particular example is an unexpected consequence.

If we lifted the restriction to make a +1 ghost touch holy weapon an option again, but kept the new method of calculation, we'd end up with a +1/ghost touch holy (+3), for 2k + 18k = 20,000gp. That would bring the price back down, without being as cheap as the straight half-price option.

Part of my restriction of what special qualities you can add is tied to my own feeling that low enhancement bonuses with lots of special qualities makes for a weird weapon (or set of armor). So that may be affecting my priorities.

If you like the enhancement bonuses and special properties being equal, you could just make it so you don't pay for enhancement bonuses separately: instead, you get an enhancement bonus automatically when you buy a special property. So, 2000 gp gets you a +1 equivalent property and a +1 enhancement bonus to go along with it. And 8000 gp gets you a +2 equivalent property (or two +1 equivalents) and a +2 enhancement bonus. You'd get a +5 weapon with +5 in special properties for 50,000 gp. If that's too cheap, you could just set a limit for "free" enhancement bonuses, like only the first +3 equivalent in properties grant "free" enhancement bonuses, and you have to pay for the rest of the bonuses and properties separately after that. Then your +5 weapon with +5 in special properties would cost the equivalent of a +7 weapon on the standard cost table (98,000 gp).

Some of the consequences are that you make the "bigger" properties (brilliant energy, dancing, vorpal, etc) affordable before 10th level. You couldn't stack as many properties on a single weapon as players often like to do, but you can have multiple powerful weapons by the mid-levels. Also, since weapon crystals key off enhancement bonus and not special properties, you can accommodate those a little easier this way.

-----

I proposed a hypothetical cost-reduction system at another forum, and the feedback I got was that making weapons cheaper for everyone may not decrease caster supremacy, because you'll also make high-powered weapons more affordable for casters, so it might actually make it easier for a caster to hold the front line without a mundane melee partner.

[ericgrau]

You need to make all their gear cheaper not just their weapons and armor. Until about level 10-12 it's better to use other items and not have much of a weapon.

With option 1 you get a weapon a little earlier when it's cheaper, but all that's just a little more damage. In lower optimization martials do plenty of damage and it's a minor effect. In higher optimization you have uberchargers and it has almost no effect. If you make armor half price it will also be easy to be nigh-unhittable by mundane attacks, yet still open to other attacks. So you break certain games while having less impact on other games. The DM then needs to send either trivial foes that attack AC or foes that completely bypass the martial's main defense. AC would also be more affordable to non-martials, making them hard to hit with physical attacks even if they're not quite invincible to them.

Option 2 makes weapons more expensive as shown. Since most of the time you don't want or need a lot of enhancement bonus. It does make it cheaper to get armor special abilities though, and keeps AC from getting out of hand unlike option 1. Any attempt to discount it makes it more like option 1. Though hopefully you wouldn't also discount the AC enhancement side. That'd at least be a small damage improvement for low optimization, plus some minor armor enchantments. Without breaking AC.

The real answer is, as always, don't try to break the game and things will work fine. Like what 95-99% of people do anyway without being told. It's a little more difficult to see where to draw the line for those that know of the many tricks available online, but unless you're playing an online game chances are not every player does. And even then as long as everyone has roughly the same higher "normal" it's usually fine. If that is happening then there won't be much power difference between classes to begin with. Then if you still want to do something small and simple to encourage people to play non-casters more and have fun with them, then simply raise WBL. The non-casters will benefit a little more than the casters do, while also introducing more fun options. Because the non-casters get more magic while casters get more of what they already have. With limitless choices besides damage and AC.

[HouseRules]

Historically, why did the Romans do not have full plate armor? A full set of full plate armor could make at least 10 whole swords. The first thing we want is to make weapons cheaper than armor and not the other way around the way the game has it. Currently it is (bonus squared) * 2000 for weapons, and (bonus squared) * 1000 for armor. If we drop it down to (bonus squared) * 100 for weapons, then the game is more offense oriented.

However, Ancient Era style warfare shows that weapons are cheaper than armor, and that is how classes are separated. The armor a character could afford determines their wealth class.

You want to make the cost cheaper? Easy. Use the standard magic item rules of (Spell Level * Caster Level) trick.
+1 is (Level 1 Magic Weapon * Caster 1) * Multiplier
+1 is (Level 3 Greater Magic Weapon * Caster 3 (4 as a spell)) * Multiplier (if Crafting allows below minimum Caster Level).
+2 is (Level 3 Greater Magic Weapon * Caster 6 (8 as a spell)) * Multiplier
+3 is (Level 3 Greater Magic Weapon * Caster 9 (12 as a spell)) * Multiplier
+4 is (Level 3 Greater Magic Weapon * Caster 12 (16 as a spell)) * Multiplier
+5 is (Level 3 Greater Magic Weapon * Caster 15 (20 as a spell)) * Multiplier
Now that it is linear like all other magic items, the hard part is setting the correct Multiplier.

Edit:
Flaming Burst (Flame Blade) (Level 2 Fire Ball * Caster 3) * Multiplier, doing 4d6 Flame Blade damage
Flaming Burst (Fireball) (Level 3 Fire Ball * Caster 3) * Multiplier, doing 4d6 Fireball damage
Flaming Burst (Flame Strike) (Level 4 Flame Strike * Caster 3) * Multiplier, doing 4d6 Flame Strike damage

Shocking Burst (Call Lightning) (Level 3 Call Lightning * Caster 3) * Multiplier, doing 4d6 Call Lightning damage
Shocking Burst (Lightning Bolt) (Level 3 Lightning Bolt * Caster 3) * Multiplier, doing 4d6 Lightning Bolt damage

Icy Burst (Chill Metal) (Level 2 Chill Metal * Caster 3) * Multiplier, doing 4d6 Chill Metal damage
Icy Burst (Ice Storm) (Level 4 Ice Storm * Caster 3) * Multiplier, doing 4d6 Ice Storm damage


Crafting Rules Hurts the Martial Classes somewhat.
Magic Weapon Enhancement (3/4 caster level requirement instead of full caster level). Okay, this favors Martial Classes somewhat.
Keen Edge Weapons (caster level 10), to compare to magic weapons that is Round Up (4/3 * 10) = 14. The game designers believes that Keen Edge is balanced at 14 Caster Level, even though it is only a Level 3 Spell.

[Mike Miller]

You still can't have anything higher than +5 on either side, as in the default rules.

As per the srd: In addition to an enhancement bonus, weapons may have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses (except where specifically noted). A single weapon cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +10. A weapon with a special ability must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus.

Pre-epic you can't go above +5 enhancement bonus, but you can have over +5 in special abilities. For example, you can have a +1 keen speed vorpal longsword.

[HouseRules]

Pre-epic you can't go above +5 enhancement bonus, but you can have over +5 in special abilities. For example, you can have a +1 keen speed vorpal longsword.

Also, your enhancement bonus and special abilities cannot exceed +10 pre Epic.
+1 enhancement bonus +9 special abilities
+2 enhancement bonus +8 special abilities
+3 enhancement bonus +7 special abilities
+4 enhancement bonus +6 special abilities
+5 enhancement bonus +5 special abilities

Edit: If you want a game balance, then remove the limitation on enhancement bonus side, and scale it up higher. Instead of +1/(3 caster level (magic item)) increase it to a better rate such as +1/(2 caster level) or even +1/(1 caster level).

[Jowgen]

My tables all use a simple rule that being masterwork is sufficient for the addition of special abilities, doing away with the +1 requirement. Nothing else about the math/rules is changed.

This allows earlier access to enchanted gear and benefits the kinds of characters who rely on having multiple passive abilities strewn about their assorted weapons/armors/shields. I.e. martials who need this sorta gear to shore up weaknesses and access special abilities that casters don't have to worry about.

It works pretty well, mainly in letting the non-casters feel more worthwhile by virtue of their toys.

[NerdHut]

Okay, the impression I'm getting is that (even though I like the concept) this doesn't do much to actually fix anything.

I see some of you have your own fixes, and I can see some of their strengths. I'll continue to look for options that might help, and which will work for my table.

[CactusAir]

My tables all use a simple rule that being masterwork is sufficient for the addition of special abilities, doing away with the +1 requirement. Nothing else about the math/rules is changed.

This allows earlier access to enchanted gear and benefits the kinds of characters who rely on having multiple passive abilities strewn about their assorted weapons/armors/shields. I.e. martials who need this sorta gear to shore up weaknesses and access special abilities that casters don't have to worry about.

It works pretty well, mainly in letting the non-casters feel more worthwhile by virtue of their toys.

and if you need pluses, GMW.

I approve of this design.