Is item rarity really tied to how powerful it is?
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
Answers to questions like What should the rarity rating be for this homebrew Healing Brick? are usually based on comparison of effects of an item. On the other hand, there are questions like
The power level of the Sword of Sharpness doesn't justify its very rare rating - am I missing something?,
Handy Haversack vs. Bag of Holding and
Why is this uncommon magic item better than this rare magic item?
that make me doubt if rarity is really tied to power*.
Is there any rule or guideline that says more powerful items should have a higher rarity (or that rare items are more powerful than less rare items)? For example, if I have a legendary item can I say for sure that it is more powerful than items in the lower rarity tiers? Or can rarity also be indicative of other factors besides power?
I'm looking for general rule or guideline, or lack of it.
* If definition of item's power is needed, use the same definition that is applicable to the word on DMG p135.
dnd-5e magic-items
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
Answers to questions like What should the rarity rating be for this homebrew Healing Brick? are usually based on comparison of effects of an item. On the other hand, there are questions like
The power level of the Sword of Sharpness doesn't justify its very rare rating - am I missing something?,
Handy Haversack vs. Bag of Holding and
Why is this uncommon magic item better than this rare magic item?
that make me doubt if rarity is really tied to power*.
Is there any rule or guideline that says more powerful items should have a higher rarity (or that rare items are more powerful than less rare items)? For example, if I have a legendary item can I say for sure that it is more powerful than items in the lower rarity tiers? Or can rarity also be indicative of other factors besides power?
I'm looking for general rule or guideline, or lack of it.
* If definition of item's power is needed, use the same definition that is applicable to the word on DMG p135.
dnd-5e magic-items
4
<comments removed> We don’t need an operationalised definition of power to answer the question—this ain’t charop. If the asker’s problem is (in part) making an incorrect assumption, by all means correct it—in an answer.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:42
4
Sorry, that isn’t directed at you. It’s directed at the comments saying the question needed changing or closing. My comment is explaining why the comments weren’t useful and were removed.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:48
2
Oh ok. English is not my first language and I tend to miss things sometimes.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:51
1
@SevenSidedDie As I believe this question to have an XY problem, but do not have my two key reference books to hand, there either will or won't be an XY answer in a day or two. While I disagree with your point on the lack of a need for better scope - why is in part laid out here - I accept it for the usual good reasons of keeping things on track.
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:52
3
Related: How is the power of a magic item measured according to the rules?
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 20:08
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
up vote
28
down vote
favorite
Answers to questions like What should the rarity rating be for this homebrew Healing Brick? are usually based on comparison of effects of an item. On the other hand, there are questions like
The power level of the Sword of Sharpness doesn't justify its very rare rating - am I missing something?,
Handy Haversack vs. Bag of Holding and
Why is this uncommon magic item better than this rare magic item?
that make me doubt if rarity is really tied to power*.
Is there any rule or guideline that says more powerful items should have a higher rarity (or that rare items are more powerful than less rare items)? For example, if I have a legendary item can I say for sure that it is more powerful than items in the lower rarity tiers? Or can rarity also be indicative of other factors besides power?
I'm looking for general rule or guideline, or lack of it.
* If definition of item's power is needed, use the same definition that is applicable to the word on DMG p135.
dnd-5e magic-items
Answers to questions like What should the rarity rating be for this homebrew Healing Brick? are usually based on comparison of effects of an item. On the other hand, there are questions like
The power level of the Sword of Sharpness doesn't justify its very rare rating - am I missing something?,
Handy Haversack vs. Bag of Holding and
Why is this uncommon magic item better than this rare magic item?
that make me doubt if rarity is really tied to power*.
Is there any rule or guideline that says more powerful items should have a higher rarity (or that rare items are more powerful than less rare items)? For example, if I have a legendary item can I say for sure that it is more powerful than items in the lower rarity tiers? Or can rarity also be indicative of other factors besides power?
I'm looking for general rule or guideline, or lack of it.
* If definition of item's power is needed, use the same definition that is applicable to the word on DMG p135.
dnd-5e magic-items
dnd-5e magic-items
edited Nov 30 at 15:13
Rubiksmoose
45k6224344
45k6224344
asked Nov 30 at 12:48
Mołot
5,38012960
5,38012960
4
<comments removed> We don’t need an operationalised definition of power to answer the question—this ain’t charop. If the asker’s problem is (in part) making an incorrect assumption, by all means correct it—in an answer.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:42
4
Sorry, that isn’t directed at you. It’s directed at the comments saying the question needed changing or closing. My comment is explaining why the comments weren’t useful and were removed.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:48
2
Oh ok. English is not my first language and I tend to miss things sometimes.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:51
1
@SevenSidedDie As I believe this question to have an XY problem, but do not have my two key reference books to hand, there either will or won't be an XY answer in a day or two. While I disagree with your point on the lack of a need for better scope - why is in part laid out here - I accept it for the usual good reasons of keeping things on track.
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:52
3
Related: How is the power of a magic item measured according to the rules?
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 20:08
|
show 1 more comment
4
<comments removed> We don’t need an operationalised definition of power to answer the question—this ain’t charop. If the asker’s problem is (in part) making an incorrect assumption, by all means correct it—in an answer.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:42
4
Sorry, that isn’t directed at you. It’s directed at the comments saying the question needed changing or closing. My comment is explaining why the comments weren’t useful and were removed.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:48
2
Oh ok. English is not my first language and I tend to miss things sometimes.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:51
1
@SevenSidedDie As I believe this question to have an XY problem, but do not have my two key reference books to hand, there either will or won't be an XY answer in a day or two. While I disagree with your point on the lack of a need for better scope - why is in part laid out here - I accept it for the usual good reasons of keeping things on track.
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:52
3
Related: How is the power of a magic item measured according to the rules?
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 20:08
4
4
<comments removed> We don’t need an operationalised definition of power to answer the question—this ain’t charop. If the asker’s problem is (in part) making an incorrect assumption, by all means correct it—in an answer.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:42
<comments removed> We don’t need an operationalised definition of power to answer the question—this ain’t charop. If the asker’s problem is (in part) making an incorrect assumption, by all means correct it—in an answer.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:42
4
4
Sorry, that isn’t directed at you. It’s directed at the comments saying the question needed changing or closing. My comment is explaining why the comments weren’t useful and were removed.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:48
Sorry, that isn’t directed at you. It’s directed at the comments saying the question needed changing or closing. My comment is explaining why the comments weren’t useful and were removed.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:48
2
2
Oh ok. English is not my first language and I tend to miss things sometimes.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:51
Oh ok. English is not my first language and I tend to miss things sometimes.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:51
1
1
@SevenSidedDie As I believe this question to have an XY problem, but do not have my two key reference books to hand, there either will or won't be an XY answer in a day or two. While I disagree with your point on the lack of a need for better scope - why is in part laid out here - I accept it for the usual good reasons of keeping things on track.
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:52
@SevenSidedDie As I believe this question to have an XY problem, but do not have my two key reference books to hand, there either will or won't be an XY answer in a day or two. While I disagree with your point on the lack of a need for better scope - why is in part laid out here - I accept it for the usual good reasons of keeping things on track.
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:52
3
3
Related: How is the power of a magic item measured according to the rules?
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 20:08
Related: How is the power of a magic item measured according to the rules?
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 20:08
|
show 1 more comment
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
43
down vote
There is a rule but it is very loose
The DMG says (p135) (emphasis mine):
Rarity provides a rough measure of an item's power relative to other magic items.
The emphasis is on rough here as the designers are not applying this as consistently as you would expect. Examples of this are in András' answer and nitsua60's answer and the cases as mentioned in the question
I normally play a lot in the Ebberon setting where the rarity of magic items is a bit different anyway. Therefor I spitball rarity and price a bit by looking at similar items but heavily modify it by distance to large manufacturing centers and such.
5
-1 for being nothing but a quote with no logic presented. This isn't a rules question, so defaulting to the text isn't automatically accurate. To put it another way... just because the book makes an assertion, that doesn't make it true.
– T.J.L.
Nov 30 at 13:50
@T.J.L. this is a "weakly" rule question. That is, I was asking for a rule, but it is hard to treat it as a real rule when even designers do not follow it
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 13:52
1
-1 Because no evidence is given to justify the claim.
– Bloodcinder
Nov 30 at 14:04
3
@T.J.L. it is not normally my style but the question asked was what the general rule was. No request for explanation or consideration. So in my opinion keeping it to a rule location & quote was the clearest anwser
– Dinomaster
Nov 30 at 14:04
1
This answer needs a lot more support. According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better if you are saying that the designers aren't following their own guidelines.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:41
add a comment |
up vote
31
down vote
Rarity and usefulness/power are very weakly correlated, in my experience.
This has been discussed elsewhere (reddit, GitP, ENWorld), primarily when 5e was first released. I'll point you to my favorite resource, the Sane Magical Prices Index by GitP user Saidoro: I've used it for years in order to gate items in campaigns and have been very happy.
First Saidoro establishes that item rarities are obviously bunk in plenty of cases: compare (for yourself) the broom of flying/winged boots to the wings of flying or boots of levitation. We see there functionally-equivalent or even weaker items "rated" two tiers above comparands.
After dividing the items into comparable classes (consumables, combat items, utility items) Saidoro and other posters spent months discussing/debating the utility/power of each and set a scale, in gp, for almost every magical item in the DMG. Follow the threads both on GitP and on reddit/ENworld (linked in Saidoro's .pdf) if you'd like to see more of the reasoning that goes into each ranking/valuation.
The long and the short of it is that while one might argue with some of the valuations, there's no question that this list, compiled by many actual players and much more finely-graduated than the rarity tiers, is a better guide to power than is rarity.
So I threw all the prices and rarities into my statistics software and ran a regression with rarity as the explanatory variable: the R2 value is ~0.0236. That tells us roughly 2% of the power/utility of each item--as judged by users and tabulated by Saidoro--is attributable to the item's rarity.
3
Amazing how much work you all put into this. And I really like using regression and calculating correlation. Numbers continue to be best system... :D
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:02
1
@Mołot not too much work--don't worry. I already have all the magic items and their price from the index in a spreadsheet--I use it all the time when starting up campaigns or adventures. Just had to import into JMP and ten seconds later it was there!
– nitsua60♦
Nov 30 at 15:34
Now I'm even more amazed.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:35
1
@nitsua60 I already love this answer, though the XGtE take on magic items and rarity table, and distribution might be related or a useful reference. (Not everyone is as enamored of the "sane item prices" ... though I find it a nice supplement to ponder)
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:48
1
Okay, now that it's clear what you mean, that's not quite accurate. It's 2% of the variation in power is attributed to what can be explained by rarity, not 2% of the power itself.
– Glen_b
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Not really
Beside your examples, a Flame Tongue (rare), is much better than a Frost Brand (very rare)1, and a Ring of Invisibility (legendary) does not even deserve very rare in my opinon.
Rarity is very inconsistent.
1) Frost Brand provides 1d6 extra damage, while Flame Tongue provides 2d6. Both require attunement, and while Frost Brand provides a very nice fire resistance, your offensive items should improve your offense.
2) Turning invisible at will is great, but it takes your action, making your DPR go down in combat.
2
@András What makes a Flame Tongue better than a Frost Brand? And why should a Ring of Invisibility not deserve 'very rare' status? These are very specific claims with nothing in the answer to back them up.
– TylerH
Nov 30 at 16:33
3
According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better. And you need to explain what you are actually using these examples to say. We cannot vote on what you don't put into your answer.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:34
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
43
down vote
There is a rule but it is very loose
The DMG says (p135) (emphasis mine):
Rarity provides a rough measure of an item's power relative to other magic items.
The emphasis is on rough here as the designers are not applying this as consistently as you would expect. Examples of this are in András' answer and nitsua60's answer and the cases as mentioned in the question
I normally play a lot in the Ebberon setting where the rarity of magic items is a bit different anyway. Therefor I spitball rarity and price a bit by looking at similar items but heavily modify it by distance to large manufacturing centers and such.
5
-1 for being nothing but a quote with no logic presented. This isn't a rules question, so defaulting to the text isn't automatically accurate. To put it another way... just because the book makes an assertion, that doesn't make it true.
– T.J.L.
Nov 30 at 13:50
@T.J.L. this is a "weakly" rule question. That is, I was asking for a rule, but it is hard to treat it as a real rule when even designers do not follow it
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 13:52
1
-1 Because no evidence is given to justify the claim.
– Bloodcinder
Nov 30 at 14:04
3
@T.J.L. it is not normally my style but the question asked was what the general rule was. No request for explanation or consideration. So in my opinion keeping it to a rule location & quote was the clearest anwser
– Dinomaster
Nov 30 at 14:04
1
This answer needs a lot more support. According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better if you are saying that the designers aren't following their own guidelines.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:41
add a comment |
up vote
43
down vote
There is a rule but it is very loose
The DMG says (p135) (emphasis mine):
Rarity provides a rough measure of an item's power relative to other magic items.
The emphasis is on rough here as the designers are not applying this as consistently as you would expect. Examples of this are in András' answer and nitsua60's answer and the cases as mentioned in the question
I normally play a lot in the Ebberon setting where the rarity of magic items is a bit different anyway. Therefor I spitball rarity and price a bit by looking at similar items but heavily modify it by distance to large manufacturing centers and such.
5
-1 for being nothing but a quote with no logic presented. This isn't a rules question, so defaulting to the text isn't automatically accurate. To put it another way... just because the book makes an assertion, that doesn't make it true.
– T.J.L.
Nov 30 at 13:50
@T.J.L. this is a "weakly" rule question. That is, I was asking for a rule, but it is hard to treat it as a real rule when even designers do not follow it
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 13:52
1
-1 Because no evidence is given to justify the claim.
– Bloodcinder
Nov 30 at 14:04
3
@T.J.L. it is not normally my style but the question asked was what the general rule was. No request for explanation or consideration. So in my opinion keeping it to a rule location & quote was the clearest anwser
– Dinomaster
Nov 30 at 14:04
1
This answer needs a lot more support. According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better if you are saying that the designers aren't following their own guidelines.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:41
add a comment |
up vote
43
down vote
up vote
43
down vote
There is a rule but it is very loose
The DMG says (p135) (emphasis mine):
Rarity provides a rough measure of an item's power relative to other magic items.
The emphasis is on rough here as the designers are not applying this as consistently as you would expect. Examples of this are in András' answer and nitsua60's answer and the cases as mentioned in the question
I normally play a lot in the Ebberon setting where the rarity of magic items is a bit different anyway. Therefor I spitball rarity and price a bit by looking at similar items but heavily modify it by distance to large manufacturing centers and such.
There is a rule but it is very loose
The DMG says (p135) (emphasis mine):
Rarity provides a rough measure of an item's power relative to other magic items.
The emphasis is on rough here as the designers are not applying this as consistently as you would expect. Examples of this are in András' answer and nitsua60's answer and the cases as mentioned in the question
I normally play a lot in the Ebberon setting where the rarity of magic items is a bit different anyway. Therefor I spitball rarity and price a bit by looking at similar items but heavily modify it by distance to large manufacturing centers and such.
edited Nov 30 at 14:21
answered Nov 30 at 13:05
Dinomaster
2,876722
2,876722
5
-1 for being nothing but a quote with no logic presented. This isn't a rules question, so defaulting to the text isn't automatically accurate. To put it another way... just because the book makes an assertion, that doesn't make it true.
– T.J.L.
Nov 30 at 13:50
@T.J.L. this is a "weakly" rule question. That is, I was asking for a rule, but it is hard to treat it as a real rule when even designers do not follow it
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 13:52
1
-1 Because no evidence is given to justify the claim.
– Bloodcinder
Nov 30 at 14:04
3
@T.J.L. it is not normally my style but the question asked was what the general rule was. No request for explanation or consideration. So in my opinion keeping it to a rule location & quote was the clearest anwser
– Dinomaster
Nov 30 at 14:04
1
This answer needs a lot more support. According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better if you are saying that the designers aren't following their own guidelines.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:41
add a comment |
5
-1 for being nothing but a quote with no logic presented. This isn't a rules question, so defaulting to the text isn't automatically accurate. To put it another way... just because the book makes an assertion, that doesn't make it true.
– T.J.L.
Nov 30 at 13:50
@T.J.L. this is a "weakly" rule question. That is, I was asking for a rule, but it is hard to treat it as a real rule when even designers do not follow it
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 13:52
1
-1 Because no evidence is given to justify the claim.
– Bloodcinder
Nov 30 at 14:04
3
@T.J.L. it is not normally my style but the question asked was what the general rule was. No request for explanation or consideration. So in my opinion keeping it to a rule location & quote was the clearest anwser
– Dinomaster
Nov 30 at 14:04
1
This answer needs a lot more support. According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better if you are saying that the designers aren't following their own guidelines.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:41
5
5
-1 for being nothing but a quote with no logic presented. This isn't a rules question, so defaulting to the text isn't automatically accurate. To put it another way... just because the book makes an assertion, that doesn't make it true.
– T.J.L.
Nov 30 at 13:50
-1 for being nothing but a quote with no logic presented. This isn't a rules question, so defaulting to the text isn't automatically accurate. To put it another way... just because the book makes an assertion, that doesn't make it true.
– T.J.L.
Nov 30 at 13:50
@T.J.L. this is a "weakly" rule question. That is, I was asking for a rule, but it is hard to treat it as a real rule when even designers do not follow it
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 13:52
@T.J.L. this is a "weakly" rule question. That is, I was asking for a rule, but it is hard to treat it as a real rule when even designers do not follow it
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 13:52
1
1
-1 Because no evidence is given to justify the claim.
– Bloodcinder
Nov 30 at 14:04
-1 Because no evidence is given to justify the claim.
– Bloodcinder
Nov 30 at 14:04
3
3
@T.J.L. it is not normally my style but the question asked was what the general rule was. No request for explanation or consideration. So in my opinion keeping it to a rule location & quote was the clearest anwser
– Dinomaster
Nov 30 at 14:04
@T.J.L. it is not normally my style but the question asked was what the general rule was. No request for explanation or consideration. So in my opinion keeping it to a rule location & quote was the clearest anwser
– Dinomaster
Nov 30 at 14:04
1
1
This answer needs a lot more support. According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better if you are saying that the designers aren't following their own guidelines.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:41
This answer needs a lot more support. According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better if you are saying that the designers aren't following their own guidelines.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:41
add a comment |
up vote
31
down vote
Rarity and usefulness/power are very weakly correlated, in my experience.
This has been discussed elsewhere (reddit, GitP, ENWorld), primarily when 5e was first released. I'll point you to my favorite resource, the Sane Magical Prices Index by GitP user Saidoro: I've used it for years in order to gate items in campaigns and have been very happy.
First Saidoro establishes that item rarities are obviously bunk in plenty of cases: compare (for yourself) the broom of flying/winged boots to the wings of flying or boots of levitation. We see there functionally-equivalent or even weaker items "rated" two tiers above comparands.
After dividing the items into comparable classes (consumables, combat items, utility items) Saidoro and other posters spent months discussing/debating the utility/power of each and set a scale, in gp, for almost every magical item in the DMG. Follow the threads both on GitP and on reddit/ENworld (linked in Saidoro's .pdf) if you'd like to see more of the reasoning that goes into each ranking/valuation.
The long and the short of it is that while one might argue with some of the valuations, there's no question that this list, compiled by many actual players and much more finely-graduated than the rarity tiers, is a better guide to power than is rarity.
So I threw all the prices and rarities into my statistics software and ran a regression with rarity as the explanatory variable: the R2 value is ~0.0236. That tells us roughly 2% of the power/utility of each item--as judged by users and tabulated by Saidoro--is attributable to the item's rarity.
3
Amazing how much work you all put into this. And I really like using regression and calculating correlation. Numbers continue to be best system... :D
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:02
1
@Mołot not too much work--don't worry. I already have all the magic items and their price from the index in a spreadsheet--I use it all the time when starting up campaigns or adventures. Just had to import into JMP and ten seconds later it was there!
– nitsua60♦
Nov 30 at 15:34
Now I'm even more amazed.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:35
1
@nitsua60 I already love this answer, though the XGtE take on magic items and rarity table, and distribution might be related or a useful reference. (Not everyone is as enamored of the "sane item prices" ... though I find it a nice supplement to ponder)
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:48
1
Okay, now that it's clear what you mean, that's not quite accurate. It's 2% of the variation in power is attributed to what can be explained by rarity, not 2% of the power itself.
– Glen_b
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
31
down vote
Rarity and usefulness/power are very weakly correlated, in my experience.
This has been discussed elsewhere (reddit, GitP, ENWorld), primarily when 5e was first released. I'll point you to my favorite resource, the Sane Magical Prices Index by GitP user Saidoro: I've used it for years in order to gate items in campaigns and have been very happy.
First Saidoro establishes that item rarities are obviously bunk in plenty of cases: compare (for yourself) the broom of flying/winged boots to the wings of flying or boots of levitation. We see there functionally-equivalent or even weaker items "rated" two tiers above comparands.
After dividing the items into comparable classes (consumables, combat items, utility items) Saidoro and other posters spent months discussing/debating the utility/power of each and set a scale, in gp, for almost every magical item in the DMG. Follow the threads both on GitP and on reddit/ENworld (linked in Saidoro's .pdf) if you'd like to see more of the reasoning that goes into each ranking/valuation.
The long and the short of it is that while one might argue with some of the valuations, there's no question that this list, compiled by many actual players and much more finely-graduated than the rarity tiers, is a better guide to power than is rarity.
So I threw all the prices and rarities into my statistics software and ran a regression with rarity as the explanatory variable: the R2 value is ~0.0236. That tells us roughly 2% of the power/utility of each item--as judged by users and tabulated by Saidoro--is attributable to the item's rarity.
3
Amazing how much work you all put into this. And I really like using regression and calculating correlation. Numbers continue to be best system... :D
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:02
1
@Mołot not too much work--don't worry. I already have all the magic items and their price from the index in a spreadsheet--I use it all the time when starting up campaigns or adventures. Just had to import into JMP and ten seconds later it was there!
– nitsua60♦
Nov 30 at 15:34
Now I'm even more amazed.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:35
1
@nitsua60 I already love this answer, though the XGtE take on magic items and rarity table, and distribution might be related or a useful reference. (Not everyone is as enamored of the "sane item prices" ... though I find it a nice supplement to ponder)
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:48
1
Okay, now that it's clear what you mean, that's not quite accurate. It's 2% of the variation in power is attributed to what can be explained by rarity, not 2% of the power itself.
– Glen_b
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
31
down vote
up vote
31
down vote
Rarity and usefulness/power are very weakly correlated, in my experience.
This has been discussed elsewhere (reddit, GitP, ENWorld), primarily when 5e was first released. I'll point you to my favorite resource, the Sane Magical Prices Index by GitP user Saidoro: I've used it for years in order to gate items in campaigns and have been very happy.
First Saidoro establishes that item rarities are obviously bunk in plenty of cases: compare (for yourself) the broom of flying/winged boots to the wings of flying or boots of levitation. We see there functionally-equivalent or even weaker items "rated" two tiers above comparands.
After dividing the items into comparable classes (consumables, combat items, utility items) Saidoro and other posters spent months discussing/debating the utility/power of each and set a scale, in gp, for almost every magical item in the DMG. Follow the threads both on GitP and on reddit/ENworld (linked in Saidoro's .pdf) if you'd like to see more of the reasoning that goes into each ranking/valuation.
The long and the short of it is that while one might argue with some of the valuations, there's no question that this list, compiled by many actual players and much more finely-graduated than the rarity tiers, is a better guide to power than is rarity.
So I threw all the prices and rarities into my statistics software and ran a regression with rarity as the explanatory variable: the R2 value is ~0.0236. That tells us roughly 2% of the power/utility of each item--as judged by users and tabulated by Saidoro--is attributable to the item's rarity.
Rarity and usefulness/power are very weakly correlated, in my experience.
This has been discussed elsewhere (reddit, GitP, ENWorld), primarily when 5e was first released. I'll point you to my favorite resource, the Sane Magical Prices Index by GitP user Saidoro: I've used it for years in order to gate items in campaigns and have been very happy.
First Saidoro establishes that item rarities are obviously bunk in plenty of cases: compare (for yourself) the broom of flying/winged boots to the wings of flying or boots of levitation. We see there functionally-equivalent or even weaker items "rated" two tiers above comparands.
After dividing the items into comparable classes (consumables, combat items, utility items) Saidoro and other posters spent months discussing/debating the utility/power of each and set a scale, in gp, for almost every magical item in the DMG. Follow the threads both on GitP and on reddit/ENworld (linked in Saidoro's .pdf) if you'd like to see more of the reasoning that goes into each ranking/valuation.
The long and the short of it is that while one might argue with some of the valuations, there's no question that this list, compiled by many actual players and much more finely-graduated than the rarity tiers, is a better guide to power than is rarity.
So I threw all the prices and rarities into my statistics software and ran a regression with rarity as the explanatory variable: the R2 value is ~0.0236. That tells us roughly 2% of the power/utility of each item--as judged by users and tabulated by Saidoro--is attributable to the item's rarity.
edited 2 days ago
answered Nov 30 at 13:49
nitsua60♦
71.9k12296418
71.9k12296418
3
Amazing how much work you all put into this. And I really like using regression and calculating correlation. Numbers continue to be best system... :D
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:02
1
@Mołot not too much work--don't worry. I already have all the magic items and their price from the index in a spreadsheet--I use it all the time when starting up campaigns or adventures. Just had to import into JMP and ten seconds later it was there!
– nitsua60♦
Nov 30 at 15:34
Now I'm even more amazed.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:35
1
@nitsua60 I already love this answer, though the XGtE take on magic items and rarity table, and distribution might be related or a useful reference. (Not everyone is as enamored of the "sane item prices" ... though I find it a nice supplement to ponder)
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:48
1
Okay, now that it's clear what you mean, that's not quite accurate. It's 2% of the variation in power is attributed to what can be explained by rarity, not 2% of the power itself.
– Glen_b
2 days ago
add a comment |
3
Amazing how much work you all put into this. And I really like using regression and calculating correlation. Numbers continue to be best system... :D
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:02
1
@Mołot not too much work--don't worry. I already have all the magic items and their price from the index in a spreadsheet--I use it all the time when starting up campaigns or adventures. Just had to import into JMP and ten seconds later it was there!
– nitsua60♦
Nov 30 at 15:34
Now I'm even more amazed.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:35
1
@nitsua60 I already love this answer, though the XGtE take on magic items and rarity table, and distribution might be related or a useful reference. (Not everyone is as enamored of the "sane item prices" ... though I find it a nice supplement to ponder)
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:48
1
Okay, now that it's clear what you mean, that's not quite accurate. It's 2% of the variation in power is attributed to what can be explained by rarity, not 2% of the power itself.
– Glen_b
2 days ago
3
3
Amazing how much work you all put into this. And I really like using regression and calculating correlation. Numbers continue to be best system... :D
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:02
Amazing how much work you all put into this. And I really like using regression and calculating correlation. Numbers continue to be best system... :D
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:02
1
1
@Mołot not too much work--don't worry. I already have all the magic items and their price from the index in a spreadsheet--I use it all the time when starting up campaigns or adventures. Just had to import into JMP and ten seconds later it was there!
– nitsua60♦
Nov 30 at 15:34
@Mołot not too much work--don't worry. I already have all the magic items and their price from the index in a spreadsheet--I use it all the time when starting up campaigns or adventures. Just had to import into JMP and ten seconds later it was there!
– nitsua60♦
Nov 30 at 15:34
Now I'm even more amazed.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:35
Now I'm even more amazed.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:35
1
1
@nitsua60 I already love this answer, though the XGtE take on magic items and rarity table, and distribution might be related or a useful reference. (Not everyone is as enamored of the "sane item prices" ... though I find it a nice supplement to ponder)
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:48
@nitsua60 I already love this answer, though the XGtE take on magic items and rarity table, and distribution might be related or a useful reference. (Not everyone is as enamored of the "sane item prices" ... though I find it a nice supplement to ponder)
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:48
1
1
Okay, now that it's clear what you mean, that's not quite accurate. It's 2% of the variation in power is attributed to what can be explained by rarity, not 2% of the power itself.
– Glen_b
2 days ago
Okay, now that it's clear what you mean, that's not quite accurate. It's 2% of the variation in power is attributed to what can be explained by rarity, not 2% of the power itself.
– Glen_b
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Not really
Beside your examples, a Flame Tongue (rare), is much better than a Frost Brand (very rare)1, and a Ring of Invisibility (legendary) does not even deserve very rare in my opinon.
Rarity is very inconsistent.
1) Frost Brand provides 1d6 extra damage, while Flame Tongue provides 2d6. Both require attunement, and while Frost Brand provides a very nice fire resistance, your offensive items should improve your offense.
2) Turning invisible at will is great, but it takes your action, making your DPR go down in combat.
2
@András What makes a Flame Tongue better than a Frost Brand? And why should a Ring of Invisibility not deserve 'very rare' status? These are very specific claims with nothing in the answer to back them up.
– TylerH
Nov 30 at 16:33
3
According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better. And you need to explain what you are actually using these examples to say. We cannot vote on what you don't put into your answer.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:34
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
Not really
Beside your examples, a Flame Tongue (rare), is much better than a Frost Brand (very rare)1, and a Ring of Invisibility (legendary) does not even deserve very rare in my opinon.
Rarity is very inconsistent.
1) Frost Brand provides 1d6 extra damage, while Flame Tongue provides 2d6. Both require attunement, and while Frost Brand provides a very nice fire resistance, your offensive items should improve your offense.
2) Turning invisible at will is great, but it takes your action, making your DPR go down in combat.
2
@András What makes a Flame Tongue better than a Frost Brand? And why should a Ring of Invisibility not deserve 'very rare' status? These are very specific claims with nothing in the answer to back them up.
– TylerH
Nov 30 at 16:33
3
According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better. And you need to explain what you are actually using these examples to say. We cannot vote on what you don't put into your answer.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:34
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Not really
Beside your examples, a Flame Tongue (rare), is much better than a Frost Brand (very rare)1, and a Ring of Invisibility (legendary) does not even deserve very rare in my opinon.
Rarity is very inconsistent.
1) Frost Brand provides 1d6 extra damage, while Flame Tongue provides 2d6. Both require attunement, and while Frost Brand provides a very nice fire resistance, your offensive items should improve your offense.
2) Turning invisible at will is great, but it takes your action, making your DPR go down in combat.
Not really
Beside your examples, a Flame Tongue (rare), is much better than a Frost Brand (very rare)1, and a Ring of Invisibility (legendary) does not even deserve very rare in my opinon.
Rarity is very inconsistent.
1) Frost Brand provides 1d6 extra damage, while Flame Tongue provides 2d6. Both require attunement, and while Frost Brand provides a very nice fire resistance, your offensive items should improve your offense.
2) Turning invisible at will is great, but it takes your action, making your DPR go down in combat.
edited Nov 30 at 16:31
answered Nov 30 at 13:42
András
25.1k1090184
25.1k1090184
2
@András What makes a Flame Tongue better than a Frost Brand? And why should a Ring of Invisibility not deserve 'very rare' status? These are very specific claims with nothing in the answer to back them up.
– TylerH
Nov 30 at 16:33
3
According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better. And you need to explain what you are actually using these examples to say. We cannot vote on what you don't put into your answer.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:34
add a comment |
2
@András What makes a Flame Tongue better than a Frost Brand? And why should a Ring of Invisibility not deserve 'very rare' status? These are very specific claims with nothing in the answer to back them up.
– TylerH
Nov 30 at 16:33
3
According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better. And you need to explain what you are actually using these examples to say. We cannot vote on what you don't put into your answer.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:34
2
2
@András What makes a Flame Tongue better than a Frost Brand? And why should a Ring of Invisibility not deserve 'very rare' status? These are very specific claims with nothing in the answer to back them up.
– TylerH
Nov 30 at 16:33
@András What makes a Flame Tongue better than a Frost Brand? And why should a Ring of Invisibility not deserve 'very rare' status? These are very specific claims with nothing in the answer to back them up.
– TylerH
Nov 30 at 16:33
3
3
According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better. And you need to explain what you are actually using these examples to say. We cannot vote on what you don't put into your answer.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:34
According to DnDBeyond there are over 400 magic items (including +1,+2,+3 variations) just in the DMG which means that 5 examples isn't really that compelling. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying you need to make your case better. And you need to explain what you are actually using these examples to say. We cannot vote on what you don't put into your answer.
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 16:34
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f136557%2fis-item-rarity-really-tied-to-how-powerful-it-is%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
<comments removed> We don’t need an operationalised definition of power to answer the question—this ain’t charop. If the asker’s problem is (in part) making an incorrect assumption, by all means correct it—in an answer.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:42
4
Sorry, that isn’t directed at you. It’s directed at the comments saying the question needed changing or closing. My comment is explaining why the comments weren’t useful and were removed.
– SevenSidedDie♦
Nov 30 at 15:48
2
Oh ok. English is not my first language and I tend to miss things sometimes.
– Mołot
Nov 30 at 15:51
1
@SevenSidedDie As I believe this question to have an XY problem, but do not have my two key reference books to hand, there either will or won't be an XY answer in a day or two. While I disagree with your point on the lack of a need for better scope - why is in part laid out here - I accept it for the usual good reasons of keeping things on track.
– KorvinStarmast
Nov 30 at 15:52
3
Related: How is the power of a magic item measured according to the rules?
– Rubiksmoose
Nov 30 at 20:08