I made a sword that gives the user +2 strength and has a 10% chance to catch the target on fire if hit. How much should this be worth? No attunement, no limit,
If you are talking about value in terms of gold, I'd go with about 5000 gold pieces at minimum.
So far as what it would be worth to a character in combat? Given that players shouldn't be seeing items with that kind of rarity until 11th level at the least, I'd guess any character who needed strength would already be capped, so it would be worth nearly nothing. No plus to hit, or damage, unless it does a *huge* amount of fire damage. They might as well be using a torch. A torch is better. At least that provides light.
Torch; One point of damage on hit, Flame Tongue weapon: 2d6. I'd probably go with the flame tongue damage for the sword.
There is no real chance of remaining on fire in D&D. Equipment worn or carried is almost never damaged by environmental effects. The reason for that is how much it would slow down combat and unfairly punish more gear dependent types. The Monk probably wouldn't care. The Barbarian neither. The Wizard? Losing their spellbooks or casting components would be harsh.
The +2 strength is essentially a +1 enchantment with the additional upside of a bump to strength checks, saves and encumbered limit so that would put it at about rare. The flaming hit effect would then push it to Very rare. I'd say it's worth about 10-13k gold
catching on fire could be played out a lot like alchemical fire. 1D4 damage a round until extinguished or 10 round maximum (1 min burn time.) Still a sword that grants attribute bonus that you do not have to attune to would sit pretty high of the rarity scale. I agree with the very rare to legendary comment. Requiring attunement would be wise and lower the rarity level. Also a way to lower the rarity. Make the 10% catch fire a technological effect. Sword hilt holds a vial of alchemist fire. 2-4 uses does an extra 1d4 damage on hit with a 10%chance to catch the target on fire. Downside of course would be if the sword was broken. Exposing the alchemist fire to oxygen and causing fire damage to the wielder. The need for ammunition (vial of alchemist fire) and the danger of breaking the weapon would off set the lack of attunement and lower the magic power needed to create the item. Just a suggestion. Hope it helps.
+2 Strength is immediately in the Very Rare category. The 10% chance to set the target on fire is limited. So if it's a small amount of damage, such as 1d10 at start of their turns, it can stay Very Rare. Anything more, and we're looking at Legendary territory.
However, you also mention no attunement and no limit. Without attunement we must then consider the stacking potential with other items that can increase stats past the normal 20 cap. This is why we have attunement - to limit this. Without attunement this stacking potential would immediately put this as Legendary rarity at absolute minimum.
Based on the magic item price guide in DMG this would be a gold cos of 50,000 gp or more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Yes, this kind of effect should 100% require attunement. Without it the whole party can just pass this around for +2 STR whenever they needed a boost, in addition to problematic stacking. This would make the weapon extra valuable as it provides something for free that no other item can.
+2 Strength is immediately in the Very Rare category.
Nah. Not a chance. A +3 Weapon (which also does not require attunement) is classed as very rare. A sword that gives +2 strength doesn't come close to a +3 sword. Given the choice between the strength and a +2 sword (a rare) I would go with the +2 sword, in fact.
+2 Strength is immediately in the Very Rare category.
Nah. Not a chance. A +3 Weapon (which also does not require attunement) is classed as very rare. A sword that gives +2 strength doesn't come close to a +3 sword. Given the choice between the strength and a +2 sword (a rare) I would go with the +2 sword, in fact.
You can wield two swords at the same time.
The +3 sword needs to be swung, the +2 strength sword only needs to be carried or wielded. Being stackable is exploitable. It's not about binaries.
+2 Strength is immediately in the Very Rare category.
Nah. Not a chance. A +3 Weapon (which also does not require attunement) is classed as very rare. A sword that gives +2 strength doesn't come close to a +3 sword. Given the choice between the strength and a +2 sword (a rare) I would go with the +2 sword, in fact.
+3 sword only affects attacks and damage with that sword.
+2 Strength affects all strength-based attacks and damage with any weapon, plus any strength based skills and saving throws.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
There's a reason why items that offer +2 stat bonuses are usually Very Rare or higher. Especially for those that don't require attunement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
+2 Strength is immediately in the Very Rare category.
Nah. Not a chance. A +3 Weapon (which also does not require attunement) is classed as very rare. A sword that gives +2 strength doesn't come close to a +3 sword. Given the choice between the strength and a +2 sword (a rare) I would go with the +2 sword, in fact.
+3 sword only affects attacks and damage with that sword.
+2 Strength affects all strength-based attacks and damage with any weapon, plus any strength based skills and saving throws.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
There's a reason why items that offer +2 stat bonuses are usually Very Rare or higher. Especially for those that don't require attunement.
This. You basically found a weapon you are going to carry at all times, but never use. If you get that +2 sword you're talking about, the magical +2, it's now essentially a +3 because you're carrying this strength stat stick.
It's a 50 grand item to me, honestly I"d price it around 100 grand simply because of NO attunement.
It's hard to say exactly what the value of such a sword is because there's no other item like it. The value depends greatly on what the requirements are to get the strength bonus and whether it allows you to go over 20.
If you only have to possess the sword, the value is likely similar to a manual of gainful exercise. It has the benefit of allowing you to swap it between people to take greatest advantage of the strength bonus. The downside is that someone could steal it from you and immediately gain the bonus for themself.
If you have to be using the sword, it's value falls somewhat. It effectively gives a +1 bonus that also applies to any other weapon you're using, along with a bonus to strength checks and saving throws. You won't typically be walking around with your sword out the rest of the time and most non-combat strength checks should be at disadvantage if you're trying to do them with a sword in your hand.
In either case, the value falls significantly if the bonus doesn't let you go over 20 as most characters that use strength to attack will have 20 in the stat by the time they get a rare-very rare weapon.
+2 Strength is immediately in the Very Rare category.
Nah. Not a chance. A +3 Weapon (which also does not require attunement) is classed as very rare. A sword that gives +2 strength doesn't come close to a +3 sword. Given the choice between the strength and a +2 sword (a rare) I would go with the +2 sword, in fact.
You can wield two swords at the same time.
The +3 sword needs to be swung, the +2 strength sword only needs to be carried or wielded. Being stackable is exploitable. It's not about binaries.
Ok. Still think the +3 sword is far better.
And for the record, I'm going to assume the intent is you only get the strength when the sword is drawn and in your grasp. Sonicshadow can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't thing he intends to have the sword be giving you strength from inside your backpack.
Strength isn't of any great use anymore. The only Class I can think of off hand that needs it is Barbarians, and them only because it is written into the rules for Rage. I remember someone proposing that it be changed to Dexterity, so that their Barbarian could enter into a "cold rage" and attack with a seething fury of carefully calculated fencing maneuvers.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
<Insert clever signature here>
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I made a sword that gives the user +2 strength and has a 10% chance to catch the target on fire if hit. How much should this be worth? No attunement, no limit,
A great source for new DMs like me!
The +2 Strength with no attunement is strictly better than an Ioun Stone of Strength, which would put it in the Very Rare to Legendary category.
The value of the rider ability depends on the specific details of that feature.
Something like this has a high potential for exploitation.
If you are talking about value in terms of gold, I'd go with about 5000 gold pieces at minimum.
So far as what it would be worth to a character in combat? Given that players shouldn't be seeing items with that kind of rarity until 11th level at the least, I'd guess any character who needed strength would already be capped, so it would be worth nearly nothing. No plus to hit, or damage, unless it does a *huge* amount of fire damage. They might as well be using a torch. A torch is better. At least that provides light.
<Insert clever signature here>
How much is the extra damage? There’s no standard rules for being on fire (for some reason).
Torch; One point of damage on hit, Flame Tongue weapon: 2d6. I'd probably go with the flame tongue damage for the sword.
There is no real chance of remaining on fire in D&D. Equipment worn or carried is almost never damaged by environmental effects. The reason for that is how much it would slow down combat and unfairly punish more gear dependent types. The Monk probably wouldn't care. The Barbarian neither. The Wizard? Losing their spellbooks or casting components would be harsh.
<Insert clever signature here>
The +2 strength is essentially a +1 enchantment with the additional upside of a bump to strength checks, saves and encumbered limit so that would put it at about rare. The flaming hit effect would then push it to Very rare. I'd say it's worth about 10-13k gold
Fire elemental causes people to light on fire, does d10 damage per round, an action to douse.
catching on fire could be played out a lot like alchemical fire. 1D4 damage a round until extinguished or 10 round maximum (1 min burn time.) Still a sword that grants attribute bonus that you do not have to attune to would sit pretty high of the rarity scale. I agree with the very rare to legendary comment. Requiring attunement would be wise and lower the rarity level. Also a way to lower the rarity. Make the 10% catch fire a technological effect. Sword hilt holds a vial of alchemist fire. 2-4 uses does an extra 1d4 damage on hit with a 10%chance to catch the target on fire. Downside of course would be if the sword was broken. Exposing the alchemist fire to oxygen and causing fire damage to the wielder. The need for ammunition (vial of alchemist fire) and the danger of breaking the weapon would off set the lack of attunement and lower the magic power needed to create the item. Just a suggestion. Hope it helps.
Honor, Integrity, Valor.
+2 Strength is immediately in the Very Rare category. The 10% chance to set the target on fire is limited. So if it's a small amount of damage, such as 1d10 at start of their turns, it can stay Very Rare. Anything more, and we're looking at Legendary territory.
However, you also mention no attunement and no limit. Without attunement we must then consider the stacking potential with other items that can increase stats past the normal 20 cap. This is why we have attunement - to limit this. Without attunement this stacking potential would immediately put this as Legendary rarity at absolute minimum.
Based on the magic item price guide in DMG this would be a gold cos of 50,000 gp or more.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Yes, this kind of effect should 100% require attunement. Without it the whole party can just pass this around for +2 STR whenever they needed a boost, in addition to problematic stacking. This would make the weapon extra valuable as it provides something for free that no other item can.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Nah. Not a chance. A +3 Weapon (which also does not require attunement) is classed as very rare. A sword that gives +2 strength doesn't come close to a +3 sword. Given the choice between the strength and a +2 sword (a rare) I would go with the +2 sword, in fact.
You can wield two swords at the same time.
The +3 sword needs to be swung, the +2 strength sword only needs to be carried or wielded. Being stackable is exploitable. It's not about binaries.
+3 sword only affects attacks and damage with that sword.
+2 Strength affects all strength-based attacks and damage with any weapon, plus any strength based skills and saving throws.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
There's a reason why items that offer +2 stat bonuses are usually Very Rare or higher. Especially for those that don't require attunement.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
This. You basically found a weapon you are going to carry at all times, but never use. If you get that +2 sword you're talking about, the magical +2, it's now essentially a +3 because you're carrying this strength stat stick.
It's a 50 grand item to me, honestly I"d price it around 100 grand simply because of NO attunement.
It's hard to say exactly what the value of such a sword is because there's no other item like it. The value depends greatly on what the requirements are to get the strength bonus and whether it allows you to go over 20.
If you only have to possess the sword, the value is likely similar to a manual of gainful exercise. It has the benefit of allowing you to swap it between people to take greatest advantage of the strength bonus. The downside is that someone could steal it from you and immediately gain the bonus for themself.
If you have to be using the sword, it's value falls somewhat. It effectively gives a +1 bonus that also applies to any other weapon you're using, along with a bonus to strength checks and saving throws. You won't typically be walking around with your sword out the rest of the time and most non-combat strength checks should be at disadvantage if you're trying to do them with a sword in your hand.
In either case, the value falls significantly if the bonus doesn't let you go over 20 as most characters that use strength to attack will have 20 in the stat by the time they get a rare-very rare weapon.
Ok. Still think the +3 sword is far better.
And for the record, I'm going to assume the intent is you only get the strength when the sword is drawn and in your grasp. Sonicshadow can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't thing he intends to have the sword be giving you strength from inside your backpack.
Strength isn't of any great use anymore. The only Class I can think of off hand that needs it is Barbarians, and them only because it is written into the rules for Rage. I remember someone proposing that it be changed to Dexterity, so that their Barbarian could enter into a "cold rage" and attack with a seething fury of carefully calculated fencing maneuvers.
<Insert clever signature here>