Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Magic Item Compendium introduced us to magic item sets, which as their name implied were thematically-linked sets of magic items that provided bonus benefits for wearing multiple items from that set together. I have been looking in that book for rules/suggestions on how to have this sort of effect on modified/customized items, but I can't seem to find anything explicit on it. Does anyone here have any thoughts on the idea? e.g. what sort of additional costs would it take to add set benefits to items?

share|improve this question
I suggest that the best answer would be one that analyzes what the authors of the Magic Item Compendium did for their sets. For example, take a set, calculate the value of the items individually, compare to the listed per-item costs, and evaluate the difference against the set bonuses. – Dane Apr 14 '14 at 17:33
up vote 11 down vote accepted

The best design is to minimize the impact of “setness”

Sets are a neat idea, but ultimately you run into real design problems if their full power depends much at all on having multiple items in the set. You want flavor and fun from the set bonuses more than you want power.

Ideally, each item on its own is, or very nearly is, worth its cost, and the set is worth the sum total of the components cost. That is, items A, B, C, costing x, y, and z, respectively, should be such that all of the following are true:

  • A is worth x
  • B is worth y
  • C is worth z
  • A+B+2_items_set_bonuses is worth x+y
  • A+C+2_items_set_bonuses is worth x+z
  • B+C+2_items_set_bonuses is worth y+z
  • A+B+C+all_items_set_bonuses is worth x+y+z

There is an obvious paradox here: the various set_bonuses are being added without a corresponding set_cost. The important thing to remember is that there is an inherent opportunity cost for using a complete set: even if B may be worth y, it may not be worth not having B’s slot for some other item. This is true of all items, but sets make it more complicated by having multiple items, and by generally being unique and difficult to move to other slots.

But the only way you can accomplish that is by having the bonuses for multiple items be pretty small; after all, the difference between sets and regular items in terms of the space they take up isn’t that different. So there’s only very little room for extras.

If you do not follow this approach, what ends up happening is either that singular items are overpriced (which sucks for someone who wants to roleplay the collection of the rest of a set), or the full set is overpowered (with the obvious problems that carries, plus possible dilution of sets’ “specialness”).

share|improve this answer
One possible, partial solution to the cost paradox would be to remove set bonuses, and instead give the items in the set specific abilities designed to compliment each other so that sets work well when all the parts are held and used in conjunction. There's a risk of losing the flavour of a set that way, though. Hmm... – GMJoe Apr 15 '14 at 5:06

I've once made a whole quest around a set, so the meaning of it (hence the cost/balance) was something else.

The set was also partly a McGuffin:

"The legend goes that only with the Light-Powered-Sword held with the Light-Powered-Gloves one may break the Wall-of-Shadow, all around the Lichs-Dark-Castle"

KRyan pointed out something very nice about sets: In the end, the cool thing is to have the whole set.

I would recommend to balance the cost thinking about the full set but, of course, do take in account the hard adventure to obtain the set pieces as part of the cost. As the players have to work for the items, rather than just buying them, it becomes more balanced.

share|improve this answer
welcome to Rpg.SE! If you have the time, please see more about our site and our guidelines: Your answer seems more like a comment on Kryan's answer or to the OP rather than an actual answer to the question being given. – Joshua Aslan Smith Apr 14 '14 at 18:35
@Kahler I've edited your answer to bring out more information I think you included but didn't emphasize. If you don't like part or all of it, or think it changes your answer too much, feel free to revert it. – Dakeyras Apr 14 '14 at 19:38
@Dakeyras Nice edit. I was not aware of the term MacGuffin. – Kahler Apr 14 '14 at 21:16
@JoshuaAslanSmith Tanks for the warm welcome. Will read it now. I'm more used to another Stack Exchange Q&A. – Kahler Apr 14 '14 at 21:19
@kahler good. Your answer had the makings of a good answer (Dakeyras' edit improved it). Your personal experience is valued but you need to tie it the system and/or show how the it can be applied to solve the question. – Joshua Aslan Smith Apr 14 '14 at 21:48

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.