D&D 5E 5E's "Missed Opportunities?"

[CapnZapp]

I've seen those threads, yes; WotC claim that the numbers are just made up is more plausible. I'm sure there is stuff for that sort of thing on the DMsGuild, and it's probably as good as anything WitC would make up. Stuff like that is where the DMsGuild really shines.

You are contradicting yourself.

If you truly believe this stuff should be handled by DMsGuild, then it makes no sense to believe that "numbers are just made up" - why would made-up numbers be useful no matter who makes them up. Then arguments such as "not important to me" would be more plausible.

If you really do believe the numbers are just made up then you haven't read anything about the subject. But I won't explain it to you here, because I honestly don't believe you are interested in listening.

Just as a single example that show how preposterous their claim is: when do we consider it appropriate to give out +3 weapons (in a campaign where default gold awards is the balancing factor)? If numbers are just made up, then "level 1" and "level 20" are both valid replies, which is of course nonsense. Do note that if you really do want to discuss this, please take it to the relevant threads (any one will do), and I will respond further there.

As for this thread, a counter-argument: I believe the likelier explanation for their reticence to give us utility-based magic pricing and creation guidelines is because it is hard work and requires great designer experience, and a commitment to fine-tuning the system as it develops; and that they simply believe they can get away with not doing it. 5E is successful enough, so they simply dump their earlier customer base.

You are not the first person to flippantly think this is easy work that anyone can whip up and put on DmsG. You are as wrong about this as the others. But the greatest obstacle is adoption - the system should be published by WotC as a first party product, so the same system can be shared by and improved upon the whole community. (Ideally in the core DMG, so every adventure supplement can support it, but that ship sailed five years ago)

 

[CapnZapp]

That is one of my issues with the edition. You can get all kinds of money, but then the DM needs to find out uses for it, because there's little to buy past 2nd or 3rd level. Sure, for a simulationist campaign where you're building your own keep, refurbishing an ancient cathedral, you can come up with solutions, but that doesn't work well with adventuring based campaigns where you have little down time.

Thank you.

I have said so since 2015.

 

[CapnZapp]

For those of you who don't play D&D for combat, I wonder what draws you to the game? The vast majority of the rules are designed to adjudicate combat. There are many, many other systems that have a richer set of guidelines for role-playing, more fascinating settings and character creation.

Thank you.

Yes, WotC stubbornly maintains there are three equal pillars. Pure marketing BS of course.

And those playing D&D 5E for combat - why not a more robust combat engine?
It just doesn't seem to do either particularly well.

Did you by "robust" mean to say "complicated" or "detailed"?

Personally I'd take 5E over Pathfinder or 4E anyday. And yes, I'm playing D&D for the combat (and for the D&D-isms no other game offers).

 

[CapnZapp]

Where I disagree with the good Capn, however, is in item creation. Ideally this should take long enough that adventurers never do it themselves and rarely get someone else to do it for them. The 3e model, where you could in effect make whatever you wanted in a very short time, was one of its poorer design choices.

If I appear to advocate the 3e model in its entirety, I have been remiss in making myself clear.

I absolutely acknowledge that the 3e designers made several errors both small and large. Wands of CLW is one example. Item creation is absolutely another.

Where I differ from the doomsayers ("it can't be done") - you know, those choosing to believe everything WotC says just to avoid having to work hard? - is in that I believe it is entirely possible for the 5E dev team to improve upon the 3e framework, make it better, close loopholes and so on.

In fact, that was one of the things I anticipated the most about 5E. I am still waiting.

My main hope at the moment is that the Xanathar treasure point system goes down really badly when players realize they no longer get any gold for their troubles, and that the backlash forces WotC to reconsider their desicion to weasel out of supporting their own core playing style just to avoid having to hire a designer or three to implement and perfect a true utility-based item pricing and creation framework.

 

[lluewhyn]

Thank you.

I have said so since 2015.

You're welcome. The idea behind not putting in any official "magic shoppe" rules is so magic can be left somewhat rare and mysterious if desired, but then they never really came up with a good replacement for what to actually do with all of this fancy loot then, especially if you're running a somewhat episodic mode of table-top where the players show up each week to RP characters who go out adventuring as opposed to settling down like I mentioned previously.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I recently had cause to deal with this for a Sigil based campaign. At the center of everything, it makes sense everything is for sale. To deal with the dirty hobos with bags of cash only buying top shelf items, I've added an "access" stat. Access is simple, it runs in tiers just like items do. To get it, you have to make friends -- no one selling 50k gp items lets just anyone into thier stores, after all. You also have to look the part -- if you pay for a poor lifestyle, you can't get into the good shops. This drives rp onto gaining social status to procure access, and acts a modest drain on gp by driving a need for higher lifestyle costs.

I really like this. It would mean that your Lifestyle could be based on your stat without having to micromanage Gold Pieces. It's been done in a few systems and it works out fairly well (d20modern did it, I think). Buying above your score can potentially drop your score but buying under it easily lets you maintain it. I like the idea of 'lifestyle' in 5e but I don't want to have to constantly manage my monthly expenses.

How do you increase it because I don't see players spending an ASI on it?

Maybe it's just a combination of charisma and one other stat (based on your 'profession' - so you might choose Strength if you're a Fighter type and you work as a mercenary).

Or, I suppose, as you do adventures and stuff, you can give players a chance to raise it?


-on a separate note, I haven't had too many issues spending money. I usually am arming NPCs and raising armies and building up secret hideouts and funding my Up-in-coming Empire.

 

[Parmandur]

You are contradicting yourself.

If you truly believe this stuff should be handled by DMsGuild, then it makes no sense to believe that "numbers are just made up" - why would made-up numbers be useful no matter who makes them up. Then arguments such as "not important to me" would be more plausible.

If you really do believe the numbers are just made up then you haven't read anything about the subject. But I won't explain it to you here, because I honestly don't believe you are interested in listening.

Just as a single example that show how preposterous their claim is: when do we consider it appropriate to give out +3 weapons (in a campaign where default gold awards is the balancing factor)? If numbers are just made up, then "level 1" and "level 20" are both valid replies, which is of course nonsense. Do note that if you really do want to discuss this, please take it to the relevant threads (any one will do), and I will respond further there.

As for this thread, a counter-argument: I believe the likelier explanation for their reticence to give us utility-based magic pricing and creation guidelines is because it is hard work and requires great designer experience, and a commitment to fine-tuning the system as it develops; and that they simply believe they can get away with not doing it. 5E is successful enough, so they simply dump their earlier customer base.

You are not the first person to flippantly think this is easy work that anyone can whip up and put on DmsG. You are as wrong about this as the others. But the greatest obstacle is adoption - the system should be published by WotC as a first party product, so the same system can be shared by and improved upon the whole community. (Ideally in the core DMG, so every adventure supplement can support it, but that ship sailed five years ago)

Well, admittedly, it is not important to me, and if it was important to significant numbers of players I'm sure WotC would have made up some numbers. The way the game is designed, it doesn't hurt if a level 1 PC gets a +3 Vorpal Axe, nor does a level 20 PC need one.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, admittedly, it is not important to me, and if it was important to significant numbers of players I'm sure WotC would have made up some numbers.

I want to thank you for doing what few other proponents of WotC's position have done. Have an XP.

[/QUOTE]The way the game is designed, it doesn't hurt if a level 1 PC gets a +3 Vorpal Axe, nor does a level 20 PC need one.[/QUOTE]
Yes, bounded accuracy.

I acknowledge this. However, that does not mean you can't still have a pricing framework that treats the price seriously. Just as seriously as 3E did, in fact.

Breaking off for a new post, so it doesn't seem I'm ranting against you, P.

 

[CapnZapp]

Cont'd

The fact bounded accuracy allows you to remain function (well, sort of, at least) as a level 20 character with no magic equipment does not preclude the system setting an utility-based price on a +3 Vorpal Axe.

(Now "vorpal" is considerably nerfed in 5E, but otherwise I would like to argue it's perfectly fine for there to be top-end items out of financial reach of even top-level heroes. After all, that doesn't mean there can't be any Vorpal Axes in the game, only that they need to be looted off of corpses rather than merely bought or constructed.)

In short I see no reason why a 3E-style pricing scheme wouldn't be just as fun in 5E, even though nothing would be strictly needed on the scale of "absolutely mandatory" as in that edition and even moreso in 4E.

Remember, the underlying reason for having pricing and creation is that it is fun

Only a rarity-based mechanic wrecks that fun, since it isn't good for its purpose - allowing gold to be used as a balancing factor (low-level heroes have little gold, high-level heroes have a lot).

And the even-more-overarching purpose is exactly this: since D&D have awarded mountains of gold since the dawn of time, there needs to be an outlet for that gold.

While donating to churches or setting up thieves guilds is fine and dandy, downtime remains essentially incompatible with the main playing style that every official 5E campaign supplement to date assumes.

The game needs to provide an official "uptime outlet" as an alternative to all its downtime outlets. Sorry WotC, but that's just a basic fact.

 

[billd91]

You're welcome. The idea behind not putting in any official "magic shoppe" rules is so magic can be left somewhat rare and mysterious if desired, but then they never really came up with a good replacement for what to actually do with all of this fancy loot then, especially if you're running a somewhat episodic mode of table-top where the players show up each week to RP characters who go out adventuring as opposed to settling down like I mentioned previously.

The issue with magic shoppes with more or less on-demand items isn't simply that magic is no longer rare and mysterious - it warps how characters are equipped. Quirky, sometimes-useful items get sold for the ol', reliable Big 6 (or their closest equivalents in 5e). It didn't help that too many of the multi-function items in 3e were overpriced to exacerbate that problem. That ended up being a much bigger change to the way D&D was played when considering the evolution of the game from 1e through 3e than, I think, anybody expected.