D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

CapnZapp · Feb 1, 2018

Hussar said:
Actually, I would say that you are very mistaken. The upgrade from +1 to +2 is HUGE in a bounded accuracy system where the PC's almost never gain any bonuses to attack. And, as far as utility goes, a +1 weapon, in a bounded accuracy system, is virtually priceless.

Sorry but one +1 bonus is exactly worth as much as any other +1 bonus.

And in 5th edition you quickly reach the stage where you easily hit most foes, especially if you're good at minmaxing. (Note the edition was built that way and I'm not complaining).

I'm just saying that there is nothing special about going from +1 to +2.

In contrast, the difference between a non-magical axe and a +1 Axe or even a "+0 Axe" (some magical weapons do not give a plus bonus but still count as magical) is HUGE, since so very many monsters have resistance to non-magical blunt, slash and pierce damage.

It's easy to forget how very different 3rd edition was, especially in the now long-gone 3.0 ruleset. You could have a monster with "damage reduction 30/+2". This meant that the damage of any single weapon hit would be reduced by thirty (!!) unless delivered by a +2 or better weapon. That is not a per-turn reduction by the way, it really was per attack(!!). Clearly a boring +2 Longsword was MUCH more desirable than a +1 Flaming Longsword then. The pricing system in Sane can clearly be traced all the way back to 2000, despite these fundamental assumptions no longer holding.

In 5th edition, many gamers have concluded that all the damage reduction in the MM is mostly just fluff, since it is so easy to get hold of a magic weapon (even with zero shoppes!).

The point remains: there is only one notable level of weapon upgrade, and that is from non-magical to magical. Everything else is just gravy.

For instance, I would MUCH rather have an evocative Flame Tongue or Sunblade than an off-the-shelf +2 Longsword. What good does that extra +1 do me? Utility-based prices need to take that into account in order to reflect this edition's sensibilities.

The only reason to not price a +2 bonus at twice the amount of a +1 bonus is to reinforce rarity. That's why I have elected to keep the "bonus squared" pricing. But NOT starting at 0 gp, that just doesn't represent how 5th edition works.

CapnZapp · Feb 1, 2018

Hussar said:
Considering how much people bitch about how fast leveling is, it's really a wonder when you have other people insisting that you have no downtime and must adventure every single second of your character's life or you are wasting time.

And, as far as modules go, if you are incapable of adjusting a module to fit with your play style, then you shouldn't be DMing.

BINGO!

But seriously, have you even once considered that a group of players might not be interested in building churches or creating thieves guilds or donating money to orphanages...?

It would be nice if this edition continued supporting the playstyle where you spend gold on magical upgrades, instead of offering downtime as the ONLY gold outlet.

CapnZapp · Feb 1, 2018

Hussar said:
And, let's not forget, we DO have a magic item price list in the game. It might not be based on utility, but, it is there.

On the contrary, do let us forget it, since it useless for the purpose of giving the PCs gold which they then buy magic items for.

CapnZapp · Feb 1, 2018

MechaPilot said:
Money sink implies that money is simply being bled away at no benefit.

Yes, that is one interpretation.

But you should be aware it also shorthand for ANY opportunity the heroes get to spend their hard-earned gold; including beneficial ones (useful ones, fun ones etc). In this context, it is used to mean the opposite of a game where you can't spend your gold (at least not on anything you're interested in).

If I have used the term, it is supposed to be this latter definition.

CapnZapp · Feb 1, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
That's actually a great reason to not have magic shops or other forms of "player driven magic item selection". Controlling which magic items are available is a powerful tool DMs have to alleviate powergaming.

No.

You can easily have a magic shoppe that just happens to not have any greataxes, only daggers. The DM can be in full control over what to stock the shoppes with.

So it is not a great reason at all.

Controlling magic items is a powerful tool to alleviate powergaming, but that has nothing to do with the existence of magic shoppes.

Please don't interpret "player driven magic item selection" to mean completely unrestricted access to the full list of DMG items just to throw shade on the idea of being able to buy magic items for gold.

Maxperson · Feb 1, 2018

delericho said:
You realise, of course, that in a world with both realistic encumbrance and also lots of magic (enough for people to need a "golf bag" for their magic swords) some bright spark would have created some sort of "scabbard of holding" to get around the problem?

Or bring a caddie with them.

Maxperson · Feb 1, 2018

CapnZapp said:
Sorry but one +1 bonus is exactly worth as much as any other +1 bonus.

Not in 5e. In 5e the +1 bonus for things like stat increases and feats are baked into the game math. They are accounted for and countered by other things on the DM side of things. Not magic items, though. Those are not accounted for in the game math, so they are pure bonus.

And in 5th edition you quickly reach the stage where you easily hit most foes, especially if you're good at minmaxing. (Note the edition was built that way and I'm not complaining).

And with a +1 sword, you can more easily hit them AND do more damage. Not all +s to hit from other sources come with that additional damage.

It's fine for that to be less important to you than a sword that does fire damage, but your preference can't change the fact, and it is a fact, that in 5e +s from magic swords and armor mean more than +s from other sources.

Maxperson · Feb 1, 2018

[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] [MENTION=6895991]Coroc[/MENTION] Now I'm picturing Nodwick running around with a golf bag full of swords. Thanks you two!

Krachek · Feb 1, 2018

CapnZapp said:
Sorry but one +1 bonus is exactly worth as much as any other +1 bonus.

And in 5th edition you quickly reach the stage where you easily hit most foes, especially if you're good at minmaxing. (Note the edition was built that way and I'm not complaining).

I'm just saying that there is nothing special about going from +1 to +2.

In contrast, the difference between a non-magical axe and a +1 Axe or even a "+0 Axe" (some magical weapons do not give a plus bonus but still count as magical) is HUGE, since so very many monsters have resistance to non-magical blunt, slash and pierce damage.

It's easy to forget how very different 3rd edition was, especially in the now long-gone 3.0 ruleset. You could have a monster with "damage reduction 30/+2". This meant that the damage of any single weapon hit would be reduced by thirty (!!) unless delivered by a +2 or better weapon. That is not a per-turn reduction by the way, it really was per attack(!!). Clearly a boring +2 Longsword was MUCH more desirable than a +1 Flaming Longsword then. The pricing system in Sane can clearly be traced all the way back to 2000, despite these fundamental assumptions no longer holding.

In 5th edition, many gamers have concluded that all the damage reduction in the MM is mostly just fluff, since it is so easy to get hold of a magic weapon (even with zero shoppes!).

The point remains: there is only one notable level of weapon upgrade, and that is from non-magical to magical. Everything else is just gravy.

For instance, I would MUCH rather have an evocative Flame Tongue or Sunblade than an off-the-shelf +2 Longsword. What good does that extra +1 do me? Utility-based prices need to take that into account in order to reflect this edition's sensibilities.

The only reason to not price a +2 bonus at twice the amount of a +1 bonus is to reinforce rarity. That's why I have elected to keep the "bonus squared" pricing. But NOT starting at 0 gp, that just doesn't represent how 5th edition works.

Indeed in 5th a sword with the 'magical' tag is enough.
And even without magic weapons a party can manage to survive.

But on the other hand, in the real world a mere +5% make a huge difference at elite level.
+5% is sometime just what you need to step from rank 100 to #1 world ranking.
Some athlete would gladly pay millions to have this little +1.

Back in DnD.
2 fighters, same AC, same hit points. The only difference is a +1 or +2 weapon.
Facing a life or death duel, how much a character would pay to be the only one with the +2 sword?

Guest 6801328 · Feb 1, 2018

CapnZapp said:
No.

You can easily have a magic shoppe that just happens to not have any greataxes, only daggers. The DM can be in full control over what to stock the shoppes with.

So it is not a great reason at all.

Controlling magic items is a powerful tool to alleviate powergaming, but that has nothing to do with the existence of magic shoppes.

Please don't interpret "player driven magic item selection" to mean completely unrestricted access to the full list of DMG items just to throw shade on the idea of being able to buy magic items for gold.

Oh.

Then I'm more confused than ever.

I assumed you wanted 'accurate pricing' (more on that anon) because players would have some kind of right to buy whatever items they want.

But if the DM is controlling what's available anyway, they are presumably also controlling the prices. Do you just want the better pricing for DM guidance? I'm having trouble seeing why it matters. If the DM wants to charge 100,000 gold for a +1 sword the players probably won't buy it. Or maybe they will. Why is it important?

There was some discussion earlier about "special" magical weapons. If all magic items of the same type have the same price, doesn't that undermine the whole idea of specialness? Why is that +1 sword 100,000gp? It must be famous.

As for 'accurate pricing', I think that's more of a fantasy than magic spells. Items are worth what people will pay for them, and in a world that's only populated by a half-dozen actual humans you simply can't determine market prices. I suppose if you gathered data from tends of thousands of campaigns, but even then you'd have to normalize for several other variables.

Very, very rough guidelines are either enough or more than enough. Just leave it to DMs to set prices.