D&D 5E In fifth-edition D&D, what is gold for?

[Igwilly]

Ok, let’s just get to the same page.
We’re talking about 5e, right?
Because, as far as my memory goes – I don’t have access to the books anymore – the supposedly “rules” for magic item creation, buying and selling were pretty… “Open”, to not say vague, at best. Of course, it is better than saying “magic items cost something from 0 to infinity”; that’s not a lot to count on, but under this definition, it would be “rules”. Without solid guidelines such things can likely go out of control in the game. Especially when the designers think magic items should be “rare” and “special” (which most likely means overtly-powerful).
If some people want optional rules for the magic item market, why not?
It doesn’t matter how much this edition is supposed to be “DM-empowering” or “easy to house-rule”. Official rules still mean something that DM-rulings or house-rules will never mean.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think "it was in Edition #" is a good enough reason to include a rules element.

Rules can be pretty arbitrary (and, let's face it, pretty bad), so it's hard to disagree with that.
OTOH, that a rules element in a past edition enabled a concept or a playstyle, is reason enough that 5e, even if it if has to use a quite different rules element to do it, enable the same things and do so (if the DM's on board) maybe not as well, but well enough not to completely disappoint.

There are plenty of examples of 5e pulling that off with regard to editions of the classic game. The Champion is not, exactly, a 2e fighter in it's mechanical details, but you can reprise a fighter you played in 2e, and have it feel pretty similar. You won't technically be using weapon specialization nor ever making 2 attacks per 3 rounds or calculating THAC0, but you'll be dishing out a lot of damage via multiple attacks with you chosen combat style.

Then there are examples where the classic concept is covered, in the positive sense of what it can do, but has a great deal more piled onto it (or a lot of limitations and restrictions removed), so that it feels different, but it's hard to complain that it 'lacks' anything. 5e's take on Vancian casting is a prime example. A 5e wizard has the spellcasting-system advantages of both a traditional prepped caster and a 3.x spontaneous caster, and faces fewer limitations on that casting than ever. It's possible to complain it doesn't feel like classic magic-user, it's hard to come up with any way that 'adding' to it will get it there - it'd need to have things taken away, and restrictions imposed.

There are some cases where clear and significant attempts have been made, but it's still just close. You don't have 1e-style multi-classing giving you an old-school fighter/magic-user, but you do have Backgrounds that let you mix in a taste of one with the other, and the EK for a fighter-heavy take on the concept (and, later, we got the Bladesinger for the wizard-heavy take). You could still argue that we don't /quite/ have a 'real' fighter/magic-user in 5e, though, not because of the specific mechanics, but because the feel of neatly 'averaging' the two isn't quite there with either sub-class, nor with the option of 3e-style MCing.

There are also cases where it just hasn't pulled it off yet. The 3.x and 4e fighters, and the Warlord, for closely related instances. Yes, the BM takes a stab at covering some of same concepts, superficially, but it falls too far short in what it can actually deliver.

And, there are the hopeful cases where something is in the works. Psionics in the form of the Mystic being the clearest example.

 

[Igwilly]

Then there are examples where the classic concept is covered, in the positive sense of what it can do, but has a great deal more piled onto it (or a lot of limitations and restrictions removed), so that it feels different, but it's hard to complain that it 'lacks' anything. 5e's take on Vancian casting is a prime example. A 5e wizard has the spellcasting-system advantages of both a traditional prepped caster and a 3.x spontaneous caster, and faces fewer limitations on that casting than ever. It's possible to complain it doesn't feel like classic magic-user, it's hard to come up with any way that 'adding' to it will get it there - it'd need to have things taken away, and restrictions imposed.

I’m sorry to say that, but 5e’s magic system is not Vancian. It is, basically, a 3e Sorcerer; a system I personally call “The Charge System”. Vancian is what I call “The Slot System”. In this case, the slot system is pretty separate from LFQW; that’s the way spells scaled back them.
I’ve played both. Very different. I liked much more the slot system. Oh, and the 5e’s optional “spell-point system” is, in my honest opinion, just terrible. Not that all spell-point systems are terrible, this one is terrible.
Just something I wanted to add.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I’m sorry to say that, but 5e’s magic system is not Vancian. It is, basically, a 3e Sorcerer

Sure. Except that a 3e Sorcerer couldn't change which spells he knew overnight. The 3e wizard could, and the 5e wizard can. Similarly, the 3e wizard couldn't decide which spell to cast from which slot round to round, while the 3e Sorcerer could and the 5e wizard can. That's what I mean about 5e combining the two, and failing to deliver on the Vancian feel by giving too much, rather than not enough.

You could 'memorize' spells directly into slots instead of doing separate preparation and slot-casting, and make a 5e wizard Vancian, just like that. It'd likely remain a perfectly viable character. Full 6-8 encounter days would be that much more challenging, but those aren't mandatory, either.

a system I personally call “The Charge System”. Vancian is what I call “The Slot System”. In this case, the slot system is pretty separate from LFQW; that’s the way spells scaled back them.

The Q in LFQW was in how individual spells /and/ slots scaled with level and how that synergized. It's lessened by having spells scale with slots instead of caster level (and that's offset by having DCs scale with character level instead of slot level), but the total power represented by slots still isn't downright linear.

Oh, and the 5e’s optional “spell-point system” is, in my honest opinion, just terrible. Not that all spell-point systems are terrible, this one is terrible.

I've never met a spell-point system that wasn't at least as terrible as 5e's.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...the supposedly “rules” for magic item creation, buying and selling were pretty… “Open”, to not say vague, at best.

The rules present in the 5th edition DMG for creating magic items have most of the same things that the 3.5 rules for creating magic items have, specifically:

• Restriction to which characters are capable (in 3.5 it was handled by feats, 5th edition uses having spell slots instead)
• What items are craftable depending upon character level (3.5 mostly divied up item types by levels, 5th edition instead uses rough item potency by levels)
• How much gp an item costs to make
• How long it will take to craft an item (though 5th edition includes more readily available ways to reduce the time)
• Ways to figure out the above for an item of the player's design, rather than just how to make what items are already in the books (3.5 used a chart with fiddly math, 5th edition provides guidance on power level by rarity of item and a few additional bits like maximum bonus and spell frequency suggestions - albeit in a different section of the book from the above items)

What is "missing" is nothing - except, of course, for approach; 3.5 gave a chart with math and the assumption that said math was actually correct for any given group, while 5th edition openly and honestly relies upon the group to determine their own correct ratings of things.

Selling magic items is supported by rules that actually bring character's skill into the equation, and rather than assigning a purchasing power to a settlement and a flat price to every sold item, give the amount of time needed to broker a deal and variance in the price the buyer is willing to pay.

So again, it's not a difference in things actually being "missing" - they are just different. It's more like haggling while shopping about local pawn shops than taking in empty soda/beer cans for the set return rate.

As for buying, that is again a case of nothing actually "missing' but things being different - where 3.5 had a specific price listed and you were probably going to be able to get the item at that price (unless the DM is used to altering market prices like many published adventures do by saying things like "Any item in X book is available for an additional 25% of listed price"), 5th edition has ranges suggested so that, for example, a potion of healing (common magic item) could cost as little as the 50 gp it is listed at in the PHB, or could run as high as 100 gp if that felt appropriate for the circumstances it is being purchased under.

Both are the same - a price that is ultimately set by the DM based on the number printed in the book.

To call them "vague" is, I believe, inaccurate.

Official rules still mean something that DM-rulings or house-rules will never mean.

What exactly is that "something"? Because from my point of view that "something" appears to be blind faith - a false belief that because the rules come from WotC they are somehow going to be inherently better for one's own group than what one's own group can come up with.

And I find it especially strange that there are so many folks that are insisting that WotC-written rules would somehow solve the problem they are having, when that problem is that WotC wrote rules that they don't like - because as I've shown above, WotC totally did write rules how to create, buy, and sell magical items both found in books or created by DM/players.

 

[Jester David]

OTOH, that a rules element in a past edition enabled a concept or a playstyle, is reason enough that 5e, even if it if has to use a quite different rules element to do it, enable the same things and do so (if the DM's on board) maybe not as well, but well enough not to completely disappoint.

I agree that 5e should try to hit most of the major playstyles. And, where it cannot offer full support, the rules should be flexible enough that the DM can tweak the rules to accomodate that playstyle.
I don't think even a game like Pathfinder - which is arguably one of the most supported RPGs of all time - supports all playstyles.

In this case does "magic item crafting" really count as a "playstyle" though? It's an element of the game, but it's not something you actually play. It's like feats or skill ranks. It compliments the optimiser playstyle, but power gaming exists without a robust magic item economy.

Many of the optional rules and game elements designed to encourage alternate play styles (sanity, honour, marking, weapon speeds, lingering wounds) are also really small in terms of size. They're not really robustly covered. In that regard, magic item crafting/ selling receives the same attention as these other aspects.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I agree that 5e should try to hit most of the major playstyles.

That'd be disagreement, then, since I wouldn't want to see "minor" playstyles (how'd that even be measured) fall through the cracks, either.

I don't think even a game like Pathfinder - which is arguably one of the most supported RPGs of all time - supports all playstyles.

I wouldn't expect it to, it's really pretty focused on the styles 3.5 best-supported. And, like most editions of D&D, PF is very 'list-based,' so the more it grows, paradoxically, the less you can do with it. IMHO, 5e at least has the potential to avoid that pitfall with its commitment to keeping things optional ('modular was the language of the playtest, but I don't think it quite fits').

In this case does "magic item crafting" really count as a "playstyle" though?

No, not IMHO. It might be an element of a playstyle, but it seems to me the option is there for 5e DMs who want a style of campaign that would need such things.

Many of the optional rules and game elements designed to encourage alternate play styles (sanity, honour, marking, weapon speeds, lingering wounds) are also really small in terms of size. They're not really robustly covered. In that regard, magic item crafting/ selling receives the same attention as these other aspects.

I don't think that's fair: different game elements, depending on what they're trying to accomplish could require very different amounts of support, however you're measuring 'size.'

Making the Artificer a full class, for instance, is a much heavier solution than making it a Wizard tradition, but they're goin' there (and, really, for a narrow concept that's appeared in only two editions, and only off in the supplemental periphery of those). A hopeful sign, in a way.

 

[Jester David]

That'd be disagreement, then, since I wouldn't want to see "minor" playstyles (how'd that even be measured) fall through the cracks, either.

I don't want to either, but the world is imperfect. There are a finite number of pages in published books and the writers are paid for their time.

If I tweet Mike Mearls with a feature request on Twitter, I don't really expect him to stop and design that just for me an my table. It has to have broader appeal. Of course, neither do I expect them to only design content that they expect will appeal to 90% of tables.
They design for someplace in the middle. A wide audience. Things that many tables want.

No, not IMHO. It might be an element of a playstyle, but it seems to me the option is there for 5e DMs who want a style of campaign that would need such things.

For simple things, sure. For something that takes a couple hours to write and a couple more hours for someone else to edit and give feedback on, sure.
Especially if it's something not already supported in the game.

The problem here is that the rules for making magic items & buying/selling magic items are already in the game. There are rules. The complaint is they're not robust and detailed enough.
For someone running a horror campaign, the fear, horror, and sanity rules are also a little weak. And the lingering wounds rules aren't great for someone who wants a gritty game without regular maiming. But adding new variants of those rules will always be a lower priority than making brand new rules for unsupported gameplay.

And making those new rules is largely simple and not complicated. A magic item economy? Crazy hard.
As an example, 2nd Edition had a system for making classes in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Compared to that, the class design rules in the 5e DMG are a joke. (To say nothing about the options in Skills & Powers.) But making a large robust system (likely point buy) for designing classes would not be the most efficient use of time. It'd be impossible to balance and require laboriously going through every option in the books, assigning arbitrary value in a near vacuum. So you'd be spending a lot of time to make rules that only kinda work while presenting the deception of a balanced subsystem creating a trap for Dungeon Masters.

Magic items are the same. There's no way to assign an exact price to a magic item. But without fixed prices, a firmer crafting system wouldn't work. Similarly, designing magic items themselves is more an art than something you can do with a formula.
It'd be just as effective (and balanced) to go through the DMG and assigning a random number to each magic item.
Plus, with 5th Edition, magic items inherently unbalance the game. They're a power increase for the players, and putting their creation and selection in the hands of the players rather than the DM is outright broken. It's trading something that doesn't confer a mechanical benefit in the game (gold) for a bonus. It's a little like allowing players to increase their ability score or gain powers by training using downtime days.
("I spent two months working out, so my Strength goes up by 2.")

I don't think that's fair: different game elements, depending on what they're trying to accomplish could require very different amounts of support, however you're measuring 'size.' More robust rules for creating magic items would be rules for breaking the balance of their system.

Making the Artificer a full class, for instance, is a much heavier solution than making it a Wizard tradition, but they're goin' there (and, really, for a narrow concept that's appeared in only two editions, and only off in the supplemental periphery of those). A hopeful sign, in a way.

I'd hesitate to call the "artificer" a playstyle. It's a rules expansion, but very different than the optional rules and subsystems needed for customisation. And while it takes a lot of work, that work can actually result in a balanced product.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't want to either, but the world is imperfect. There are a finite number of pages in published books and the writers are paid for their time.

Meh, there are a finite number of things that have been done in past editions. No past editions had infinite pages devoted to anything. ;P Indeed, there's a lot of overlap among past editions, and while styles of play may be nigh-infinite in their variations and idiosyncrasies (and the mis-perceptions of and prejudices against them), those that have been supported in the past did not require undue efforts then, and wouldn't now.

If I tweet Mike Mearls with a feature request on Twitter, I don't really expect him to stop and design that just for me an my table. It has to have broader appeal.

If it had enough appeal to be supported in a past edition, for instance. No one suggested that everyone get a custom design, just that 5e come through where past editions had come through. It'd be awesome if it could continue beyond that, eventually (and it may well do so, incidentally - in covering both 3e and 1e, it might open to styles never before supported, too, for instance).

The complaint is they're not robust and detailed enough.

There are rules, but they're not good enough? If that's the case, fine, it's a legitimate complaint. But is it the case, or are they just not campaign specific-enough? I'm honestly not so sure. Magic items in 5e are pretty powerful/arbitrary (in keeping with the traditions of the classic game), which items you place is a powerful DM tool - handing that over to players by letting them just make any item they can afford is not a decision to be taken lightly.

More simply, detail can always be added, officially, semi-officially, or unofficially. Robustness, OTOH, needs to be designed in from the ground up - and belief that a system has any robustness would be encouraged by the ineffable stamp of officialdom (though, let's face it, the D&D label doesn't exactly scream "robust balanced system here!").

As an example, 2nd Edition had a system for making classes in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Compared to that, the class design rules in the 5e DMG are a joke. (To say nothing about the options in Skills & Powers.)

I used the 2e system, and it wasn't exactly entirely lacking in humor in that sense, either...

Plus, with 5th Edition, magic items inherently unbalance the game.

Not so much. Balance wasn't exactly the top priority for 5e, and 5e is not balanced by the assumption of items appearing on a level-based schedule. That doesn't mean adding them will unbalance your campaign, just that the characters who get them will be better than they'd've been without them. That might, if the characters who get the items were un-balanced 'low' relative to the other characters and/or the challenges presented by the campaign /bring/ it into better balance, for instance. Magic items can be approached as a DM tool, one of many that the DM can use to balance his campaign how he likes. Magic item creation might bring them into the realm of player-directed tool, as well - in which case we're talking 'rewards for system mastery' as much as 'potential balance problems.' Folks who are jones'n for the former likely have few issues with accepting the latter.

I'd hesitate to call the "artificer" a playstyle.

I didn't think either of us had. It's one of those missing game elements that might help resume support for styles enjoyed in past editions where the concept had appeared.

 

[Jester David]

Meh, there are a finite number of things that have been done in past editions. No past editions had infinite pages devoted to anything. ;P Indeed, there's a lot of overlap among past editions, and while styles of play may be nigh-infinite in their variations and idiosyncrasies (and the mis-perceptions of and prejudices against them), those that have been supported in the past did not require undue efforts then, and wouldn't now.

If it had enough appeal to be supported in a past edition, for instance. No one suggested that everyone get a custom design, just that 5e come through where past editions had come through. It'd be awesome if it could continue beyond that, eventually (and it may well do so, incidentally - in covering both 3e and 1e, it might open to styles never before supported, too, for instance).

There were a LOT more books in past editions. I think they need to be a little more choosy in the content that gets updated.

More simply, detail can always be added, officially, semi-officially, or unofficially. Robustness, OTOH, needs to be designed in from the ground up - and belief that a system has any robustness would be encouraged by the ineffable stamp of officialdom (though, let's face it, the D&D label doesn't exactly scream "robust balanced system here!").

Not so much. Balance wasn't exactly the top priority for 5e, and 5e is not balanced by the assumption of items appearing on a level-based schedule.

5e is only "unbalanced" when the sample size of other RPGs it is compared against is exceedingly small or very simple.

That doesn't mean adding them will unbalance your campaign, just that the characters who get them will be better than they'd've been without them.

Which is kinda the definition of "imbalance".
The players *might* be balanced against each other, but that's not the only measure. If you need to change the monsters, the power level of encounters, the content of a published adventure, it is unbalanced.

Magic item creation might bring them into the realm of player-directed tool, as well - in which case we're talking 'rewards for system mastery' as much as 'potential balance problems.' Folks who are jones'n for the former likely have few issues with accepting the latter.

Yes. Power gamers who want to "win" will seldom have problems with things that make it easier...