D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[MechaPilot]

They do at our table.

It really depends on how many magic items the party has.

Sure, the 4th +1 weapon doesn't feel special. But when the party might not even come across a +1 weapon, finding one is memorable.

Can you please elaborate on how, apart from them being rare finds, +X items are made to feel special at your table?

 

[Nevvur]

We aren't entirely on the same side of the aisle. I don't like being able to purchase magic items, but I also don't think it's "entitled crap" to want WotC to support one's preferred playstyle, and then to vent frustration about not having it. I don't find their argument compelling, but I am sympathetic to their desire.

The basic concept of RPGs supports every playstyle. People can hack any game to their own satisfaction. It's in the opening blurb of every RPG book I've ever read.

It's not the developer's responsibility to support each and every playstyle. I want a skill-point based character progression system rather than this proficiency bonus thing, but I'm not spamming public forums complaining about the lack of official support for it because I don't think WotC owes me that. To restate from my previous post, I don't fault people for wanting a thing. I do fault them for making a big stink over an issue they should be fully capable of handling themselves, and for throwing shade at the developers and players who don't share their gaming objectives. That's where the entitlement remark comes in. I simply can't share your sympathy for them.

 

[ad_hoc]

Can you please elaborate on how, apart from them being rare finds, +X items are made to feel special at your table?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Rarity and specialness go hand in hand.

A magic weapon is character defining for a weapon based character.

A +1 to hit/dmg is huge. It's the main benefit of an ASI (though not the side benefits). Being able to punch through monster resistance also changes the way the character will be played.

How the character fights may also change. A polearm (or switching away from one) is a big change. So is going from a one-handed or two-handed weapon, or perhaps it is a versatile weapon and the character has the 2-Handed Weapon Fighting Style so uses it in 2 hands. Ends up being similar but there will probably be cases where the character ends up using it one-handed where they wouldn't if they had a heavy weapon.

 

[MechaPilot]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. Rarity and specialness go hand in hand.

Ah, then you probably can't answer my question because you define a magic item being special by a different metric than I do. Rarity is not specialness to me; it's false or manufactured specialness. An item is special to me if it has character. A +1 sword that's the only +1 sword in the whole game world is far less special than the axe of Lord Hightower, who fought the light elves at the battle of the broke-tooth grove and does an extra 1d6 damage to elves, fey and plant monsters.

A magic weapon is character defining for a weapon based character.

A +1 to hit/dmg is huge. It's the main benefit of an ASI (though not the side benefits). Being able to punch through monster resistance also changes the way the character will be played.

How the character fights may also change. A polearm (or switching away from one) is a big change. So is going from a one-handed or two-handed weapon, or perhaps it is a versatile weapon and the character has the 2-Handed Weapon Fighting Style so uses it in 2 hands. Ends up being similar but there will probably be cases where the character ends up using it one-handed where they wouldn't if they had a heavy weapon.

I'm not arguing that +X items aren't mechanically significant. They're just not special. They fade into the background and have no character.

 

[ad_hoc]

Ah, then you probably can't answer my question because you define a magic item being special by a different metric than I do. Rarity is not specialness to me; it's false or manufactured specialness. An item is special to me if it has character. A +1 sword that's the only +1 sword in the whole game world is far less special than the axe of Lord Hightower, who fought the light elves at the battle of the broke-tooth grove and does an extra 1d6 damage to elves, fey and plant monsters.

If every town has 10 axes that do an extra 1d6 damage to elves, fey, and plant monsters, then are those axes special?

How can an item have character if it has many duplicates? I still don't see how rarity is separate from specialness.

I'm not arguing that +X items aren't mechanically significant. They're just not special. They fade into the background and have no character.

Why can't they have character?
And why do they have less character than other items?

Regardless of the item, the way they shape the PCs and the story is what makes them special.

Any item with any ability can be given a name and a backstory. None of that really exists unless it manifests in game. The story of the actual game is what is interesting.

 

[CapnZapp]

1. Utility based pricing and creation - that's never actually been true. It might have been the idea, but, 3e was very bad at it. If we define utility as "something that is going to see the most use at the table" then plussed weapons should be the absolutely most expensive items out there. Nothing is more utilitarian than a +1 weapon. Nothing in the game will see as much use. The only thing that might come close are the plussed stat items, which again, should be fantastically expensive if we are going by utility.

But the items weren't priced like that. They were priced based on a presumed level where your character should have items of this power level. Thus the Wealth by Level tables. In earlier editions, a 5th level fighter would have a +1 sword, so, a +1 sword was priced such that a 5th level 3e fighter could afford it.

The pricing was never based on utility though. That's why we had the Big 6 magic items that overshadowed everything else you could pick up. They were cheap and unbelievably utilitarian.

Thank you for - perhaps unwittingly - providing a lot of detail on why updating the d20 rules to 5E is far from trivial, and in fact very hard.

Yes, I absolutely agree Sane's approach is far from perfect; to take only a single example, the price structure of magic weapons translate poorly into 5E, where ANY magic weapon is basically all you ever need. The upgrade from +1 to +2 is minor, since no monster resistances differentiates between the two.

So the old "plus squared x1000" formula doesn't cut it in 5E. And that's just the most basic of assumptions, which gives you an idea of exactly how false the claim "just use d20 prices" some people bandy about really is.

In summary: Sane Magic Prices is a badly leaking band-aid, but still better than nothing (which is still better than the train-wreck that is rarity-based pricing).


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

It's not the developer's responsibility to support each and every playstyle.

You can't be speaking of uptime venues of gold expenditure (pricing magic items), since that was core to the experience of D&D for close to twenty years, and I'm sure you don't want to come across as utterly dismissive and condescending.

WotC promised 5th edition would support the play styles of previous editions. In one major case, we're still waiting for that support.





Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Rarity is not specialness to me; it's false or manufactured specialness.

+1

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[delericho]

If every town has 10 axes that do an extra 1d6 damage to elves, fey, and plant monsters, then are those axes special?

Yes, because while the town might have the ten, the party of PCs is unlikely to have more than one. What's more, that extra +1d6 damage will only come into effect infrequently, at which point the players get the "cool!" moment as they realise the extra effect.

A sword +1 gets written on the character sheet, added to the two appropriate boxes, and never thought about again.

Rather than trying to find some way to make the sword +1 special again the DM would be far better served to give out more interesting treasures. That way, you're not fighting against the inherent cynicism of people who have been playing for decades and have done all this before a dozen times.

Well, that or always play with newbie players for whom this is all shiny and new.

(And, actually, better still would be to simply remove the sword +1 from the game entirely - the treasure that is found should give the +1 and the +1d6 vs elves etc. Or +1 and occasional fire damage, or whatever. So that the players aren't disappointed that their +1d6 damage sword isn't the more utilitarian +1 sword instead, and you get the ongoing "cool!" moments. Or, in 3e terms, the "Big Six" basically shouldn't exist as standalone items.)

 

[ad_hoc]

Yes, because while the town might have the ten, the party of PCs is unlikely to have more than one. What's more, that extra +1d6 damage will only come into effect infrequently, at which point the players get the "cool!" moment as they realise the extra effect.

I can't comprehend this. I guess we just have different tastes.

(and you're even invoking rarity here too even though you say you don't care for it...)

A sword +1 gets written on the character sheet, added to the two appropriate boxes, and never thought about again.

Every time they swing it actually.

Well, that or always play with newbie players for whom this is all shiny and new.

Please don't assume things...

This is old hat when characters get tons of items. We're back to rarity.

Here's a question: How often do characters/parties die at your table?