D&D 5E Sane Magic Item Prices

[Matrix Sorcica]

A player character is considered to be CR = Level.

That was only in 3e I think. I don't think that's a listed rule in 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

And I was using scouts the entire time. So, I'm not sure why you think I've "suddenly changed" from one to the other.

I didn't realize that you had altered the original premise as presented. The person who originated it didn't say scouts.

I've shown you can afford it, you just suddenly decided that the pricing wasn't good enough, based off nothing except that I should be "paying them more" even though I'm already paying triple the cost .

You haven't. Triple cost isn't enough for elite scouts, who aren't hired to fight in any case.

I don't play with experience, so I was never going to think of that angle, @S'mon brought up experience and I agreed with them. If you are playing with experience, that is a factor. But, I don't assume that. And you didn't either.

So first, I do and did assume experience. What I don't do is assume house rules, because those are irrelevant to a conversation about how the game functions. They only apply to your table. Your house rule not to use experience is not relevant to this discussion, other than to show why you had that oversight.

And, you have not shown them losing any money at all. So, not sure how I'm losing twice what their pay and take is.

I have. 6 gold a day is not enough for a 3rd level scout. They are an elite troop that you don't even hire to fight, so I'm not sure why you used them in the first place. They are intended to track to places, people and armies, and then others do the fighting. If any scouts wind up in combat, something has gone wrong for them.

Also, this was originally a response to your "effective but not cost effective" which seems is a position you are abandoning now, since, as I point out, that just is flatly false.

I'm not sure what you think I've abandoned. Mercenaries, at least the ones intended to actually fight, can in certain circumstances be effecting at taking out an enemy.

"In my opinion"

My opinion based on the facts, sure. Your opinion is based on flights of fancy where scouts hired to scout are suddenly warriors going to do battle.

Forgot to add that part. Since it is a fairly common fantasy trope to have the mercenary company that loves to fight.

I've never seen it in any fantasy books that I've read, and I've read a lot. Hell, even The Black Company doesn't like to fight. They avoid it whenever possible, even though they are really good at it.

I never tried to hide that I was using 100% accuracy. I fully and openly admit it. That math is easier than trying to make up an AC and then try and match it. And, when you gave me an AC, I calculated it for you, so I didn't even force you to do your own math.

You might as well use all critical hits doing max damage while you are at it. You'll do a lot more damage that way. If you're going to use ridiculous numbers, why stop halfway?

Also, a few scouts are bounty hunters, that just means a percentage of their population. I might not be hiring bounty hunters, I might be hiring former army scouts. We never clarified. Nice attempt to obscure the facts with pointless semantic arguments though.

Yes, can be hired to be bounty hunters, tracking your quarry for you so that you can capture him.

We hired them for a job, that job wasn't bounty hunting. I don't think it matters that the Bone Devil didn't break his parole. This is some really petty arguments.

I thought we were using ridiculous arguments, like 100% hit rates. Was I wrong?

Interesting how you completely ignore the rest of that paragraph. Maybe you missed it? I'll repost it,

So, hiring someone with weapon skills is 2 gp a day.

According to you, hiring actual mercenaries is "more expensive" so I jumped it to 6 gp per day.

This is a Strawman of my argument. I was talking about offices, which cost substantially more. Those officers up the overall cost to about 6gp per day, but most of the 30 will be men making the 2gp. Base average skilled mercs. The level 1 kind. Not an entire group of officer level elite scouts(level 3). That would be substantially more than 6gp a day.

Then according to you, for no reason except CR, you decided that Scouts must be even more expensive.

No reason except for actual reasons, which I put forth.

You won't say how much, so I asked if it should be 10 gp per day. That is the daily allowance of a minor lord. For a bounty hunter, must be an expensive bounty. I know there are some bounty hunters who can spend months tracking down a target, must be awesome to pay someone like that 300 gold a month (I averaged the number of days in the month to 30. If the month is shorter it will be less than 300, if the month is longer it will be more than 300. Also, we have been assuming a 7 day week, not all DnD worlds use a 7 day week, but I went with this assumption because it is easier and more familiar to people.)

At level 3, most PC parties I know would want about 250g each for a two week job, so about 18g a day.

A Gladiator is a position, they are CR 5, double the warrior and TEN TIMES more than the scout. So, do they get paid 45 gp per day? A week as a gladiator at those prices is 315 gp, that is a month of living like the lords and ladies of a realm.

Good gladiators were a costly investment and treated well.

So, frankly, I'm curious how much you think these people are worth, and how the various employers they are supposed to have can afford to pay them. I mean, 20 gp per day for every CR 2 warrior in Thay has to be metric tons of gold.

If you are hiring them independently, you pay more. Mercenaries were more expensive than army troops. You can see that in the real world as well. Our non-officer soldiers are paid really low wages, but bands of competent mercenaries make a boatload.

Well I wasn't going to argue every single possible permutation of every adventuring party combination with every single adventure hook and every single monster and every single grouping of monsters and every single terrain type and every single level of fog of war. I don't have that kind of time on my hands, despite how much I seem to be wasting on this.

Orrrrr, you can just make the general statement in one paragraph like I did, and get the point across. No need to take all that time.

Funny how I never claimed a wide open plain, you just assumed that. You make a lot of assumptions for someone who hates it when other people assume parts of your argument.

You assumed a space so wide open that all 30 archers would have multiple rounds of firing free and clear on the target. That's a huge open space...................that doesn't commonly happen with encounters.

 

[Maxperson]

That was only in 3e I think. I don't think that's a listed rule in 5e.

Even in 3e that wasn't true. 3e CR was explicitly the rating of a creature to be a challenge for 4 PCs of that level. One PC cannot be a challenge for 4 PCs of the same level. At least not without giving things like artifacts and special abilities to up the CR.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Even in 3e that wasn't true. 3e CR was explicitly the rating of a creature to be a challenge for 4 PCs of that level. One PC cannot be a challenge for 4 PCs of the same level. At least not without giving things like artifacts and special abilities to up the CR.

Or cleric or druid levels.

Either way, CR is basically a cruel joke on newbies like 3.0 Toughness or d12's.

 

[Maxperson]

Or cleric or druid levels.

Either way, CR is basically a cruel joke on newbies like 3.0 Toughness or d12's.

Most parties will have cleric, druid and wizard levels in there as well. But yeah, 3e CR was borked beyond repair.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Even in 3e that wasn't true. 3e CR was explicitly the rating of a creature to be a challenge for 4 PCs of that level. One PC cannot be a challenge for 4 PCs of the same level. At least not without giving things like artifacts and special abilities to up the CR.

Nonetheless, that was the official rule in 3e, npcs being one CR lower because of less equipment and npcs with npc classes (Warrior, expert, adept) being one lower still. Look to any PF1 product if you don't believe me

 

[Maxperson]

Nonetheless, that was the official rule in 3e, npcs being one CR lower because of less equipment and npcs with npc classes (Warrior, expert, adept) being one lower still. Look to any PF1 product if you don't believe me

Sure. I'm not denying that it was the rule. I'm just saying that it wasn't true.

I mean, a CR 8 creature is a challenge for 4 level 8 PCs, but apparently so is 1 level 8 PC? Even though a CR 8 creature will generally toast a level 8 PC. I ended up tossing CR very early in that edition and just examining creatures vs. what I knew of the party's strengths and weaknesses to see what would be too hard, too easy or be challenged.

 

[tetrasodium]

That was only in 3e I think. I don't think that's a listed rule in 5e.

at least for the polymorph type spells they all have a line like "The new form can be any beast w hose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target’s (or the target’s level" so it's still reasonably true enough for the statement There might be other things with similar cr≤level

 

[Hussar]

.

BUT PLAYERS AREN'T DOING THIS. THEY FIND OTHER PEOPLE DOING THE FIGHTING AND HAVING CAKEWALK GUARANTEED VICTORIES BORING.

That's why I don't buy the argument that, "If you give players too much gold, they will hire a mercenary army to win all battles for you." If that was what players wanted to do, they would do it. But they don't, because they don't want to do that.

Actually, just to be “that guy” I have to say I’ve tried to do this with multiple dm’s and been shot down every time. It’s not that players won’t do this but at least in part that dms refuse to let the players get a cheap “advantage” that the players haven’t “earned”.

I do agree with your point though. I’ve also seen so much resistance to the idea from players as well. Despite it being a totally effective tactic, there are just so many roadblocks that it rarely happens.

It’s funny. Give the party a Druid and an artificer and they’re summoning help every chance they get. But hirelings? Not a chance.

 

[billd91]

It’s funny. Give the party a Druid and an artificer and they’re summoning help every chance they get. But hirelings? Not a chance.

To be fair, those are based on class abilities/spells and the player can usually manage them. Hirelings are something the DM should be administering and may be seen as more of a hassle.