D&D (2024) Uncommon items - actually common?

[Micah Sweet]

Yep!

It's not like NPCs in the edition are built with player-facing rules. Why would we assume that the cities they occupy are?

Because the world makes no sense to me otherwise? I hate the idea that PCs are that divorced from the world they supposedly were born into.

 

[bedir than]

Because the world makes no sense to me otherwise? I hate the idea that PCs are that divorced from the world they supposedly were born into.

Yes you do. Because you played basic D&D designed by Gygax, et al, just like I did. There was never an assumption that every single rule for players was applicable for every NPC just like there was never an assumption that every single rule for monsters meant that PCs could do that thing too.

See Barrier Peak or Elemental Evil or Tomb of Horrors

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes you do. Because you played basic D&D designed by Gygax, et al, just like I did. There was never an assumption that every single rule for players was applicable for every NPC just like there was never an assumption that every single rule for monsters meant that PCs could do that thing too.

See Barrier Peak or Elemental Evil or Tomb of Horrors

There was, however, an assumption that a PC human and an NPC human (for example) had the same potential range of capabilities and were the same kind of being in the fiction, even if the mechanical representation of those abilities was necessary reached the same way.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That does appear to be what they're saying now. It is very much not the game it was.

Only in the 3.x era. In the AD&D era almost everyone was an 0th level character - which wasn't something that was PC facing. 2000-2007 is the aberration. And the NPC classes made a complete mockery of the meaning of "level".

Because the world makes no sense to me otherwise? I hate the idea that PCs are that divorced from the world they supposedly were born into.

D&D Rules are not a physics engine, they are a User Interface. And the 2024 DMG is explicit on this. The game is one called Dungeons & Dragons, not Craftsmen & Farmers. The mechanics of the game focus strictly on adventurers and the exploits of adventurers. A game of Crofters & Craftsmen would have rules for agriculture and bartering that took as much space as D&D combat. But that's at best tangentally relevant to most characters rather than being a focus. And the world expert in portals is unlikely to have the same array of spell slots and the same hit dice as an adventuring wizard even if they can cast spells in their speciality that are beyond that wizard.

The rules aren't meant to make the whole world make sense. They are meant to make the underlying world that exists largely independently of the mechanics accessible to players of adventurers.

 

[Neonchameleon]

D&D Rules are not a physics engine, they are a User Interface.

Or to put things another way the job of the rules isn't to make the world make sense; that's the job of the DM. The job of the rules is to make the world accessible and give the players agency.

 

[Ancalagon]

If my job is to make the world make sense (as a GM), I do that, in part by building a world that reflects the rules.

It makes no sense that a +1 shield and a "shield of casting the shield spell" are worth the same

 

[Ancalagon]

Are you suggesting that the rarity is rated to adventurers, not the world and its folk? That could make sense.

It is very common for adventurers to have uncommon items. I can't recall a campaign where there weren't at least a few items of the sort.

My observation is that it seems the rarity is not rated to adventurers.

 

[Oofta]

The more I think about it, the more I think the problem is linking rarity and power.

Take the humble bag of holding. Can I imagine a world where they are "uncommon"? Of course!

What I have a hard time imagining is that it's worth 400 gp when it's trivial to demonstrate that a merchant using a bag of holding to transport valuable goods could make the bag pay for itself and more in less than a year.

It's easy for me to imagine a fantasy world where a shield +1 and a shield of shielding have the same rarity. It's baffling that they would be worth the same value.

I don't have an issue with it. First, it depends on how much you think a gold piece is worth. A very wealthy merchant could afford it, but for a lot of merchants? It would be a pretty big investment. If a GP is roughly equal to, say $50, then that's $2,000. Which to us? Doesn't seem like much, but most people on this forum live in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. But the other option is to just do what I do and say that just because it's on the list of uncommon items doesn't mean it exists. If it does exist then I think about how it impacts the world.

For example I assume that many people have continual light in their homes. Not cheap but constant bright light that won't burn your house down and never, ever needs to be replaced? Worth the investment. Then again, I also assume that magical poultices actually work and specialists do small magics that wouldn't even qualify as a magic spell. It's just that the gnomish baker makes cookies that really are magically delicious.

Then I look at something like a +1 shield versus a bag of holding and if I allow bags of holding I assume there's many, many more bags of holding out there than +1 shields because of the utility. But there could also be much higher demand for a bag of holding than a shield which is ever so slightly higher defense which for the vast majority of people will only come into play on rare occasions unless your a soldier during time of war. That soldier is unlikely to ever see a magical shield on their salary. I also think you're overestimating how many goods can be shipped in a 2x2x4 foot area. For very high value goods? It's worth it. Very few goods would justify that cost, especially since an item needs to fit.

 

[Clint_L]

This is an off-shoot of the "bespoke items" thread.

I've been thinking a lot about the "meaning" of uncommon. The crafting rules in 5.5 are pretty generous, and uncommon items are pretty accessible. Given the very high utility of some of these items, it seems to me that they would be... common? I've been thinking a lot about this, because the rules actually fit the campaign I'm about to start (Yoon Suin); which has a great abundance of castes living in an area for thousands of years. There has been plenty of time to make lots of items.

But I thought more about it, common for whom?

Uncommon items are quite ... mundane for adventurers, heroes, but also nobles, military officers - any kind of people with significant wealth and a life where conflict is quite likely. I could see a wealthy merchant acquiring utility, protective or divination items too.

Common magical items are "common" from well, the more common people. Shop keeps, wealthy farmers, common sell swords. If you make a gp a day, but manage to save 1 silver a day... you could afford a common item in a reasonable amount of time.

I think that this perspective can be helpful. In a somewhat magic heavy world, which is the setting that the rules seem to imply, a +1 sword or a bag of holding shouldn't be a big deal.

Sure, if that's what you prefer in your setting. There's nothing in the game or the game's logic that requires any particular rarity for magic items, and in my campaign they are clearly much rarer than in yours. It's just a matter of taste.

 

[Clint_L]

I don't have an issue with it. First, it depends on how much you think a gold piece is worth. A very wealthy merchant could afford it, but for a lot of merchants? It would be a pretty big investment. If a GP is roughly equal to, say $50, then that's $2,000. Which to us? Doesn't seem like much, but most people on this forum live in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. But the other option is to just do what I do and say that just because it's on the list of uncommon items doesn't mean it exists. If it does exist then I think about how it impacts the world.

I doubt that many of us live in Luxembourg, TBH, but I don't think real world comparisons make much difference. My logic goes like this: how much magic do I want in this particular campaign - what serves the narrative best? Price accordingly.