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

[tetrasodium]

No, it didn't set it.

FWIW, the word is precedent, not president (auto-correct???).

You found the potions in the dungeons, you didn't buy them commonly in a local adventurer's supply store along with your chain shirt and heavy crossbow...

You did both.tge critical difference was that recovery and lethality were designed so they were set to a level where those potions were such "necessary items" in game changing ways that the dmg even suggested it.

This has NOTHING to do with a PC wizard dying and then them bringing in another wizard. How is that supposed to be connected to spell scrolls...???

"Once you say that a player's wizard dies and they can Come back into the campaign by replacing the dead wizard with a whole nother wizard, you kind of made a world where there are enough wizards to have at least the most minor scrolls for sale."

I still fail to see any connection whatsoever.


Sell them? Why?

I find a scroll in an ancient tomb, not at my local market...


I never said it was... but that has nothing to do with what you wrote as I can see it:

"It quickly becomes if you don't want magic treasure, you going to have to ban magic classes."


5E is designed to NOT require any magic treasure--so no changes would be needed at all if I wanted to play it without magical items.

We're not talking about removing magic items from AD&D, but from 5E.

My point is concerning 5E, so let's keep it about 5E, shall we? Thanks.

It doesn't matter if 5e is designed to not require "magic items" because it's designed to feel like the GM gave out too many and established superman's world of cardboard as the minimum baseline standard even without them.


Holding back on magic items doesn't make it no longer world of cardboard and it takes whole lot more than limiting them to avert it.

 

[ezo]

Going to disagree on the healing potion and expand upon both why it doesn't check the box you are describing and why other design elements create that box. IF PCs needed bulk purchase of healing potions instead of yo-yo healing and trivialized explosive rest that quickly granted complete recovery then potions would be responsible for that box. As it is though potions can't even find footing in supporting it because elements like death saves yoyo healing and the resting rules 5e has so effectively built that box out of blast proof concrete and adamantine before potions can even come in sight if maybe even contributing to it.

Ironically if the design were not so hostile to anything but super hero one true wayism it would be trivial for the GM to adjust where they want to dial things based on quantity and type of healing potions that they make available to players

Maybe it's just because of the time change and feels later than it actually is, but I have NO idea what the heck you are even trying to say here.

So, I'll repeat myself to make my position simple: the concept of magic as "commonplace" in D&D ruins the game for me. The very fact a healing potion, which certainly is a very minor magical item, appears on the equipment list is ludicrous IMO. And now in 2024 we add minor spell scrolls as well.

In AD&D magic was more "required" (this creature needs a +1 weapon to hit, etc.), but even then the rules for crafting even a +1 weapon as much harder than in 5E. Bottomline: magic was not commonplace in the AD&D setting. Common to adventurers? Certainly, but the prices were so much higher (2000 gp for a +1 sword vs. 400 in 5E!). Plus in most AD&D games magical items were not so commonplace you're going to trip over a +1 sword or find one in every merchant store in every town.

5E implies magic is commonplace in a fashion AD&D never did. You FOUND items in AD&D 95+% of the times, you didn't create them or buy them generally. Crafting rules practically flip things on their head. You want a healing potion? 1 days work with an herbalism kit and 25 gp and whammo! healing potion.

Want a rare item in 2024? Simple enough with 50 days of work, a couple proficiencies, and 2000 gp.

Coupled with no chance of failure for crafting a magical item (you could easily fail in AD&D and have to begin all over!) in 5E and it is just that much easier to make magic "common".

 

[Minigiant]

5E is designed to NOT require any magic treasure--so no changes would be needed at all if I wanted to play it without magical items

Yes you are right.

5B was not designed to require magic treasure.

It's however we still design that you still needed magic weapons or the magic weapon spelled cast.

However a party could be all champion fighters.

So how could they cast magic weapon.

The DM would have to either give them a magic item that cats magic weapon or have them be able to hire someone who either cast Magic Weapon for them or gave them a magic item that cast magic weapon.

The point is there was no getting away from magic weapon.

5E did not require magic treasure. However by doing so it required magic services

 

[ezo]

It's however we still design that you still needed magic weapons or the magic weapon spelled cast.

This makes no sense.

However a party could be all champion fighters.

Correct.

So how could they cast magic weapon.

Why would they when they don't need to?

The DM would have to either give them a magic item that cats magic weapon or have them be able to hire someone who either cast Magic Weapon for them or gave them a magic item that cast magic weapon.

The point is there was no getting away from magic weapon.

Which is not correct at all. There is only one creature in 5E that I can recall which you need magical weapons... the Lich.

And even that Vecna was defeated in the PBP here on EnWorld without a magical weapon. You could hold him down and burn him to (un)death with a torch if you wanted to.

5E did not require magic treasure. However by doing so it required magic services

Nope. Don't see that happening at all. As people have posted several times, enough peasants with bows can kill an ancient dragon--no magic needed, neither weapon, treasure, or service.

 

[Oofta]

Even though the bag's interior dimensions are limited to 2x2x4 in the 2024 text, the bag can still explictly hold up to 64 cubic feet of material. So it can magically hold four 2x2x4 objects, or 256 of your 3"x3"x4' longsword blades.

The description is quite clear. It's 2x2x4 and I don't see an exception, just a clarification of how much space that is in cubic feet.

You can ignore the text of course, most people do. I only point it out for purposes of discussion.

 

[Deset Gled]

Curiously, I am not miffed by WotC assumption of magic item price as I think it's pretty obvious that they are writing for people don't know (nor care) about how faux-medieval economics would work. I've come to accept that they don't make sense and the price are just a reason to use gold that adventurer tend to gather.

I, too, would like a game world with more economic logic/versimilitude/crunchiness/whatever. However, I feel that as D&D has increasingly less resource management, it's inevitable that the economics of the game world become less... that stuff. Making everything work together at the economic level requires an extra level(s) of math that the designers have deliberately chosen to omit. I understand the reasons for that decision, I'm just not pleased by the tradeoff.

The issue is the name.

It shouldn't be "common, uncommon, rare, very rare, legendary, artifact"

It should be "minor, major, powerful, very powerful, legendary, artifact"

I agree that it's very much an issue of the name, which is essentially jargon.

The current "common, uncommon, rare, etc" terminology is very close to that used in many video games (and CCGs, etc.). Some people may say that's a result of 5e being more "video game-y", but IMNSHO it's more about using modern language that's quickly and easily understandood by more people. Using more bespoke terminology may sometimes make RPGs feel unique and interesting, but there are also times when it makes them feel archaic or gatekeep-y. This is an area where I just don't think the battle over jargon would be a win for either side.

 

[Minigiant]

Why would they when they don't need to?

Because they'd die if they don't.

Which is not correct at all. There is only one creature in 5E that I can recall which you need magical weapons... the Lich.

And even that Vecna was defeated in the PBP here on EnWorld without a magical weapon. You could hold him down and burn him to (un)death with a torch if you wanted to.

Without magic items, they'd die

They'd deal half damage, not have accelerated healing from healing items, and die

Nope. Don't see that happening at all. As people have posted several times, enough peasants with bows can kill an ancient dragon--no magic needed, neither weapon, treasure, or service.

You're not player 1000 peasants. You're playing 2-10 dudes.

In a world with 2014 5e dragons with resistance to nonmagical weapons, 2-10 dudes would need temporary or permanent magic weapons or they'd fail to kill the dragons and die

5e was written with the assumption that the setting would have magic in items and/or people.

Therefore the rich and powerful would be able to buy the magic that is in items or people.

 

[ezo]

Because they'd die if they don't.


Without magic items, they'd die

They'd deal half damage, not have accelerated healing from healing items, and die

These are very blanket and broad statements I simply do not agree with. I have played into tier 2 with non-magic classes without magical weapons. Most 5E martials can deal so much damage, cutting it in half via resistance simply makes it a "more fair" fight.

We never died due to relying on non-magic weapons against ressitant creatures.

You're not player 1000 peasants. You're playing 2-10 dudes.

In a world with 2014 5e dragons with resistance to nonmagical weapons, 2-10 dudes would need temporary or permanent magic weapons or they'd fail to kill the dragons and die

5e was written with the assumption that the setting would have magic in items and/or people.

This statement goes directly against what the designers claim they designed the game around.

Is it easier with spellcasters? Sure.

But now you're moving the goalposts of the discussion. It was never about not having magical classes and spells, just not magical ITEMS--which are not needed in 5E, but yet are implied to be commonplace in the game worlds due to the presence of healing potions and minor spell scrolls (in 2024) in the basic equipment list.

Therefore the rich and powerful would be able to buy the magic that is in items or people.

Hiring people like a court wizard, sure. Buying a magic item? No.

Don't get me wrong--of course you can if you want that in your game, but I don't--and that is my point.

I also don't have spellcasting priests or sages in every town-- even "magic people" are exceedingly rare in my games, so magic is never commonplace in any form.

 

[kigmatzomat]

The description is quite clear. It's 2x2x4 and I don't see an exception, just a clarification of how much space that is in cubic feet..

Pretty sure there's a typo in the 2024 edition.

Look at 2014 text:
This bag has an interior space considerably larger than its outside dimensions, roughly 2 feet in diameter at the mouth and 4 feet deep. The bag can hold up to 500 pounds, not exceeding a volume of 64 cubic feet...

While 2024 has this (differences italicized)
This bag has an interior space considerably larger than its outside dimensions—roughly 2 feet square and 4 feet deep on the inside. The bag can hold up to 500 pounds, not exceeding a volume of 64 cubic feet....

Going back several editions, the smallest bag of holding was 30cf rather than the 16cf of 2x2x4. Plus in 2e the exterior dimensions were 2ft x 4ft.

It seems pretty clear an errata will correct the bolded text.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Because the world makes no sense to me otherwise?

The world in-universe is unaware of the rules used to construct the PCs.