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

[Micah Sweet]

Leveling. Butchers don't get super swole for killing a bunch of cows that are definitely more powerful than them, nor do big game hunters level off shooting the most badass animals in the world.

So the backbone of the game is based entirely in the meta and ignores any in-universe implications of what would happen if it were a rule of physics in-universe.

I'm not a fan of level-based ASIs, if that's part of what you're talking about. And people do get better due to practice of their various skills, so XP as an abstract advancement indicator isn't all that far-fetched (not milestone though, as that has a strong narrative component).

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean, if someone really rich wanted to deal with the pain and technical woes that come with dealing with non-movie nuclear weapons, I have zero doubts they could get one inside a month.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm not a fan of level-based ASIs, if that's part of what you're talking about. And people do get better due to practice of their various skills, so XP as an abstract advancement indicator isn't all that far-fetched (not milestone though, as that has a strong narrative component).

It's been decades since leveling leveled what you actually used to get the XP.

So killing a bunch of dudes would in a rules-as-physics world male you better at playing board games and picking locks.

Also, since XP is only awarded for challenges by the DM, the DM would need to actively award XP to the trillions of characters they technically control across the universe and retroactively away it to the googleplex of past characters who created the current state of the world.

That's what you get if rules are physics.

You can practically taste the 'verisimilitude'.

 

[pemerton]

Can you provide me with any other example that isn't basically about hit points? Again?

In Gygax's PHB, a ranger PC must have at least 13 STR and INT, and at least 14 WIS and CON.

In his DMG (p 100), a ranger NPC is built quite differently:

Fighter: strength +2, constitution + 1
Ranger: as fighter, 12 minimum wisdom​

So it turns out that players are only allowed to play the tougher, cleverer rangers. That is a feature of game play. It is irrelevant to whether or not the setting is verismilitudinous.

All versions of D&D have manticores in the fiction. No version of D&D I'm aware of sets out rules for a player to play a manticore. So basically all the manticores in the fiction are not protagonists in the play of a game. That is also irrelevant to whether or not the setting is verisimilitudinous.

In my 4e D&D game, the player of the chaos sorcerer had abilities on his sheet that let him manipulate dice rolls. This was a gameplay technique that reflected the character's control, in the fiction, over the forces of chaos. Similarly, the player of the Deva Sage of Ages had dice-manipulation abilities that reflected the character's knowledge, in the fiction, of both the past and the future.

In my Torchbearer 2e game the players have all sorts of ways, consistent with the game's rules, to manipulate dice pools and dice results. Some of these reflect in-fiction capabilities, like knowledge and personality traits. Some are purely meta. In the fiction, the upshot is simply that things happen of the sort that might happen to lucky people with that knowledge and those traits.

The attempt to infer from stuff that happens at the table, in the process of authorship to the verisimilitudinous nature of the fiction, is hopeless. And the reason is easily explained: whether fiction is verisimilitudinous depends upon its content. But the content of a fiction is independent of how it is authored. QED.

 

[jmartkdr2]

For me, it's about access and control.

1. First of all, is it something a person can even afford? How much money does a commoner really have after paying for their food and shelter? Will they spend their life savings on anything that does not make their lives easier?
2. Second, is it a dangerous and controlled item? Does it blast people and set fires? Or does it just help you jump and swim better?

In my world, 1g is roughly equivalent to $100. Therefore...

• A riding horse for 75g is effectively $7,500. Not everyone owns a riding horse.
• A Common magic item worth 50g equals $5,000. Is there a non-dangerous magic item that a commoner is willing to spend that much money on? Would they rather save for a horse or have a common magic item?
• An Uncommon magic item worth 400g is equivalent to $40,000. This is the big list of what people in the world might have, but it would still be uncommon. An Uncommon broom of flying is effectively buying a slow, flying bicycle. A bag of holding is also Uncommon. You can have 5 horses and 25g left over for this amount. Which would a commoner rather have?
• A Rare magic item worth 4,000g is equivalent to $400,000. That is a LOT of value. But just because it exists, it doesn't mean that it is easy to sell/offload. This is a level that is suited to bartering (like for other magic items).

What kind of people have the money to buy or create these items? Successful adventurers who put their lives on the line to fight slaadi and vampires and beholders, get access to monies and gear that warrants their ability to acquire such items. But a merchant? Maybe a bag of holding if they are very prosperous, but a broom of flying that can't carry a lot of gear? How useful is it to their survival or career?

I think most households would try to have a basic potion of healing on hand, in case a tool slips. It’s expensive, yes, but the local temple will probably work out a payment plan for you.

But that’s also likely the only magic item in a farm house. A blacksmith might invest in a magic anvil, though more for his heirs than for himself. And of course noble houses would slowly collect magic items over time; an old house might have quite a quirky collection.

Only kings and successful adventurers (a minority) will have a lot of magic available.

 

[Minigiant]

It's an example, to show that even in the most commercialised and marketised human society so far, not everything is available for purchase.

There can be many other reasons, consistent with actual examples from human history, why something is not marketised

The point that isn't and never was the case.

A certain group of fans just keep attempting to force that to be the base of what did is when it is not then getting upset when people share their adjusted view of D&D Who is logical conclusion.

Traditionally, there are mages in D&D societies - look at the City/Town encounter table in Gygax's DMG, or the character rosters for bandits and the like in the "Men" entry in the original MM.

It doesn't follow that these NPCs can, or do, make magic items. Or will do whatever they are told. What are the limitations? The taboos? The guild requirements?

It's not that hard to come up with explanations that will provide the necessary fig leaf

Again it's not just magic items but also magic services and magic users themselves.

There are people who wish that the only magic in the entire setting is in the dungeon.

However this is never been the default assumption of D&D.

And even if it was so, once the Adventurers leave the dungeon, they've brought magic out of the dungeon.

The idea that magic items and magic services were both for rare because your wizard was the only magic user in the entire setting was not the base assumption of the game. Wizards and clerics existed in the world and if they existed in the world the rich had the money to buy their services or crafts.

And everybody knows it's the Wizard fan boys who converted magic users from purely casting spells to being able to craft magic items easily in later editions.

So it makes perfect sense that a high noble or king in fifth edition has a spellcaster in his retinue and/or a few magical items

 

[pemerton]

I think most households would try to have a basic potion of healing on hand, in case a tool slips.

But if a tool slips, it will cut off a finger or whatever. And a potion of healing can't heal that - it can only heal hp loss.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I think most households would try to have a basic potion of healing on hand, in case a tool slips. It’s expensive, yes, but the local temple will probably work out a payment plan for you.

But that’s also likely the only magic item in a farm house. A blacksmith might invest in a magic anvil, though more for his heirs than for himself. And of course noble houses would slowly collect magic items over time; an old house might have quite a quirky collection.

Only kings and successful adventurers (a minority) will have a lot of magic available.

A potion of healing will mend a broken bone or save a dying person's life.

50g/$5,000 is an appropriate cost. You're not going to use it for injury that heals ok over time.

 

[pemerton]

A certain group of fans just keep attempting to force that to be the base of what did is when it is not then getting upset when people share their adjusted view of D&D Who is logical conclusion.

I can't parse this.

There are people who wish that the only magic in the entire setting is in the dungeon.

<snip>

The idea that magic items and magic services were both for rare because your wizard was the only magic user in the entire setting was not the base assumption of the game.

Agreed. I've pointed to both the DMG and the MM as illustrations of this point.

Wizards and clerics existed in the world and if they existed in the world the rich had the money to buy their services or crafts.

This is the non-sequitur. Not everything need be for sale.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But if a tool slips, it will cut off a finger or whatever.

I'm pretty certain that most household tool accidents don't result in an amputation.

They're not working with Black and Decker here.