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

[Ancalagon]

As an experienced DM, I "expect myself, and think others should do" that I will add, fix, tweak, homebrew, houserule, hack, borrow etc etc.

For example, I already have a ruling in mind for this problem. What I will do is that I will consider the pricing list as the "average" price for a "decent" uncommon item - like say, a+1 sword. Better or worse items of the same rarity will cost more or less. An uncommon axe of hex or a breastplate of shield will cost 2, 3 times more.

I ask anyway because I find that other people's perspective really do help. There were some really good ideas in the web thread, for example.

 

[ECMO3]

The crafting rules in 5.5 are pretty generous, and uncommon items are pretty accessible.

I don't agree with this. The crafting rules are really difficult for most parties due to the requiring both a tool proficiency and Arcana proficiency and requiring everyone helping to have BOTH of those proficiencies even for a common item.

In the 4 parties I am playing with right now I think we have only one PC who can craft magic items. That PC is a Wizard with Caligraphers tools and Arcana and can craft scrolls. We have 4 more PCs with the Arcana proficiency, but 2 of them have a musical instrument, one has a Disguise Kit and one has Mason's tools.

Most parties are not going to be able to craft at all unless they specifically design characters for that and those that do are going to have multiple PCs get Arcana (giving up other skills) to have PCs that can craft multiple types of items.

 

[Xetheral]

Interesting take, but some things (in glancing) you might not consider:

The material cost isn't just 50 gp... it is 50 gp of RUBY DUST. Unless your world as an abudance of rubies... and the means to crush them into dust easily, that seems a larger obstacle than just the 50 gp would suggest.

Also, the torchmakers' guild might have issue with this, as would anyone who makes their living with oil for lamps, etc.

Just some more food for thought.

This is about the rarity of rubies in your game world, not about the price then or now or whatever. In our world, rubies are one of the rarest gemstones. Even low quality ones which might be "usable" for spellcasters certainly might not abound in your game world. How would you even crush them as they are one of the hardest substances as well? They are harder than steel easily. Grinding them down would be an incredible burden. But IMO the entire issue is silly since if you had such things in a magical world you would have spells like Drawmij's Grinding Gyro or something which would be used to grind rubies and diamonds into dust for spell use... But we don't have spells like that.

Finally, casters in my games are very rare. I will never run a D&D game rampant with casters and such convenient "commonplace" magical items which just replace mundane tasks and objects, such as continual light flashlights (yeah, the old continual light spell in the bottom of a scrollcase tube with an adjustable mirror back on a screw so you can make the "beam" wide or narrow...).

Having too much magic ruins a game for me as quickly as too much gold. It gets to a point quickly where such things lose value and the game becomes boring--it ceases, in fact, to be magical.


Correct, which is why I will never allow it in my games, or play in games with it. It just isn't fun for me.

The rarity of rubies in a game world is inherently linked to the price of them. In a world where rubies are particularly rare, they would be more expensive, and so 50gp worth of ruby dust would be a smaller amount. Conversely, in a world where rubies are particularly common, they would be cheaper, and 50gp worth of ruby dust would be a larger amount. Ergo, the rarity of rubies wouldn't affect the overall prevalence of Continual Flames in a setting.

For everyone's sanity the "worth" of ruby in a game world should probably be evaluated at a macro level, not a micro level, to avoid situations like this (first panel only): 677 This Never Happens to Jiminy Cricket - Giant in the Playground Games. So there could certainly be temporary or local shortages that impede the casting of Continual Flame at any given time or place, but that still wouldn't affect the number of Continual Flames that would exist in the setting overall.

One can of course design a setting where Continual Flames are more or less common. One could even do so deliberately through idiosyncratic ruby economics if one really wanted to. But absent that effort, making rubies generally more or less prevalent wouldn't have any impact on the number of Continual Flames in the setting.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I don't agree with this. The crafting rules are really difficult for most parties due to the requiring both a tool proficiency and Arcana proficiency and requiring everyone helping to have BOTH of those proficiencies even for a common item.

Since the Artificer isn't dead, I can see him shine with the new rules. In my party, there are two, and when they reach level 10 (I think it's when crafting time is halved), they'll be crancking out magical items like crazy...

 

[Kurotowa]

I don't agree with this. The crafting rules are really difficult for most parties due to the requiring both a tool proficiency and Arcana proficiency and requiring everyone helping to have BOTH of those proficiencies even for a common item.

In the 4 parties I am playing with right now I think we have only one PC who can craft magic items. That PC is a Wizard with Caligraphers tools and Arcana and can craft scrolls. We have 3 more PCs with the Arcana proficiency, but 2 of them have a musical instrument and one has Mason's tools.

All true, but now that we know what the crafting rules are I rather expect people will be designing characters with them in mind. Yes, a true omnicrafter that goes all-in with the Artisan background will be rare. But someone with the Skilled Origin feat that was already planning to have Arcana deciding to pick up one or two Tool proficiencies? That might become a fairly standard character choice.

Also, if the campaign is using Bastions, there's Facilities that will provide crafting aides for just about any item type. Those NPCs can only make uncommon items on their own, but if a PC is taking the lead they can assist on higher grade items just fine.

 

[Oofta]

The rarity of rubies in a game world is inherently linked to the price of them. In a world where rubies are particularly rare, they would be more expensive, and so 50gp worth of ruby dust would be a smaller amount. Conversely, in a world where rubies are particularly common, they would be cheaper, and 50gp worth of ruby dust would be a larger amount. Ergo, the rarity of rubies wouldn't affect the overall prevalence of Continual Flames in a setting.

For everyone's sanity the "worth" of ruby in a game world should probably be evaluated at a macro level, not a micro level, to avoid situations like this (first panel only): 677 This Never Happens to Jiminy Cricket - Giant in the Playground Games. So there could certainly be temporary or local shortages that impede the casting of Continual Flame at any given time or place, but that still wouldn't affect the number of Continual Flames that would exist in the setting overall.

One can of course design a setting where Continual Flames are more or less common. One could even do so deliberately through idiosyncratic ruby economics if one really wanted to. But absent that effort, making rubies generally more or less prevalent wouldn't have any impact on the number of Continual Flames in the setting.

I think some people really overthink the cost of material components. There is not and never will be a good option, the prices in the books are just a baseline that can be adjusted as necessary if you really want to. But there are only so many scarce resources in the game and gold is one of them, so it's used as the cost. Not sure what else you could do. Which of course is why they tell you that D&D is in no way meant to be an economic simulator.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

This is about the rarity of rubies in your game world, not about the price then or now or whatever. In our world, rubies are one of the rarest gemstones. Even low quality ones which might be "usable" for spellcasters certainly might not abound in your game world. How would you even crush them as they are one of the hardest substances as well? They are harder than steel easily. Grinding them down would be an incredible burden. But IMO the entire issue is silly since if you had such things in a magical world you would have spells like Drawmij's Grinding Gyro or something which would be used to grind rubies and diamonds into dust for spell use... But we don't have spells like that.

Finally, casters in my games are very rare. I will never run a D&D game rampant with casters and such convenient "commonplace" magical items which just replace mundane tasks and objects, such as continual light flashlights (yeah, the old continual light spell in the bottom of a scrollcase tube with an adjustable mirror back on a screw so you can make the "beam" wide or narrow...).

Having too much magic ruins a game for me as quickly as too much gold. It gets to a point quickly where such things lose value and the game becomes boring--it ceases, in fact, to be magical.


Correct, which is why I will never allow it in my games, or play in games with it. It just isn't fun for me.

Rubies are hard for gemstones, yes, but that isn't how hardness works. Even diamonds are very easily crushed. A hammer does the job just fine.

And magic being rare is totally fine for your world and campaign.

The gp value is merely a balance requirement to explain why the spell is not prevalent everywhere. If you want to honor the gp value requirement, but rubies are rarer in your world, then pick something else worth that same amount (or a different amount if you want it to be a different rarity). It being ruby is just flavor. The true balance is the value sacrificed for the spell.

Maybe any gem worth that amount is the focus component of the spell, and the color of the flame matches the gem used. Have fun with it!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think some people really overthink the cost of material components. There is not and never will be a good option, the prices in the books are just a baseline that can be adjusted as necessary if you really want to. But there are only so many scarce resources in the game and gold is one of them, so it's used as the cost. Not sure what else you could do. Which of course is why they tell you that D&D is in no way meant to be an economic simulator.

You could...use actual amounts of material instead of inherently fluctuating gp value?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You could...use actual amounts of material instead of inherently fluctuating gp value?

It is just for convenience. Yes, in actuality the spell needs a diamond of certain size and purity to function, but for ease of use the description tells you roughly how much such a diamond costs.

 

[Oofta]

You could...use actual amounts of material instead of inherently fluctuating gp value?

So how much does that amount of material cost? How does anyone know or decide? You've just taken a simple game mechanic and abdicated any authoritative ruling. D&D is not, and never has been, an economic simulator.