D&D 5E (2024) WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting

[mamba]

The highest level character that a community produces is:

Population = 10 ^ ( Level / 2 )

So, a nation of about a million (10 ^ 6 ) will produce one national hero of about level 12

so no one ever makes it to level 20, apart from possibly the player characters, as they are exempt from this rule

 

[Older Beholder]

I like the idea of a new setting, but I'd prefer it to come from an interesting idea for a new setting, not as an exercise in representing the 5th edition rules. I'd rather a setting add new things to the game: New species, new sub-classes, new backgrounds, etc.

 

[Yaarel]

so no one ever makes it to level 20, apart from possibly the player characters, as they are exempt from this rule

If a nonplayer character represents more than one planet - or such populations of a plane - the highest level reaches epic.

 

[Hussar]

I like the idea of a new setting, but I'd prefer it to come from an interesting idea for a new setting, not as an exercise in representing the 5th edition rules. I'd rather a setting add new things to the game: New species, new sub-classes, new backgrounds, etc.

I get what you're saying, and, obviously, a new setting needs a "hook" of some sort. Sure. But, if we start with concept first and then try to shoehorn D&D into it, it never really works. Too much gets left on the cutting room floor. If our concept is X, then there will be elements of D&D that need to be cut out in order to make it fit with that concept. Which then gets subverted as people try to add these elements back into D&D.

I don't think it has to be an either/or thing. It can be both. A circular design process where we start with a concept, but then mold that concept to fit the system, rather than trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

 

[Parmandur]

Again, one out of a hundred NPC's isn't just uncommon. Good grief, there are more named Lizardfolk in Ghosts of Saltmarsh than there are dragonborn.

My point being, as it always has been, that dragonborn and tieflings are barely present in the game. There are no dragonborn towns. No dragonborn organization. No tiefling cabals or families. A 2024 D&D setting would make tieflings and dragonborn just as common as elves or dwarves.

I don't see why everyone has to be equally common in a Setting.

 

[Maxperson]

yeah, JUST use the apex of mortal magic to undo it. that's a widespread enough commodity to support a setting with.

It wasn't much higher than permanency and LOTS of wizards got there.

can we just agree that tsr era crafting has a much steeper cost then 3e crafting?

No. There was no XP cost like there is for literally every magic item in 3e. While it was easier to do and happened at lower levels, it quite literally cost the spellcaster permanent personal power. There was no casting a spell and getting it back like you could in AD&D. 3e spellcasters would be less inclined to create items, not more inclined. Especially mass producing them.

not if you actually look at those rules, it seems.

I've proven it for 1e and 2e. It's fact that there is a basis.

so if we're trying to determine whether or not a setting is built with a system in mind, whether or not the designers built the setting with the system in mind isn't relevant...but systems that literally didn't exist at the time are?

It doesn't matter if they were inspired by that system. The setting doesn't in any way rely on or use that system or its mechanics. Any edition of D&D can and does fit the setting.

 

[Reynard]

I like the idea of a new setting, but I'd prefer it to come from an interesting idea for a new setting, not as an exercise in representing the 5th edition rules. I'd rather a setting add new things to the game: New species, new sub-classes, new backgrounds, etc.

I am not sure why you think a new setting using the 5.5E rules would not also add new things to the game. Remember, the conceptual model here is Eberron.

 

[Maxperson]

3e - my 1st level wizard, with 12.5 gp (I.e. starting gold) can make a scroll.

First, it's 25 gold. 1(spell level) x 1(caster level) x 25gp. Second, it cost a negligible amount of XP for that 1st level scroll, so he couldn't do it with just starting gold and the feat. He'd have to earn some XP.

3e - my 5th level wizard can make any miscellaneous magic item with a negligible cost.

That's wrong. You have to be able to cast the spells required to make the wondrous item and at 5th level, that means a whole lot of magic items are out of reach. And again, you're paying XP to do it. Let's say you wanted to make a Carpet of Flying. Even though you can cast fly, you still need to be 10th level. So that's right out. Hold on while I look for one of the few items you can actually make at 5th level.

Okay. An Amulet of Mighty Fists+1(because you aren't high enough for +2). That's 3000 gold in materials, which is a whole lot of a 5th level wizard's funds, if he even has that much. It also costs 6000 gold for XP calculation, so he loses 240xp.

In 1e where you got a crapton more gold to spend on the items you are making, that's all it really cost. You wouldn't make items unless you had Wish to get the con back if you actually lost any. So time and money. No XP cost at all. If a 1e wizard learned how to make a Ring of X-Ray Vision, he could churn out 100 of them if he had the money, and he would since he could sell them.

100 Rings of X-Ray Vision would cost the 3e wizard 100k XP, in addition to the 1,250,000 gold. That would take a 15th level wizard down to 3rd level, except he'd stop being able to make those rings when he ceased being able to cast True Sight. Now he could use scrolls for that spell and keep trying until he drops to 5th level, but that involves yet more cost to buy or make the scrolls, and has a failure rate.

AD&D - My 11th level MU can maybe make a magic item, possibly at a cost of point of Constitution. The gp cost of making the item is unknown. I can get the Con back if I'm an 18th level wizard.

Yes, these things are the same.

You can't make a magic item with any chance of losing a point of constitution at 11th level. Permanency is what might cost the point, and that's an 8th level spell. Plus you could just get the con point back with a Wish spell. You wouldn't be making items until you could cast Wish.

 

[Hussar]

First, it's 25 gold. 1(spell level) x 1(caster level) x 25gp. Second, it cost a negligible amount of XP for that 1st level scroll, so he couldn't do it with just starting gold and the feat. He'd have to earn some XP.

Nope. Buying it was 25 gold. Making it was 12.5. Didn't even need a feat. Came built into the wizard class.

That's wrong. You have to be able to cast the spells required to make the wondrous item and at 5th level, that means a whole lot of magic items are out of reach. And again, you're paying XP to do it. Let's say you wanted to make a Carpet of Flying. Even though you can cast fly, you still need to be 10th level. So that's right out. Hold on while I look for one of the few items you can actually make at 5th level.

Whoops, looked it up. carpet of flying is 10th.

Okay. An Amulet of Mighty Fists+1(because you aren't high enough for +2). That's 3000 gold in materials, which is a whole lot of a 5th level wizard's funds, if he even has that much. It also costs 6000 gold for XP calculation, so he loses 240xp.

In 1e where you got a crapton more gold to spend on the items you are making, that's all it re

Ahh, I see we're going to cherry pick. Never minding that I can make +2 Stat items by this point. But, sure.

ally cost. You wouldn't make items unless you had Wish to get the con back if you actually lost any. So time and money. No XP cost at all. If a 1e wizard learned how to make a Ring of X-Ray Vision, he could churn out 100 of them if he had the money, and he would since he could sell them.

So, you need to be an 18th level MU before you make any magic item. Sure, those are so common.

100 Rings of X-Ray Vision would cost the 3e wizard 100k XP, in addition to the 1,250,000 gold. That would take a 15th level wizard down to 3rd level, except he'd stop being able to make those rings when he ceased being able to cast True Sight. Now he could use scrolls for that spell and keep trying until he drops to 5th level, but that involves yet more cost to buy or make the scrolls, and has a failure rate.

You can't make a magic item with any chance of losing a point of constitution at 11th level. Permanency is what might cost the point, and that's an 8th level spell. Plus you could just get the con point back with a Wish spell. You wouldn't be making items until you could cast Wish.

Note, it also might take you 10 wishes to gain that point back, depending on what your Con was.

But, again, you really need to read the rules before making these kinds of claims.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

It wasn't much higher than permanency and LOTS of wizards got there.

lots of wizards got to levels where they could cast 9th level spells? that's...a claim.

No. There was no XP cost like there is for literally every magic item in 3e. While it was easier to do and happened at lower levels, it quite literally cost the spellcaster permanent personal power. There was no casting a spell and getting it back like you could in AD&D. 3e spellcasters would be less inclined to create items, not more inclined. Especially mass producing them.

hey, uh...you know xp is FAR more common then wish, right?

I've proven it for 1e and 2e. It's fact that there is a basis.

uh...no. a magical crafting system that requires you to be powerful enough to cast wish to reliably use it is not a functional basis for a industrial magic society like eberron where characters above 10th level are rare and practically nobody can cast wish.

It doesn't matter if they were inspired by that system.

okay, so this is your question that sparked this side discussion:

In what way was [Eberron] designed specifically for 3e mechanics?

if we're trying to answer this question, then yes, the designers designing for 3e ABSOLUTELY matters. im genuinely baffled that you believe otherwise.

The setting doesn't in any way rely on or use that system or its mechanics.

so if i ran eberron in call of cthulhu it'd work just fine, right?

Any edition of D&D can and does fit the setting.

even assuming this were true (which i am absolutely not convinced that it is), you have it backwards. it doesn't matter if you can make eberron work in any edition - what matters is what edition it was made for and how it implemented mechanics from that and used them to help form the setting. again, i can point to the artificer and how it specifically gets an xp pool for item crafting and how that influences the setting as an example of how eberron was designed for 3e.