D&D 5E 5E's "Missed Opportunities?"

I'm beginning to suspect our D&D experiences don't even remotely resemble each others', which might explain why we have such different opinions about this.

First edition encouraged--in some places even assumed--a competition among PCs for the most treasure, the best magic, etc. It actually had suggested rules for how PCs got to claim magic items.

I never played that way, never played with anyone who played that way, and to this day think the whole idea was one of the single worst things ever put in print for D&D. But obviously, my view on this isn't universal. ;)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Uchawi

First Post
I think a lot of things mentioned are easy to address and/or modify. The biggest missed opportunity was making classes more diverse, especially martial classes when comparing them against the amount of choices spell casters get with spells. I often find myself multi-classing any type of martial character, even if it is only a couple levels.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
First edition encouraged--in some places even assumed--a competition among PCs for the most treasure, the best magic, etc. It actually had suggested rules for how PCs got to claim magic items.

I never played that way, never played with anyone who played that way, and to this day think the whole idea was one of the single worst things ever put in print for D&D. But obviously, my view on this isn't universal. ;)

I'm not sure it encouraged it as much as expected that it could be an issue.

But for me, I don't have time for games in which players squabble or compete for items. I've been in games in which players took items they couldn't make good use out of because they rolled higher and got first choice - picking the highest value item because of its value rather than its utility. If another player can make better use of it in adventures, from my perspective, that's a spite choice. And I'm not playing spite games.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I'm not sure it encouraged it as much as expected that it could be an issue.

But for me, I don't have time for games in which players squabble or compete for items. I've been in games in which players took items they couldn't make good use out of because they rolled higher and got first choice - picking the highest value item because of its value rather than its utility. If another player can make better use of it in adventures, from my perspective, that's a spite choice. And I'm not playing spite games.
And this is exactly the reason to use an equal-value division system - it makes such spite-choosing pointless.

You're still inevitably going to have situations where players/PCs quite reasonably compete for items, e.g. there's one Ring of Invisibility in the treasury and all five party members think they can put it to good use, and that's fine. (here this situation would almost certainly end in a dice-off)

Mouseferatu said:
First edition encouraged--in some places even assumed--a competition among PCs for the most treasure, the best magic, etc. It actually had suggested rules for how PCs got to claim magic items.
The DMG gave some suggestions, even though in theory treasury division is one area the DM really has little or no say in.

I never played that way, never played with anyone who played that way
Fair enough. But I'll ask: in your games what method(s) do the players/PCs use to divide their treasure?

and to this day think the whole idea was one of the single worst things ever put in print for D&D. But obviously, my view on this isn't universal.
No, it certainly isn't. :) 1e has a certain underlying wild-west or pirates-on-the-high-seas sense to it, which I've always quite liked. Now imagine a bunch of cowboys (white or black hats, doesn't matter here) or a bunch of pirates without a captain trying to divide their treasure. Quite likely there'd be less cowboys or pirates by the time they'd finished.....

Treasury division is an argument - both in and out of character - looking for a place and time to happen. I think Gygax recognized this, hence the suggestions and ideas on how to do it.

Lan-"and then there's the thieves who just bypass the division entirely and, on their way out of the party, take whatever they want"-efan
 

G

Guest 6801328

Guest
Fair enough. But I'll ask: in your games what method(s) do the players/PCs use to divide their treasure?

You weren't asking me, but it's always just been a conversation around the table. The players have a discussion and usually agreement is reached. In rare circumstances they'll take a vote.

Treasury division is an argument - both in and out of character - looking for a place and time to happen.

If I found myself with a group that actually argued about whose imaginary character gets which imaginary magic item, it would be the last time I played at that table.
 




cmad1977

Hero
You weren't asking me, but it's always just been a conversation around the table. The players have a discussion and usually agreement is reached. In rare circumstances they'll take a vote.



If I found myself with a group that actually argued about whose imaginary character gets which imaginary magic item, it would be the last time I played at that table.

In the words of one of the wisest people I’ve ever seen in film/television...

‘Yarp!’
 

squibbles

Adventurer
At the very least, it would have made better sense and balance if flanking allowed you to HELP the other as a bonus action. That way you at least get a sense of an action being made, time being spent.

This sounds like an excellent idea.

I need to consider further what types of PCs it would help or hurt. It'd definitely be bad for monks and two-weapon fighting, for example.

-----------------------

I posted without reading the whole thread, only just caught up to the 10 pages of argument about magic item pricing, and realized that my comment is completely off-topic :erm:

My bad.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top