D&D 5E Advanced 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons!

[Jester David]

I mean that the "Sane" pricelist might be an improvement over the DMG prices, but at the end of the day, it is still only a reaction to the DMG prices - a "quick fix" as it were.

And how would you fix it without rewriting 85-pages of the DMG?

So the underlying basis of the prices are still rarity-based, that is, the idea that something "very rare" is a hundred times more valuable than something "uncommon", for example.

Except they're not. Did you read what I just said? Have you looked at the document? The rarity is included but is dissociated with the prices.

Look at the very first list. Items are sorted by price, not rarity or item name. And the very first table is sorted Common, Uncommon, Common, Rare, Common, Uncommon, Rare, Uncommon, etc
The rare Quaal's Feather Token Anchor is priced at only 50 while the common potion of climbing is 180.

But that's no way to create support for a magic item economy. It simply makes not a lick of sense to model magic items on our world's fine arts auctions.

It makes lots of sense to me.
Magic items are rare and seldom made, and when crafted they're generally used by their artisan and not sold back into the economy. Not until the maker is dead, at which time they're also gained a reputation (or can be associated with the crafter's reputation/ legacy).

Basing them on antiques seems appropriate. Having magic item crafting being the second most common profession in the world (below adventurer) like in 3e made even less sense.

Magic items are first and firemost tools. Things adventurers use and need to survive. The market for rich people to just hang magic swords on their walls is utterly secondary in this regard.

That depends on your world.
A rifle is a tool. And while modern made rifles are found everywhere, specially crafted and accurate ones tend to only be display items for the very rich.

 

[Oofta]

I mean that the "Sane" pricelist might be an improvement over the DMG prices, but at the end of the day, it is still only a reaction to the DMG prices - a "quick fix" as it were.

So the underlying basis of the prices are still rarity-based, that is, the idea that something "very rare" is a hundred times more valuable than something "uncommon", for example.

But that's no way to create support for a magic item economy. It simply makes not a lick of sense to model magic items on our world's fine arts auctions.

Magic items are first and firemost tools. Things adventurers use and need to survive. The market for rich people to just hang magic swords on their walls is utterly secondary in this regard.

What you need to do is to look at the utility of magic items. (And ideally, the utility of components of magic items - the individual bonuses and powers of items, such as "+2" or "flaming" or "lightning resistance")

An adventurer doesn't care about "rarity", she cares about utility - how useful the thing is to her.

I would say a proper and sturdy improvement of the 3e system updated and fine tuned for 5e is the last major subsystem needed in order to truly support the 3e playstyle.

Jester David already hit the main points, but I'll just echo something he said.

If you have a magic item economy, adventurers are not going to be the only ones that purchase them. A decanter of endless water may have little use to an adventurer, but fresh pure water would be very valuable to many people. Not only for it's utility but also simply to be added to a piece of sculpture or as part of a magical fountain.

We take clean running water for granted in our modern era. People in other cultures and times have not.

A suit of armor may be just a "tool" to you, but to a collector it was the Armor of Braggadocius worn at the Battle of 1,000 Orcs that was crafted for him by Elnafar the Wise, greatest elven armorer of his age.

So yes, magic items could easily be treated like antiques or works of art.

It should go without saying that if you don't like any of the lists out there make your own. For all the time you've spent complaining about these kinds of things you could have created the list many times over.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Misses don't do damage. AC has no effect on how much damage you take if you are hit, it only affects whether or not you are hit.

That is precisely the point he was making. A 'hit' in D&D would probably be termed a 'damaging hit' in general usage. You can 'hit' (as in make contact with) someone in plate all you like, but a 'D&D hit' means that you've actually managed to potentially deal injury to them, which is a lot harder.
D&D doesn't distinguish between a hit that doesn't deal damage due to being stopped by armour and a complete whiff: both are a 'D&D miss'.

In previous editions, there were mechanics representing a simple hit rather than a 'D&D hit'. This is what Al'Kelhar meant by touch AC, Reflex etc. 5e doesn't have those, just whether you get a damaging hit or your attack doesn't deal damage, whether it makes contact or not.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

If at one point the layout of the PHB would be changed I might prefer if they shuffled some things around a bit.

As it is now the steps in character creation are ordered as folows : race,class,ability scores, Decribe your character. ( the last step includes chosing a background)
But I might prefer race,background,class,ability scores, Decribe your character.

when helping new players to create a character that order seems to have a nicer flow to it, more in chronological order.
you where born Race
in your early years you where shaped by/ trained to be Background
eventualy you became Class looking for adventure.

If you move background forward in the character creation process it would also make sense to move the backgrund section in the book to be before the class section.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think there's just an undercurrent of negativity here.

Not that there mightn't be an undercurrent, but if there is, it's certainly trivial compared to the open flood of negativity h4ters unleashed in the edition war.

Nothing to be concerned with.

Apparently intelligence has nothing to do with physical combat either.

RuneQuest figured it did. STR, DEX, SIZ, INT & POW /all/ added to your % chance to hit (and parry, IIRC).

I doubt 5e could go there while preserving any hint of BA, but it could go with averages or lower-of mechanics.

For instance, attack rolls could use the middle stat of STR, DEX, & INT - or the average of the three. Or the total of them, up to a maximum. Or well, all sorts of things, as long as the end result is a bonus between -1 and +5, I suppose.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That is precisely the point he was making. A 'hit' in D&D would probably be termed a 'damaging hit' in general usage. You can 'hit' (as in make contact with) someone in plate all you like, but a 'D&D hit' means that you've actually managed to potentially deal injury to them, which is a lot harder.
D&D doesn't distinguish between a hit that doesn't deal damage due to being stopped by armour and a complete whiff: both are a 'D&D miss'.

In previous editions, there were mechanics representing a simple hit rather than a 'D&D hit'. This is what Al'Kelhar meant by touch AC, Reflex etc. 5e doesn't have those, just whether you get a damaging hit or your attack doesn't deal damage, whether it makes contact or not.

I don't buy it. When armor turns a "hit" into a "miss", it's not connecting. It may make contact, but it glances off. Which is not related to how hard you hit, but how accurately you attacked, combined with how well they defended themselves. Dexterity.

An actual hit *connects*, and that is where strength can come into play.

But the fact is, no matter how strong you are, your coordination and form will always play a role in how well you hit, and in how hard you hit. If you are uncoordinated, none of your attacks will land as well as if you are, and even your direct hits will successfully apply less of your strength.

Which is why this is all arbitrary abstraction.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

I don't buy it. ...
Which is why this is all arbitrary abstraction.

Yes, it is. I agree completely. But as well as AC being both arbitrary and an abstraction, we have to realise that is a foundation concept for the mechanics of D&D on which rest a lot of other arbitrary, abstract mechanical concepts - like using various abilities to adjust attack rolls and damage rolls. So every time I see someone suggest a "more realistic" way of modelling how physically attacking something should work in D&D, I inwardly groan - and sometimes outwardly swear.

I have no problem at all with people suggesting alternatives; but I must admit I wouldn't really want to play a table top game, using dice, that seeks to emulate the reality of swinging a sword - requiring me to firstly work out whether I physically make contact with something, where I have made contact, what kind of wound I've made, and what the physical effects of that wound are. I've got computers running complex game software that emulates real-word physics and physiology, and those computers have to make millions of complex calculations in the split second between my on-screen avatar pulling the trigger of his sniper rifle and the imaginary bullet striking (or missing) its imaginary target. I can't do that in my head, and I sure as hell don't want to do that rolling dice, applying adjustments, and then looking up 5 different percentile tables in the PHB.

If you reckon you can implement a "more realistic" combat system than the arbitrary and abstract D&D combat system, that is both easier to use and mechanically consistent across the whole of the game, fill yer boots. This board is replete with peoples' earnest endeavours in that regard. I did my own tinkering way back when I was an earnest and passionate young man. I wish everyone luck in such endeavours.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, it is. I agree completely. But as well as AC being both arbitrary and an abstraction, we have to realise that is a foundation concept for the mechanics of D&D on which rest a lot of other arbitrary, abstract mechanical concepts - like using various abilities to adjust attack rolls and damage rolls. So every time I see someone suggest a "more realistic" way of modelling how physically attacking something should work in D&D, I inwardly groan - and sometimes outwardly swear.

I have no problem at all with people suggesting alternatives; but I must admit I wouldn't really want to play a table top game, using dice, that seeks to emulate the reality of swinging a sword - requiring me to firstly work out whether I physically make contact with something, where I have made contact, what kind of wound I've made, and what the physical effects of that wound are. I've got computers running complex game software that emulates real-word physics and physiology, and those computers have to make millions of complex calculations in the split second between my on-screen avatar pulling the trigger of his sniper rifle and the imaginary bullet striking (or missing) its imaginary target. I can't do that in my head, and I sure as hell don't want to do that rolling dice, applying adjustments, and then looking up 5 different percentile tables in the PHB.

If you reckon you can implement a "more realistic" combat system than the arbitrary and abstract D&D combat system, that is both easier to use and mechanically consistent across the whole of the game, fill yer boots. This board is replete with peoples' earnest endeavours in that regard. I did my own tinkering way back when I was an earnest and passionate young man. I wish everyone luck in such endeavours.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

Oh dear me, no! I don't care at all about realism in my fantasy roleplaying games. I just don't think the idea of using STR for all attacks makes more sense than using DEX.

 

[Eubani]

RuneQuest figured it did. STR, DEX, SIZ, INT & POW /all/ added to your % chance to hit (and parry, IIRC).

I doubt 5e could go there while preserving any hint of BA, but it could go with averages or lower-of mechanics.

For instance, attack rolls could use the middle stat of STR, DEX, & INT - or the average of the three. Or the total of them, up to a maximum. Or well, all sorts of things, as long as the end result is a bonus between -1 and +5, I suppose.

I think the simplest way at the moment to use Int for would be to use it as an initiative tie breaker. At any rate there isn't really anything else to use it for because the only real bonus gained is advantage and that is too big for anything I can think of atm outside of some sort of class mechanic.

 

[cbwjm]

For the Advanced Version of 5e DnD, perhaps skill specialities could come into play. Religion might have specialities based on cultural relgions, undead, and celestials/fiends and having the speciality grants advantage to the roll when it comes up.

Weapon specialisation. Something similar to those previous round of UA weapon feats. Even if people don't want the +1 to hit, having additional abilities that those skilled with a certain weapon type over and above plain old proficiency would allow some great customisation.