D&D 5E Deconstructing 5e: Typical Wealth by Level

[Hussar]

The point I was trying to make before, but, apparently wasn't clear, is that "utility" is a very, very nebulous concept. What is useful in one campaign can be pretty much useless in the next. And, if you baseline a specific concept of utility, you wind up shoehorning the game into that concept because the pricing will always be based on a specific premise.

Unless you want to have ranges for prices depending on the utility within a given type of campaign. Which either you wind up with pretty much what we already have in 5e or an incredibly complex series of pricing lists that would take forever to actually calculate.

 

[Maxperson]

Please stop. I have repeatedly explained to you that utility works while rarity is worthless.

No you haven't. You have made an unsubstantiated statement that flies in the face of reality a few times, though.

Characterizing them as "different versions" is grossly misrepresenting my position. Maybe stop speaking on my behalf, eh?

Er. They have a version of magic item sales right now. You have stated you don't like it and want different magic item sales rules. Therefore, you want a different version of magic items sales. I'm not speaking on your behalf. Perhaps take a step back and stop being so defensive.

 

[Maxperson]

It is obvious to everyone that it is useless for the purpose of character game balance: "here's 10000 gp, equip your character in a balanced way". Rarity is relevant for collecting Mona Lisas. It is utterly irrelevant for adventurers.

Not quite. Rarity is saying, "Here's 50,000gp to spend on magic items. Over there are a selection of Da Vinci paintings(rare items). In the next room are a bunch of Warhol reprints(uncommon items). And we have a warehouse full of Silly Putty(common items)." Magic items are exactly like that. The more powerful they are(utility), the fewer of them there are(rarity), and the more expensive they are(utility+rarity).

Just because words are printed on a page saying "magic item pricing" does not make it so.

This is flat out wrong. In the next session I run, I can plop down a magic items store and use what those words say to allow the players to buy and sell magic items. That makes it magic item pricing. You just don't like the pricing system they give is all.

The fact that you choose to sidestep and ignore all the issues makes this discussion between us over. If all you're concerned with is making this personal and acting butthurt we have nothing more to discuss.

Only one of us is making this personal and acting butthurt, and it's not me. Take a step back and get some perspective. Disagreeing with you is not "making this personal" or "acting butthurt."

 

[Maxperson]

The point I was trying to make before, but, apparently wasn't clear, is that "utility" is a very, very nebulous concept. What is useful in one campaign can be pretty much useless in the next. And, if you baseline a specific concept of utility, you wind up shoehorning the game into that concept because the pricing will always be based on a specific premise.

That's certainly one way to judge utility, but it's not the only way or the only issue with utility being the metric. What's the utility of a +1 flaming longsword(+2d6 fire and light) vs. a +1 sonic longsword(+2d6 sonic and possible deafening)? I made up the sonic sword since DMs make up items all the time and it's comparable to the flaming sword. You will find people who say they are equal, people who say the flaming sword has more utility, and others who say the sonic sword has more utility. Utility is completely subjective.

 

[5ekyu]

That feels very 4e, in the sense that you evaluate the cost of an item based on wealth similar to how 4e's ability scores meant nothing and were only really comparative to monsters of that tier because of the 1/2 level increment.

I suppose that is one way of doing it, but I don't think you'll find much traction with the community at large. Unless I'm misunderstanding the basic premise.

I mean a riding horse doesn't suddenly become cheaper for a character because they have access to the fly or teleport spell.

My own views on a system designer attempt to provide a functional based item pricing and Zapps positions are somewhat highlighted by this and the proposal that such pricing be based on %of wealth, etc etc.

There have been and still are tons of point buy systems out there in the RPG world where you have a resource you spend for power (what really utility is referencing here - how much good does it do me?)

The more those systems get focused on and driven by the idea that everything can be "costed out" and that there can be a "right cost" the more bland, flavorless and dull those systems become because the inevitablecredult to saying "in our system we must have a costing system that works" is to limit your system to things that can fit that model - fewer and fewer exception - rtc.

If you want to play resource-based "gold as BPV" style games, that's great but I myself am so very wonderfully glad that there are systems which did not take that into their core design.

It's a myth, flat out myth, IMO (based on years with those systems) that WotC could produce a working model of what Zapp wants, that would come close to satisfying that audience, that I could then ignore **because** in order for WotC to make it work even enough to get Zapp to maybe move from "it's full ass" to " its half-assed" would require them changing their system, limiting how "items are built (mechanically)" to make it work. So, the more free-form system they have now (whole system) would not exist. Classes would need to be structured to help standardize the features to help the new build-rules for items.

No thank you.

There are systems out there with literally decades of adjust and tweak to their point buy systems, with everything driven down and filed down by the grinder of "must fit our point buy" and they still wind up with systems where the "accuracy" of those prices vary so much from campaign yo campaign from setting to setting that it still boils down to one thing... one final reality...

The value actually seen of an item is set in play *by the GM* in terms of the types of challenges and events and adversaries that create the "what do we need" demand of the supply and demand.

Even in those really point driven systems, it comes down to "does the GM run a game that **shows** the players "The Price is Right" or not?"

The tail ends up wagging the dog... the prices that we promised and built system to support drive or limit that setting, not the other way around.

Do I dare to run an undead game with a **lot ** of skeletons? Does that mean my pricing of bludgeoning weapon vs slashing is wrong? Is it worth it to me to go back to all the bludgeoning vs slashing in the game and refocus them to support this setting with a ton of new house rules?

Di I dare run a fire giant invasion? Or is it easier to run a rainbow giant invasion so that I dont have to re-figured all those costs?

I am not talking "give a core that the GM can then alter" - that mirage being mentioned by Zapp - because that is a con. The systems change to meet the design goals and once "make point buy work" on the large scale of overall power ("utility") becomes a design goal that drives the cart.

Me? I prefer a setting that works over a point buy system that forces my setting to go certain ways.

I prefer for the utter illogic of a ring that adds an attunement slot being "priced" at one low cost for a 5th level character but at a higher price for a 20th **because** of utility or balance to not be a part of my game's system and built into its DNA so that to try and do differently means rewriting a core dedign.

Sorry, that way lies madness and in my experience system after system after system have proved it. We dont need 5e deciding "hey, that's a rabbit hole we should jump down."

But that's me.

 

[Sadras]

Do I dare to run an undead game with a **lot ** of skeletons? Does that mean my pricing of bludgeoning weapon vs slashing is wrong? Is it worth it to me to go back to all the bludgeoning vs slashing in the game and refocus them to support this setting with a ton of new house rules?

...(snip)...

Sorry, that way lies madness and in my experience system after system after system have proved it. We dont need 5e deciding "hey, that's a rabbit hole we should jump down."

So how much madness did you have to deal with given a fixed pricing on the equipment list?
I'm not convinced from your post that a pricing system is that bad for magical items. We kind of have one now. You don't like it, you can change the multiplier.

 

[77IM]

Spells may have levels that people consider sacrosanct, but the utility of any given spell is subject to great debate. A single spell can range from mediocre to broken beyond belief.

Utility is one of those things that is completely subjective. We can probably reach a consensus about which items are utility, but not how good the utility of any given item is.

These are great points. To me, the spell-level system provides the basis for those debates, and is extremely valuable for that reason. We can debate whether flame strike should really be 5th level when it's arguably no better than fireball, but nobody's really arguing for flame strike to be 1st level, nor 7th level.

Another system I like to compare to is Challenge Rating. We all know that CR isn't perfect; in some ways, it is deeply flawed. But it's still super useful.

For example, we can debate whether a Nightstalker is really CR 20 considering its complete vulnerability to save-or-suck effects -- but you know not to throw one at a level 4 party, and really you know to be careful throwing it at a level 15 party.

Or look at something like a CR 8 young dragon; how will a party of 4th-level characters fare? Well if the dragon gets the drop on them it could go badly. But if the party has like 7 members and they are prepared for this dragon then it may be a difficult fight, but they will likely win. If it's a party of 12th-level characters loaded up with anti-dragon magic items, well, it will be a cake walk.

That's what I want for magic items, just a rough number gauging usefulness relative to other items. Rarity could have been that number. But they got it wrong often enough that it doesn't really work for me, and it's a little too coarse-grained. (Like if monsters were rated by Tier: there's a big difference between CR 5 and CR 10, but both would be lumped into "Tier II".)

Now, what is the “utility” value of a mace of disruption?

What is the CR of a wraith? Now, what is the CR of a wraith in a party full of clerics? What is the CR of a lycanthrope in a party with no magic items and no spellcasters? What is the CR of a fire elemental in a party full of spellcasters with only fire magic? What about a party full of spellcasters with only water magic?

Everything is campaign dependent. The rules are supposed to provide a baseline.

 

[5ekyu]

So how much madness did you have to deal with given a fixed pricing on the equipment list?
I'm not convinced from your post that a pricing system is that bad for magical items. We kind of have one now. You don't like it, you can change the multiplier.

The equipment list covers rather marginal gains in power thst are pretty much set into play by 3rd levrl, or at least by the time they leave the introduction to get into 5th.

And, frankly, even the magic there was problematic imo.

But the items in the equipment list are pretty much straightforward, rather simplistic. If that model were carried forward and all the magic items were just "like equipment but some plusses" then that would be far less appealing than what we have - thought it would be far more priceable.

Of course, the equipment list I imagine drives others who want price for utility to be fixed... cuz it doesnt scale costs by percentage based on level and has some obvious "non-utility" costs bumps.

 

[5ekyu]

These are great points. To me, the spell-level system provides the basis for those debates, and is extremely valuable for that reason. We can debate whether flame strike should really be 5th level when it's arguably no better than fireball, but nobody's really arguing for flame strike to be 1st level, nor 7th level.

Another system I like to compare to is Challenge Rating. We all know that CR isn't perfect; in some ways, it is deeply flawed. But it's still super useful.

For example, we can debate whether a Nightstalker is really CR 20 considering its complete vulnerability to save-or-suck effects -- but you know not to throw one at a level 4 party, and really you know to be careful throwing it at a level 15 party.

Or look at something like a CR 8 young dragon; how will a party of 4th-level characters fare? Well if the dragon gets the drop on them it could go badly. But if the party has like 7 members and they are prepared for this dragon then it may be a difficult fight, but they will likely win. If it's a party of 12th-level characters loaded up with anti-dragon magic items, well, it will be a cake walk.

That's what I want for magic items, just a rough number gauging usefulness relative to other items. Rarity could have been that number. But they got it wrong often enough that it doesn't really work for me, and it's a little too coarse-grained. (Like if monsters were rated by Tier: there's a big difference between CR 5 and CR 10, but both would be lumped into "Tier II".)



What is the CR of a wraith? Now, what is the CR of a wraith in a party full of clerics? What is the CR of a lycanthrope in a party with no magic items and no spellcasters? What is the CR of a fire elemental in a party full of spellcasters with only fire magic? What about a party full of spellcasters with only water magic?

Everything is campaign dependent. The rules are supposed to provide a baseline.

Absolutely yes and then no.

You get it but then miss it.

The wraith is not something the PC can buy. It's not something they can use willy nilly to weaponize the gold they gather. The mace of disruption with a set cost would be. But more to the point, you would likely see the mace of disruption specced out with a defined expectation tag for how often undead appear. (PB systems often use this as a limitation value) and the default expectation that the GM will set that up.
.but a "class" is a big package of lotsa different things. So, for a gm, even if there are not a lots undead popping up, it's likely the rest of the big package cleric still gets tons of work.

But a major item with narrow focus that can be delivered by amazon... priced *solo* on its power/utility is a whole different animal.

 

[77IM]

But a major item with narrow focus that can be delivered by amazon... priced *solo* on its power/utility is a whole different animal.

Well, yeah, a system where a PC can snap their fingers and convert gold into a magic item as a bonus action would be pretty terrible.

But availability of magic items is just as much in the DM's control as the presence of a wraith. Sure, if the PCs know they are going up against a bunch of undead, they could see that a mace of disruption only cost 755 gp, and try to buy one; but there's no guarantee that one is for sale. And personally, I find the rarity system perfectly fine as a gauge of availability. Universal solvent may only cost $100 because of how useless it is, but as a legendary item, it may be really really difficult to track down.

That's how to have it both ways. Provide the relative utility numbers for magic items, but make it clear to players up-front that the items they want might be hard to find -- they don't get to just pick and choose. Make that the baseline, and then DMs can relax it if they want.