D&D General Design issues with 5e

you don't have to make them give up anything if you can give humans their own bonus thing, and i think the idea that 'humans are quick versatile learners' is pretty established, an extra feat, some extra proficiencies (especially if it could be expanded beyond basic skill proficiencies) and your humans have their own defining perk as good as strong crits or teleportation.
I definately prefer carrot to stick.

In the homebrew I've been working on, I try to make abilities that have tradeoffs where I can. However, in a few places I have put in (race) abilities where you can opt in on a penalty to gain a benefit elsewhere.

For example, rather than force halflings (Hillenfaey) to take a penalty to Strength, I made it an option.

1773349975682.png

On Dwarves, rather than exclude them from being wizards, I gave them the option that if they don't take a class/ability that grants them spells, they get Magic Resistance.
1773350062017.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If you enforce the "have to have free hand to cast spells", that generally cuts out shield plus shield, short of the character burning a feat to get War Caster. [..]
You are correct, as they cannot sheathe a weapon as a free object interaction to cast the Shield spell as a reaction. But there are very few spells that are limited in this manner by the rules as written (RAW): Absorb Elements, Counterspell, Hellish Rebuke, and Shield.

For other cases, where you just want to cast a spell on your turn:

By the RAW, as sheathing or drawing a weapon is a free objection interaction. So if you are wielding a weapon-and-shield, or two-weapon fighting, you do the following: sheathe weapon, cast spell; then draw the weapon again on your next turn. The disadvantage for the weapon-and-shield user, is that they cannot make an opportunity attack on the turn that they sheathed their weapon to cast a spell; whereas the two-weapon fighter can still do so. And if you're using a two-handed weapon, you can just hold it one-handed temporarily.

Now if you require that free object interaction be used for the somatic component of a spell, then they cannot sheathe/unsheathe on the same turn, and hence War Caster is needed.
 

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is the crappiness of treasure in 5e. Not the magic items I think those are generally fine (as always there are a few eye brow raising ones and some stinkers, but on the whole they are good).

I'm talking raw gold. Everyone jokes in 5e about "useless gold". We got the stronghold rules which were....pretty meh. Finding a way to have that treasure be meaningful in some way would be great to see.
A functional magic item economy and price list would help immensely here. 5e punted on this one.

By 'functional', I mean rooted in the sort of quasi-barter system that would naturally arise when a) adventurers met other adventurers in town and the idea of trading items came up, and b) adventurers (or others) commissioned artificers to make items to order; eventually leading to a comprehensive price list that reflects each item's usefulness, rarity, ease of manufacture, raw material cost, and 'cool factor'. And this cannot be done by a formula.

The 3e and 4e price lists are not the least bit functional because they are done to a hard-coded formula which only looks at rarity and nothing else. This ends up with some fairly useless items being crazy expensive and very useful items being cheap as dirt (the poster children for the latter being Wands of CLW in 3e and Bags of Holding in 4e).

'Cause yeah, 5e treasure is pathetic as written. Every time I look at a 5e adventure or module with thoughts of converting it to run, the first consideration is how I'll have to up the treasure to make it worth the PCs' while to do it.
 


If spells had rarity, you might be to factor that into the cost of magic item creation too.
5e was too afraid to outright say which effects were supposed to be gated behind a tier. I don't know if this was because they wanted dms to rule this or if their preferred style of play by the designers was to be playing willynilly.

It would have been great if affects wars, tied to a tier and magic spells, magic items, and class features.That offer those effects were places placed in those tiers.

This would have tide magic to one of DND's core attachment tropes of level.

Then you can just make the economy, trade adventuring, treasure, and crafting all be level based.
 

A functional magic item economy and price list would help immensely here. 5e punted on this one.

By 'functional', I mean rooted in the sort of quasi-barter system that would naturally arise when a) adventurers met other adventurers in town and the idea of trading items came up, and b) adventurers (or others) commissioned artificers to make items to order; eventually leading to a comprehensive price list that reflects each item's usefulness, rarity, ease of manufacture, raw material cost, and 'cool factor'. And this cannot be done by a formula.

The 3e and 4e price lists are not the least bit functional because they are done to a hard-coded formula which only looks at rarity and nothing else. This ends up with some fairly useless items being crazy expensive and very useful items being cheap as dirt (the poster children for the latter being Wands of CLW in 3e and Bags of Holding in 4e).

'Cause yeah, 5e treasure is pathetic as written. Every time I look at a 5e adventure or module with thoughts of converting it to run, the first consideration is how I'll have to up the treasure to make it worth the PCs' while to do it.


PF2e goes hard in this direction of high-level adventurer-relevant commerce, using a combination of levels, rarity and access. Items have levels and so do settlements, so for instance you're unlikely to find high-tier items in a level 5 fishing village (with some exceptions, such as if it's a port city not far from a metropolis that canonically has adventurers pass through it not infrequently, and therefore common consumables of up to level 10 are readily purchasable). Uncommon and rare items aren't necessarily stronger than common items, but they may be tougher to find outside specific regions, or they may be mostly associated with specific organizations. In the default Golarion setting, for instance, there are specific areas where mechanical firearms have seen some manufacture, and they're not necessarily exported in large quantities; and likewise there are specific weapons which are associated with a notorious assassin cult which also happens to sharply disapprove of impersonators. So, there's level and rarity gating in addition to cost; and in PF2e, most magic items have specific costs (not vague ranges :D) which escalate significantly with higher level.

So, a high-level character might find himself heading to a major city to acquire fancy gear, like armor made of exotic materials, high-tier magical runes, what-not. Some things are hard to find and may still require questing to acquire (and perhaps craft), but other items are effectively treated as off-the-shelf if you can find the right locale; but if you're in a survival-oriented campaign in the wilderness, you may not have that option and even relatively modest items may not be readily bought (and this is where the crafting subsystem most comes into play; it's really meant to provide access to items, not profit vs. purchasing).

AFAICT, the 2014 version of the DMG indicated that generally most magic items aren't readily available for purchase in D&D 5E. I'm not an FR lore nerd, though; and my impression is that it is a fairly high-magic setting in certain places ala Waterdeep, so I'm not entirely sure how much it'd actually affect worldbuilding to readily allow purchasing magic items. I think that there's at least an implicit assumption that spell components are pretty available, despite the exotic nature for some (e.g. pickled tentacle and eyeball in a platinum inlaid vial that must have a (list? actual retail?) value of >= 400gp; that's a bit specialized), given that I don't think parties are generally expected to be spending weeks of research/shopping/commissioning artisans so that their spellcasters can actually use the spells they've suddenly learned.
 


Regarding issues with 5E D&D magic item prices, I recommend to take a look at the thread below, in particular the PDF linked in the first comment. We used that pricing for a 5E campaign, and it worked quite well.
ENWorld thread: D&D 5E (2014) - Sane Magic Item Prices
Giant in the Playground thread: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?424243-Sane-Magic-Item-Prices

As we're now playing an A5E campaign, we're using the A5E magic item pricing. And that seems to work well too.
Magic Items | Level Up

Hunting around a little, it looks like Ryex's Item Prices is quite comprehensive for 5E and 5.5E D&D publications, and follows a consistent pricing formula. I have briefly scanned through it, and I prefer the A5E magic armor pricing as that seems more consistent on the AC achievable. That said, I haven't read details of the logic behind Ryex's pricing, so maybe I am missing some key info on the pricing.
 
Last edited:

Regarding issues with 5E D&D magic item prices, I recommend to take a look at the thread below, in particular the PDF linked in the first comment. We used that pricing for a 5E campaign, and it worked quite well.
ENWorld thread: D&D 5E (2014) - Sane Magic Item Prices
Giant in the Playground thread: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?424243-Sane-Magic-Item-Prices

As we're now playing an A5E campaign, we're using the A5E magic item pricing. And that seems to work well too.
Magic Items | Level Up

Hunting around a little, it looks like Ryex's Item Prices is quite comprehensive for 5E and 5.5E D&D publications, and follows a consistent pricing formula. I have briefly scanned through it, and I prefer the A5E magic armor pricing as that seems more consistent on the AC achievable. That said, I haven't read details of the logic behind Ryex's pricing, so maybe I am missing some key info on the pricing.
The big problem with trying to price magic items and make that into z gold sink or any sort of motivating upgrade chain sorta thing is the fact that 5e was designed in a way that results in magic items overloading the math starting with the very first magic item.. that's not a trivial fix to correct without the PCs being overly nerfed or players noticing that the gm just raises ac & saves to offset the "Pure candy" they are awarding and feeling slighted
 

I agree. Magic item pricing is difficult. The other problem with making magic items expensive is that if they find such items, they can sell them for a lot, which may have other unintended consequences. I'd be inclined to have legacy magic items or similar that scale with the characters in an appropriate manner, while being an iconic item or two for each player character.

There was a Traveller campaign where we managed to capture the enemy spaceship after they boarded us. Our conclusion was: sell it, then let's retire! The game master agreed with our logic. :)
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top