D&D General Design issues with 5e

[Lanefan]

Just my personal observation. It’s a long time (around 40 years) since I’ve seen any player motivated by the offer of gold. But they are always up for saving the world.

Clearly we play with very different groups.

Round here, if there ain't a big payoff involved - or at least the clear potential for one - in a mission or adventure they almost certainly won't do it if given a choice, instead seeking out something more (potentially) lucrative.

Then again, in my game they need to pay for training each level, meaning there's at least some need for income.

 

[Minigiant]

Along with, perhaps most important of all, nobility and the non-adventuring rich.

Nobility might commission items that help with rulership or self-protection, or might buy items either to use or simply to get them out of circulation. The rich might buy magic items out of sheer vanity. And those items might well come back on to the market on the death of their owner, as estate sales.

Temples might buy items of opposed alignment or ethos in order to sacrifice them or just get them out of circulation.

The market extends well beyond just adventurers trading items, though that's where its roots would probably lie.

Those are the odd collectors.

And they wont be thr majority.

The majority of dragon scale armors and flame tongues will be with adventurers, adventurer killers, and their corpses.

If you are a fighter and decide to be a polearm master, it is probably unlikely that some random rich dude is inflating the price of a + 2 glave in the black market.

And if you pick something that is typically common in DND settings, that might lower the price even more.

Personally, I think the best way to handle it is. If you have adventurers delve into dungeons for trade bait.. You have a bunch of NPCs in those mid levels, late tier 2, early tier 3, people looking for specific types of items. And whatever magic items you find in a dungeon that you don't want, you trade to them to get the item that you do want. A barbarian trait a magic rapier to the lord's noble guard captain for his magical great sword that he took off an assassin. Or you trade surplus to archmages and archpriests for crafting commissions.

 

[500 Toads]

There's quite a lot of spells (and thus, potential demand for means to cast 'em more often) that'd be useful for rulers and governments in general, from relatively low-level stuff like Mold Earth, Alarm and Arcane Lock to higher-level Wall of Stone, Plant Growth, Control Weather and Teleport. Like, if we assume that the arts of enchanting wands aren't lost, and that it's possible for somebody to make a new Wand of Fireballs... somebody interested in economic development and sufficiently prosperous to invest a fair chunk of change might want to commission a Wand of Plant Growth and hire a druid to use it for better harvests. Dual-use items (adventuring and non-) might be rarer, but for instance there's probably a variety of protective items (e.g. for aristocrats worried about being assassinated or scried upon, for law enforcement that may occasionally need access to Knock or Find Traps for their investigations, Detect Magic and Dispel Magic if they have to deal with miscreants that employ magical defenses, etc). Anything that provides Truesight, likewise would have a lot of value to the security-minded if available.

Even commoners would probably appreciate ways to access Mage Hand, Mending and Prestidigitation for utility tasks. If permanent magic items that allowed casting these were available for reasonable prices that a prosperous business owner could afford, they'd definitely find buyers.

Magical weapons probably have fewer non-adventuring buyers, particularly highly specialized ones (e.g. arrows of slaying, unless we're talking about a city that's a major redoubt frequently assailed by the threat in question -- like, OK, if the City of Whatever is near a werewolf-infested forest, there's probably an unusual demand for all sorts of silvered and magical munitions; and similar for undead counters if the land is accursed and the dead regularly rise and attempt to slay the living).

Magic items that allow offensive magic, in particular either very destructive spells or mind control spells, might be highly restricted by jurisdictions worried about potential abuse. It'd be perfectly reasonable for a city government to be concerned about trafficking in Wands of Fireballs or, say, a Spell Scroll (Geas). A Sphere of Annihilation in an urban environment would be cause for extremely serious concern. A Scroll of Tarrasque Summoning or a Spell Scroll (Earthquake) is a WMD, and any private trade in such would probably have to be (metaphorically) deep underground.

 

[Lanefan]

Those are the odd collectors.

And they wont be thr majority.

The majority of dragon scale armors and flame tongues will be with adventurers, adventurer killers, and their corpses.

Sure.

But are those the majority of the magic items out there? And, indeed, do active adventures really represent the majority of demand for items beyond what they themselves find in the field?

Nobility are likely to look for four types of magic items: defensive (self or area), useful-to-role (e.g. translation, communication, or persuasion/appearance-enhancing devices), functional (e.g. items that heat your castle, or allow or enhance long-range travel, etc.), or vanity (e.g. items as trophies or "just because I can"). The non-noble rich - which can easily include retired adventurers! - could well compete for items in the latter two of these categories.

Nobility types might also look to buy/commission martial items, if not for themselves then for their personal guards or as rewards for heroic military service and so on.

If you are a fighter and decide to be a polearm master, it is probably unlikely that some random rich dude is inflating the price of a + 2 glave in the black market.

It still costs X-amount to make (or commission) such a glaive, however, and that sets its base price.

Personally, I think the best way to handle it is. If you have adventurers delve into dungeons for trade bait.. You have a bunch of NPCs in those mid levels, late tier 2, early tier 3, people looking for specific types of items. And whatever magic items you find in a dungeon that you don't want, you trade to them to get the item that you do want. A barbarian trait a magic rapier to the lord's noble guard captain for his magical great sword that he took off an assassin. Or you trade surplus to archmages and archpriests for crafting commissions.

Sure. Or trade items to temples in payment for restoration and-or revival spells, if the party hasn't yet got such abilities. But even then, there's a value attached: for example if Raise Dead demands a sacrifice of at least 7000 g.p. then sacrificing a simple +1 sword won't get it done, you'll need to make up the rest in coin-gems-etc.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure.

But are those the majority of the magic items out there? And, indeed, do active adventures really represent the majority of demand for items beyond what they themselves find in the field?

It can or cannot.

But it doesn't matter, because the only pricing adventurous care about are adventuring items and adventurer items, typically not the same ones that nonadventurer want.

Nobility are likely to look for four types of magic items: defensive (self or area), useful-to-role (e.g. translation, communication, or persuasion/appearance-enhancing devices), functional (e.g. items that heat your castle, or allow or enhance long-range travel, etc.), or vanity (e.g. items as trophies or "just because I can"). The non-noble rich - which can easily include retired adventurers! - could well compete for items in the latter two of these categories.

Yes, but though a lot of those are not in the economy of a current adventurer.

Self-defense, end adventure utility items would be high cost for a setting with a strong adventurer community.

But vanity items and everyday functional utility items will not be high of adventurers.

A noble might spend a bunch of money on a broom that sweeps his castle. But a what elf ranger who mostly stays in there big treehouse in some forest somewhere or an adventure has little use for in animated broom.

Same thing, like my friend who doesn't DM. A DM book could be $5. He's still not buying it.

Its supply demand and cost. The reality is the magic item that would be most valuable. 2 adventurers that they would pour their treasure hoard into would be items that for the most part, only adventurers, adventurer killers, and assassination target bodyguards would buy.

It still costs X-amount to make (or commission) such a glaive, however, and that sets its base price

Yup, most items would be sold as the cost of creation plus the GP the seller wants to make while covering NP.

And that GP would be based on supply and demand.

And for most settings, especially how Dean D is based the demand for magic? Items is rather low dust, making the actual gold. And precious materials, the main resource of treasure.

It's like art pieces as treasure. Fardnard the fighter doesn't really want the painting. He got in the dead dragon's horde for himself. It's for the wealthy person, he's selling it to.

But if he finds a magic rapier, he might sell it to another adventurer, since Farnard is a strength based great weapon user.

Heck, if you're not an adventurer, nobles might not even want magic weapons and magic armor out of fair of evil adventurers breaking into their homes and stealing it and killing them. Good old rob the shopkeep.

Adventurers would dungeon delves to get better items in order to qualify for scary dungeons to get more gold or quest rewards.

 

[Lanefan]

It can or cannot.

But it doesn't matter, because the only pricing adventurous care about are adventuring items and adventurer items, typically not the same ones that nonadventurer want.

Other than trophies not intended for active use, every example I listed are things that adventurers have in my game found - and still find - to be highly useful in the field.

Yes, but though a lot of those are not in the economy of a current adventurer.

Self-defense, end adventure utility items would be high cost for a setting with a strong adventurer community.

But vanity items and everyday functional utility items will not be high of adventurers.

A noble might spend a bunch of money on a broom that sweeps his castle. But a what elf ranger who mostly stays in there big treehouse in some forest somewhere or an adventure has little use for in animated broom.

Indeed, those sort of things would be in low demand among the adventuring set. But anyone, adventurer or not, who can afford one can make good use of a translation device, or a broom of flying, or a defensive item of any kind, etc.

And both the noble and the Ranger might pay well for a device that can heat their home in winter and-or cool it in summer (or provide heat-cold resistance such that the ambient temperature doesn't matter unless it's crazy extreme).

Its supply demand and cost. The reality is the magic item that would be most valuable. 2 adventurers that they would pour their treasure hoard into would be items that for the most part, only adventurers, adventurer killers, and assassination target bodyguards would buy.

To characters, yes. However, the characters have to compete with the rest of the market as well - they don't live in a vacuum. A device that auto-translates any speech you can hear? Yeah, there's gonna be a lineup for that one.

Yup, most items would be sold as the cost of creation plus the GP the seller wants to make while covering NP.

And that GP would be based on supply and demand.

Some less-useful items can still cost a boatload to create.

Never mind there's going to be some items created that aren't ever intended to be sold but that may eventually come on the market anyway. They may have been made for the personal use of their creators, who have since died. They may have been made as hazards rather than tools (in other words, intentionally made as cursed items right from the start then released into the wild). They may have been made unintentionally, e.g. a wild magic surge put a permanent enchantment on something. They may have been failed attempts to make something else but that still have some use and value (Jorelle commissioned a +3 longsword but the first attempt ended up as a +2, might as well seel it to recoup the costs of the failed attempt).

And for most settings, especially how Dean D is based the demand for magic? Items is rather low dust, making the actual gold. And precious materials, the main resource of treasure.

It's like art pieces as treasure. Fardnard the fighter doesn't really want the painting. He got in the dead dragon's horde for himself. It's for the wealthy person, he's selling it to.

But if he finds a magic rapier, he might sell it to another adventurer, since Farnard is a strength based great weapon user.

Heck, if you're not an adventurer, nobles might not even want magic weapons and magic armor out of fair of evil adventurers breaking into their homes and stealing it and killing them. Good old rob the shopkeep.

If those nobles are at all wise, instead of hoarding those magic weapons and armour away in an armoury somewhere they'd give 'em to the people whose job it is to keep said nobles alive: their own personal guards, elite military warriors in their armies, and so forth.

 

[fuindordm]

Wow, I wasn't expecting so much discussion from this thought exercise.
I don't have the time or patience right now to collect citations, so I'm just going to respond to some ideas that stood out for me and hope their poster(s) recognize themselves.

1. Design elegance vs diversity of play experience. This is a universal trade-off in game design. I fully understand the attractiveness of making a design choice like "every PC ability is a spell". There are many benefits for the designer, for the GM and for the player. But the flip side is that "Most PC abilities are magical", which is not great for a gritty, low-magic game, and side effects such as "Most PC abilities can be dispelled / written on scrolls / deployed into magic items." It is a design choice that changes the nature of the world. And that is not even the aspect that bothers me. The implied high-magic setting is not a design weakness. What IS a design weakness is that 5e has chosen to limit the design space of PC abilities in ways that seem small while reading the books, but which for me degrade the diversity of the player experience within the game. I think the players would benefit from a more diverse approach to species and class design, is all I'm saying. It is SO easy to just slap some cantrip or x/day spells on a concept and call it a day, and assume that it is balanced because you're using spells. It's harder to judge whether the gnome's tinker toys are balanced, or if giving a slime race stretchy arms and legs is balanced. But you know what? After 40 years of RPGs I think game balance is an illusion. The only balance that matters is if the players are all having fun interacting with the world in their own ways, and getting equal spotlight time in the storytelling.

Hmm, that turned into a small rant. I'll conclude it by re-emphasizing that I do understand and appreciate the point of view that a game benefits from unified mechanics and elegant design. I just think that 5e has gone a smidge too far. But this brings me to the next point that stood out for me:

1. The skill system is too _____. I didn't talk about the skill system in my first post, but I agree with many of the points made. I also have some nostalgia for the Pathfinder approach (spending a pool of points without cross-class penalties). For 5e I think there is a weakness in the system that is a matter of design rather than personal taste, and it is the low spread of bonuses compared to the high spread of the d20. PC bonuses generally fall in the ranges 0-2 (untrained), 3-7 (trained), 8-12 (high tier or with expertise). Even highly specialized and experienced PCs are failing a DC20 skill check 30-40% of the time which just feels wierd to me. Another small issue is that very high DCs (say, DC 25 or 30) can be impossible even for legendary characters because the main mechanism to get a bonus is Advantage, not circumstantial or tool based. My skill bonus is +9, and the highest DC I can attain is 29--even with advantage, there is no chance of hitting 30.

This can be solved with minor changes, starting with a larger list of codified tasks and examples of skill use, with fixed DCs, so that the players know what they are aiming for and whether their skill resources are well spent. But after these are written down, as a designer I would take a hard look at these tasks and ask questions like: "How often does it seem reasonable that various types of PC should succeed? Are the DCs representing that intuition correctly? Does the distribution of success/failure unfairly cripple inexperienced PCs, or not sufficiently reward specialized PCs? How can we encourage unlikely but dramatic outcomes?" I don't feel like the 5e design team ever did this, they just went with their elegant, unifying mechanic of d20+X and moved on. An optional rule could be to ask players to roll skills on 3d6 with exploding 6's in some situations, for example DCs above 20 where the DM judges that any PC should have at least a slim chance of success.

3. Concentration is overloaded. This idea did not occur to me at all, and I agree with it 100%. The discussion made me think of Earthdawn, a high-magic system where every PC had a skill called "thread weaving". A thread was basically a magical link to sustain a spell or attune to a magic item, and you could even weave threads to connect to other players if I remember right. Anyway, here again design elegance crushes design space. Maintaining multiple ongoing spells could indeed be a completely separate mechanic from maintaining concentration on a single spell under adversity. And if we made this split, then we suddenly have a great opportunity to finally give wizards something unique : as they level up they could become better at maintaining multiple duration spells, the same way that artificers gain the abilty to attune to more magic items. A worthy addition to 6e.

There have been many other good points, but I'll get to them in some other post.

Thanks everyone for taking an interest in this topic!