Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
As a side note, in general caster-specific magic items require attunement, but +N weapons/armor do not. So fighters have that going for them. Which ish nishe.
DM's no longer getting crits on PC's
- Thread starter dumdragon
- Start date
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing
Neither here nor there, but the flat numerical bonuses (longsword +1, shield +1, etc.) aren't even magic items in my campaign. They're just very well-made items, or they're made from rare metals. They don't detect as magical, they don't bypass resistance, etc. Characters can buy those right off the shelf, or commission them to be made by a professional...they'll pay a premium for them, too.
I thought about doing something similar for the spellcasters (such as the rod of the pact keeper +1, or the wand of the war mage +1) but in the end, I decided against it. Those items require attunement, and I didn't want to have to rebalance it.
I thought about doing something similar for the spellcasters (such as the rod of the pact keeper +1, or the wand of the war mage +1) but in the end, I decided against it. Those items require attunement, and I didn't want to have to rebalance it.
Well this is just my experience, but often you find out what you're fighting and where about .2 seconds before you're asked to roll for initiative. I know in some groups scouting is a thing that's done, but my experience, again, has always been that trying to skulk around and gain advance recon usually just results in someone finding themselves in a solo encounter that they have to try and survive long enough for the party to catch up.
It's been a consistent problem when I play for so long, that I rarely even bother to become proficient in Stealth- there's almost always some enemy or circumstance that trivializes the effort, or the DM is one of those "roll every 5 feet" types.
I will admit that in 5e, most of my experience has been with either home games that have 1-3 larger encounters per session, with the big one being this epic battle, or in AL, where the adventure itself dictates when and where you get a rest. But again, the idea of "scouting ahead" has never really worked out for me.
Even when I've suggested using spells or familiars to scout, the DM usually nitpicks the capabilities of whatever is being used to the point that the information gathered is next to useless. And even in those rare instances where I do get actionable intel, there's always a surprise.
It's like those heist shows where there's a foolproof plan that goes all to hell in about five seconds, except I'm not allowed to insert a "previously, however, we anticipated this and set up a game changer". This ties into why I'm always trying to give my players as much information as I can, because it's really tiresome to have to figure out things blind.
Now, if you're in a game where you can short rest pretty much whenever, and the DM is perfectly fine with some advance recon, perhaps this tactic works. But it just hasn't for me, so I'm pretty dubious about it's efficacy.
In my own games, I base the attunement limit not on a totally arbitrary number, but on proficiency bonus. But it doesn't come up often, because I've changed how attunement works.
In the 5e remake of Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, there's a cursed axe that grants 5 bonus hit points if you attune to it. The idea struck me as pretty cool, so in my games, items only require attunement if they unlock extra abilities, but they are always useful in their base form.
So a sword might be +1, but then add elemental damage if you attune to it.
If the item has no extra powers, I don't really see the point of forcing someone to attune to it. This has the extra benefit of players being able to swap items around- not that they do, lol, but they could.
In the 5e remake of Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan, there's a cursed axe that grants 5 bonus hit points if you attune to it. The idea struck me as pretty cool, so in my games, items only require attunement if they unlock extra abilities, but they are always useful in their base form.
So a sword might be +1, but then add elemental damage if you attune to it.
If the item has no extra powers, I don't really see the point of forcing someone to attune to it. This has the extra benefit of players being able to swap items around- not that they do, lol, but they could.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
If one reads them that way, sure.
But if one wants to use the listed values as an integral part of treasury division, in that the value of the items you claim counts as part of your share, then having price lists is kind of essential. And I for one would never do it any other way, having learned the hard way - and more than once - that other methods simply don't work out fairly in the long run.
One does not lead directly to the other.
That said, the game raining magic items will inevitably lead to there being some trade in those items. Realistically, how can it not?
The moment your party has an item you can't use and-or don't want - an item, however, that someone else can use and-or does want - then boom, that item is going to have value to the person who can use it and will probably be sold or traded for some representation of that value.
Flip side: the moment you learn of someone else having an unwanted or un-useful item which your PC can use, what's stopping your PC from throwing some money at the item's owner in hopes of buying it?
Do these things enough times with enough items and a "price list" will eventually develop organically. A published price list just saves playing through all this by assuming those values have already long since been determined in the setting.
It would help if D&D "economics" made any sense at all. Then you could tell how much money someone might pay for a thing. Like, if the Duke wants a goblet that is everful of his favorite wine, how much should that thing cost? Well, it depends on how much money the Duke has, whether these goblets are mass produced versus there being ONE such goblet, and how much effort it takes to get ones hands on said goblet. But without functional economics, there's no reasonable place to start. If we knew how much money the Duke's subjects netted him in taxes, and how much money he paid for his army, that would be something. Hell if the price of a horse and a suit of armor made sense compared to the price of a bushel of grain and a barel of wine from three provinces over, we could have some idea. But because D&D has, over the years, abandoned anything even smelling like the hated "simulationism" we can't, because gold is just another metagame component that doesn't have any real correlation with the fiction world the PCs exist in because that world is just Hollywood sets anyway.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Quoted for truth. One of the things I love about Autarch's Adventurer Conqueror King System is how much research and effort has gone into making a realistic economy. Most games, as you say, just hand-wave everything and force DMs who care about economic consistency to do all the work themselves.
It's frustrating for me, but I suspect you and I are outside the mainstream on this, and most people just don't care.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Terrible idea. Things are worth what people (players) are willing to pay. Let the players decide how much they value an item. “I really want that Vorpal Sword…I’ll give up 10k gold of treasure to get it.” “I’ll give up 15k”. “Ok, you can have it.”
What happens if the players aren't the only ones that want the item?
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Great plot hook.
I've long been frustrated by the inability to have an economy that makes a lick of sense. One character concept I've kept trying to play for many years now is a traveling merchant. However, the idea is so at odds with the systems I play in, that it usually either falls flat and does nothing, or worse, succeeds.
There was a 3.5 game where a friend and I decided to try being siblings who were merchants- I was a Sorcerer, and his character was a Wizard. At low levels, we relied on skill checks to appraise the value of items, haggle with prospective buyers, and so on. The DM eventually worked out a system for how much of a deal we could get on a successful "haggle" check, and since we were pretty good at it, we could almost guarantee being able to purchase things for 10-15% less, and sell them with the same markup.
Then we got into magic items, making and selling cheap items (or services, like everburning torches) that were affordable in large communities and also very useful.
We were happy making money, and sharing our wealth with our party (since we tended to ask them to make detours so we could find new things to buy, and new places to sell them).
But finally one day the DM asked to see our notes, where we kept a running tally of our net worth, and he sighed.
"Guys, I know you're having fun, and we agreed on the rules. You've even paid your Guild dues and taxes. But the fact is, you have so much money it's making it harder for me to run the game".
We pointed out several cash sinks we could invest in, like buying property, paying off a Duke to get minor titles, building a base of operations, and even a ship, but the DM then pointed out the realistic cost of such things was well within our reach, and then what?
At some point, we'd have nothing to do but sink vast wealth into crafting powerful magic items for the party, becoming too powerful for appropriate CR enemies.
And the easy solution, giving enemies magical gear of their own, was counter productive, since if we beat them, their wealth would increase our own exponentially.
So we had to retire our characters, and make new ones that paid full price for everything, and had nothing in our backpacks but lint and magical items. Very dissatisfying.
But we were talking about critical hits, lol.
So here's the thing- 5% of the time, a monster can theoretically deal double dice of damage. When that happens is not in the DM's control. It could happen during an epic boss battle, where suddenly the player is taking an extra 7d6 damage, or it can happen when fighting a mook, turning his d8+3 into 2d8+3.
So when you get right down to it, what percentage of DM crits are even really that impactful? 5e generally makes critical hits rare and tame, and only occasionally do the stars line up so that they can truly make a great impact on a battle.
For players, critical hits are generally pretty weak. Oh maybe you're a Battlemaster so you can get an extra die, or you have some trait to grant a bonus when you score a critical hit, but generally, there's three types of characters who overperform when they crit.
Paladins, assuming they haven't been forced to use up their smites in order to take out dangerous foes.
Rogues, who always have fistful of dice to work with.
And spellcasters, who don't tend to throw out a lot of attack roll spells to begin with.
It seems to me that critical hits are already pretty lopsided, as most monsters get multiple dice of damage, or can make more attacks than a party of level at or around their CR.
And even when players do roll a 20, it's only a big deal for certain characters anyways. I mean, what's an extra d8 damage anyways? Even a d12 is a lousy 6-7 points on average.
Most enemies have enough hit points that small amounts of bonus damage aren't really worth talking about. A big hit on a weak enemy is just a waste, which I'm sure happens fairly often.
Critical hits are just a bad mechanic, and always have been. We have them because somehow, rolling really well feels like it should let us "win more". Every once in a super moon, sure, there's that one crit that happened at that one time, that changed everything.
But is it really worth it to have a "one in a million" mechanic?
Maybe we should just have exploding damage dice instead, if we want dramatic moments to happen with any degree of regularity.
On the other hand, I do like the idea of getting a metagame coupon for when I roll well; then I can save it for a dramatic moment when I need a momentum shift, rather than hope I roll a natural 20 at an appropriate time.
There was a 3.5 game where a friend and I decided to try being siblings who were merchants- I was a Sorcerer, and his character was a Wizard. At low levels, we relied on skill checks to appraise the value of items, haggle with prospective buyers, and so on. The DM eventually worked out a system for how much of a deal we could get on a successful "haggle" check, and since we were pretty good at it, we could almost guarantee being able to purchase things for 10-15% less, and sell them with the same markup.
Then we got into magic items, making and selling cheap items (or services, like everburning torches) that were affordable in large communities and also very useful.
We were happy making money, and sharing our wealth with our party (since we tended to ask them to make detours so we could find new things to buy, and new places to sell them).
But finally one day the DM asked to see our notes, where we kept a running tally of our net worth, and he sighed.
"Guys, I know you're having fun, and we agreed on the rules. You've even paid your Guild dues and taxes. But the fact is, you have so much money it's making it harder for me to run the game".
We pointed out several cash sinks we could invest in, like buying property, paying off a Duke to get minor titles, building a base of operations, and even a ship, but the DM then pointed out the realistic cost of such things was well within our reach, and then what?
At some point, we'd have nothing to do but sink vast wealth into crafting powerful magic items for the party, becoming too powerful for appropriate CR enemies.
And the easy solution, giving enemies magical gear of their own, was counter productive, since if we beat them, their wealth would increase our own exponentially.
So we had to retire our characters, and make new ones that paid full price for everything, and had nothing in our backpacks but lint and magical items. Very dissatisfying.
But we were talking about critical hits, lol.
So here's the thing- 5% of the time, a monster can theoretically deal double dice of damage. When that happens is not in the DM's control. It could happen during an epic boss battle, where suddenly the player is taking an extra 7d6 damage, or it can happen when fighting a mook, turning his d8+3 into 2d8+3.
So when you get right down to it, what percentage of DM crits are even really that impactful? 5e generally makes critical hits rare and tame, and only occasionally do the stars line up so that they can truly make a great impact on a battle.
For players, critical hits are generally pretty weak. Oh maybe you're a Battlemaster so you can get an extra die, or you have some trait to grant a bonus when you score a critical hit, but generally, there's three types of characters who overperform when they crit.
Paladins, assuming they haven't been forced to use up their smites in order to take out dangerous foes.
Rogues, who always have fistful of dice to work with.
And spellcasters, who don't tend to throw out a lot of attack roll spells to begin with.
It seems to me that critical hits are already pretty lopsided, as most monsters get multiple dice of damage, or can make more attacks than a party of level at or around their CR.
And even when players do roll a 20, it's only a big deal for certain characters anyways. I mean, what's an extra d8 damage anyways? Even a d12 is a lousy 6-7 points on average.
Most enemies have enough hit points that small amounts of bonus damage aren't really worth talking about. A big hit on a weak enemy is just a waste, which I'm sure happens fairly often.
Critical hits are just a bad mechanic, and always have been. We have them because somehow, rolling really well feels like it should let us "win more". Every once in a super moon, sure, there's that one crit that happened at that one time, that changed everything.
But is it really worth it to have a "one in a million" mechanic?
Maybe we should just have exploding damage dice instead, if we want dramatic moments to happen with any degree of regularity.
On the other hand, I do like the idea of getting a metagame coupon for when I roll well; then I can save it for a dramatic moment when I need a momentum shift, rather than hope I roll a natural 20 at an appropriate time.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Agreed, though this is one area where I'm willing to let gamist concerns rear their heads just a bit. Why? Because I rather despise economics (both as a field of study and as practiced in our current society) in real life and don't want to have to deal with it in the game.
That would depend on one or more of:
--- your item creation rules (homebrew, of course, if you're in a 5e environment)
--- whether anyone already has such a goblet and then whether it is available for purchase
--- the Duke's willingness and-or ability to pay the price requested by either the creator or the current owner.
The "how much money the Duke has" piece can be sticky, but the "how common are these goblets" piece is pure DM fiat and-or dice rolling. Does every member of the nobility have one? Or is this some hare-brained off-the-cuff idea of the Duke's in order to one-up the neighbouring Baron? The motivation (and depth thereof) behind why the Duke wants the goblet will go a long way toward determining what he's willing to pay and-or sacrifice for it.
I agree D&D has rather sadly abandoned simulationism in many other areas but in this particular area I'm willing to live with a more fanciful system.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
To me that part has long since been done during history, leading to an enshrined value system.
Bidding wars have IME caused some pretty good arguments in the past, though nothing earth-shattering.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
It’s possible I’m just not understanding how some DMs use price lists. Can you describe a scenario and how a price list would be helpful?
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
And completely the fault of the 3e system as designed, to not be (mathematically) flexible enough to decently handle both very-high and very-low wealth parties.
The DM was put in a bind because the system put said DM in a bind. The only blame I can assign to the DM here is that of trying to adhere too closely to the CR system rather than just winging it.
Oh...yeah...er...right! So we were.
Very much, yes.
But then it's not one in a million, is it. If "dramatic moments" are occurring with any degree of regularity (or worse, predictability) then they're not so much dramatic as they are just another element in the game.
That's the cool thing about crits and fumbles that need a confirm roll: the confirm roll means they don't happen all that often, making them unusual when they do occur. A flat 1 in 20 chance for each is far too frequent IMO.
Metagame coupons = complete non-starter.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I can only speak to how we do it.
During an adventure the party picks up a list of items; for the sake of simplicity let's assume all they find this trip are some basic magic items and some cash. On returning to town those items are identified and - using the price list - evaluated, leading to a list like this (numbers conveniently add to round figures for this example, in practice it's divided down to the g.p.):
(Item number) --- (what it is) --- (value in gp) --- (claimed by)
103 --- Longsword +1 --- 1800 --- Blurt, Danielle (settled by roll-off, Danielle wins)
104 --- Ring: Protection +1 --- 3000 --- Coriander, Jocantha (settled by roll-off, Coriander wins)
105 --- Potion: Healing --- 200 --- [all five] (Blurt wins a 5-way roll-off)
106 --- Spear +1 Returning --- 2700 --- Jocantha
107 --- Spellbook, Illusionist --- 4700 --- [none; sold, none of these characters are Illusionists]
108 --- Folding Boat --- 11000 --- Aloysius+Jocantha go halfsies (because Jocantha lost out on the ring)
109 --- Potion: Invisibility --- 600 --- Danielle
Cash and gems found, minus party expenses e.g. ID pearls = 6000 gp equivalent
------------------------------------------
Total treasury value = 30000 g.p.
There are 5 characters in the party and each gets a full share, thus the share for each one is (30000 / 5 =) 6000.
Next, the players, in-character, claim items from the list; knowing that whatever they take comes out of the 6000 share that character gets; and if they claim and win too much they owe the treasury the difference. Items claimed by no-one are sold, arbitrarily for the listed value as experience has taught me that high-low value systems are a real PITA. Claims are shown above; party members are Aloysius, Blurt, Coriander, Danielle, and Jocantha.
So what each character ends up with is:
Aloysius: a half-share in the Folding Boat plus 1000 gp
Blurt: a Potion of Healing + 5400 gp
Coriander: the Ring of Protection + 3000 gp
Danielle: the Longsword, the Invisibility Potion, and 3600 g.p.
Jocantha: the Spear, a half-share in the Folding Boat, and needs to put 1700 back into the treasury from her own existing funds/resources.
Any kind of drafting or take-your-choice system would inevitably end up with one character owning the Folding Boat outright while someone else might end up only with the Longsword; a huge disparity in net value and exactly what the system is specifically designed to avoid.
Sometimes big-ticket items like the Folding Boat here will be taken out of treasury (thus reducing everyone's share) and carried forward as party possessions - which is fine provided that party intends to stick together. But party makeup often changes as characters come and go, and trying to figure out years later who owns what share of some carried-forward item is the stuff of bookkeeping and record-keeping nightmares!
Conclusion:
Good luck doing anything like this without a magic item price list.
Last edited:
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I can only speak to how we do it.
During an adventure the party picks up a list of items; for the sake of simplicity let's assume all they find this trip are some basic magic items and some cash. On returning to town those items are identified and - using the price list - evaluated, leading to a list like this (numbers conveniently add to round figures for this example, in practice it's divided down to the g.p.):
(Item number) --- (what it is) --- (value in gp) --- (claimed by)
103 --- Longsword +1 --- 1800 --- Blurt, Danielle (settled by roll-off, Danielle wins)
104 --- Ring: Protection +1 --- 3000 --- Coriander, Jocantha (settled by roll-off, Coriander wins)
105 --- Potion: Healing --- 200 --- [all five] (Blurt wins a 5-way roll-off)
106 --- Spear +1 Returning --- 2700 --- Jocantha
107 --- Spellbook, Illusionist --- 4700 --- [none; sold, none of these characters are Illusionists]
108 --- Folding Boat --- 11000 --- Aloysius+Jocantha go halfsies (because Jocantha lost out on the ring)
109 --- Potion: Invisibility --- 600 --- Danielle
Cash and gems found, minus party expenses e.g. ID pearls = 6000 gp equivalent
------------------------------------------
Total treasury value = 30000 g.p.
There are 5 characters in the party and each gets a full share, thus the share for each one is (30000 / 5 =) 6000.
Next, the players, in-character, claim items from the list; knowing that whatever they take comes out of the 6000 share that character gets; and if they claim and win too much they owe the treasury the difference. Items claimed by no-one are sold, arbitrarily for the listed value as experience has taught me that high-low value systems are a real PITA. Claims are shown above; party members are Aloysius, Blurt, Coriander, Danielle, and Jocantha.
So what each character ends up with is:
Aloysius: a half-share in the Folding Boat plus 1000 gp
Blurt: a Potion of Healing + 5400 gp
Coriander: the Ring of Protection + 3000 gp
Danielle: the Longsword, the Invisibility Potion, and 3600 g.p.
Jocantha: the Spear, a half-share in the Folding Boat, and needs to put 1700 back into the treasury from her own existing funds/resources.
Any kind of drafting or take-your-choice system would inevitably end up with one character owning the Folding Boat outright while someone else might end up only with the Longsword; a huge disparity in net value and exactly what the system is specifically designed to avoid.
Sometimes big-ticket items like the Folding Boat here will be taken out of treasury (thus reducing everyone's share) and carried forward as party possessions - which is fine provided that party intends to stick together. But party makeup often changes as characters come and go, and trying to figure out years later who owns what share of some carried-forward item is the stuff of bookkeeping and record-keeping nightmares!
Conclusion:
Good luck doing anything like this without a magic item price list.
Whoah.
The closest experience I have to any of that is divvying up raid loot in World of Warcraft, ca. 2006/7.
Well, that and my buddy’s acrimonious divorce.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Also, if you want to handle it that way, wouldn’t it be simpler to auction off each item, then divide up the auction proceeds?
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Yeah, I’ve encountered the method before. Absolutely hated it. It meant you lost out on high cost stuff because it wasn’t divisible in such a way.
Very cool.I can only speak to how we do it.
During an adventure the party picks up a list of items; for the sake of simplicity let's assume all they find this trip are some basic magic items and some cash. On returning to town those items are identified and - using the price list - evaluated, leading to a list like this (numbers conveniently add to round figures for this example, in practice it's divided down to the g.p.):
(Item number) --- (what it is) --- (value in gp) --- (claimed by)
103 --- Longsword +1 --- 1800 --- Blurt, Danielle (settled by roll-off, Danielle wins)
104 --- Ring: Protection +1 --- 3000 --- Coriander, Jocantha (settled by roll-off, Coriander wins)
105 --- Potion: Healing --- 200 --- [all five] (Blurt wins a 5-way roll-off)
106 --- Spear +1 Returning --- 2700 --- Jocantha
107 --- Spellbook, Illusionist --- 4700 --- [none; sold, none of these characters are Illusionists]
108 --- Folding Boat --- 11000 --- Aloysius+Jocantha go halfsies (because Jocantha lost out on the ring)
109 --- Potion: Invisibility --- 600 --- Danielle
Cash and gems found, minus party expenses e.g. ID pearls = 6000 gp equivalent
------------------------------------------
Total treasury value = 30000 g.p.
There are 5 characters in the party and each gets a full share, thus the share for each one is (30000 / 5 =) 6000.
Next, the players, in-character, claim items from the list; knowing that whatever they take comes out of the 6000 share that character gets; and if they claim and win too much they owe the treasury the difference. Items claimed by no-one are sold, arbitrarily for the listed value as experience has taught me that high-low value systems are a real PITA. Claims are shown above; party members are Aloysius, Blurt, Coriander, Danielle, and Jocantha.
So what each character ends up with is:
Aloysius: a half-share in the Folding Boat plus 1000 gp
Blurt: a Potion of Healing + 5400 gp
Coriander: the Ring of Protection + 3000 gp
Danielle: the Longsword, the Invisibility Potion, and 3600 g.p.
Jocantha: the Spear, a half-share in the Folding Boat, and needs to put 1700 back into the treasury from her own existing funds/resources.
Any kind of drafting or take-your-choice system would inevitably end up with one character owning the Folding Boat outright while someone else might end up only with the Longsword; a huge disparity in net value and exactly what the system is specifically designed to avoid.
Sometimes big-ticket items like the Folding Boat here will be taken out of treasury (thus reducing everyone's share) and carried forward as party possessions - which is fine provided that party intends to stick together. But party makeup often changes as characters come and go, and trying to figure out years later who owns what share of some carried-forward item is the stuff of bookkeeping and record-keeping nightmares!
Conclusion:
Good luck doing anything like this without a magic item price list.
Out of curiosity, did you also use XP=gp at the time? If so, did Blurt end up with 5400xp and Coriander only 3000xp because magic items aren't included in the treasure to XP calcs, or did the GM equally split up the cash (plus sold items values) XP regardless of how it shook out individually?
Similar Threads
