Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7220506" data-attributes="member: 996">The latter.&nbsp;Nod.&nbsp; And that would require three things.&nbsp; 1) a (gamist) gold<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />ower scale - that is, wealth-by-level guidelines like those of 3e &amp; 4e - that puts inappropriately powerful items out of reach at a given level.&nbsp; 2) item designs that reflect that scaling (problematic in 5e where scaling is mostly hp/damage).&nbsp; and 3) a rational economy that aligns with that - 3e wasn't insanely far off, it essentially let crafters sell their exp for gold, 4e's rationalization was 'you're adventurers, you're always taken advantage of' (ie, the old 'gold rush economy').5e has 0 of those.&nbsp; So it'd be a bit of work.&nbsp;Going back further, 5e supports not having a magic item economy, just like the game used to not have one back in the day.&nbsp; :shrug:Of as DMs, we can decide on what kind of economies (silver standard, gold rush, wealth/level, whatever) we want, and then fit make/buy formulae to that.&nbsp; Similarly, we could peg downtime used in item-creation to the pacing of the campaign.&nbsp;&nbsp; But if WotC were to do one, or some ambitious amateur were to do so for DMsG or whatever, it might work better centered around some unit other than an arbitrary 'gp'&nbsp; - I suppose that could be exp like in 3.x, or it could be something arbitrary.&nbsp;Wait, I thought the 5e Big Lie was that magic items weren't 'assumed' (even though they're in all the APs).. - or, no, was it that the game was 'expected' to be paced in 6-8 encounter days (even though it's trivially easy to rest more often)?Edit:&nbsp; You need a manifesto or blog (Cap'n's Log?) or something, where you can give us a definitive ranking of the biggest pranks 5e has played on us, the loyal D&amp;D fanbase. </blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7220506, member: 996"] The latter. Nod. And that would require three things. 1) a (gamist) gold:power scale - that is, wealth-by-level guidelines like those of 3e & 4e - that puts inappropriately powerful items out of reach at a given level. 2) item designs that reflect that scaling (problematic in 5e where scaling is mostly hp/damage). and 3) a rational economy that aligns with that - 3e wasn't insanely far off, it essentially let crafters sell their exp for gold, 4e's rationalization was 'you're adventurers, you're always taken advantage of' (ie, the old 'gold rush economy'). 5e has 0 of those. So it'd be a bit of work. Going back further, 5e supports not having a magic item economy, just like the game used to not have one back in the day. :shrug: Of as DMs, we can decide on what kind of economies (silver standard, gold rush, wealth/level, whatever) we want, and then fit make/buy formulae to that. Similarly, we could peg downtime used in item-creation to the pacing of the campaign. But if WotC were to do one, or some ambitious amateur were to do so for DMsG or whatever, it might work better centered around some unit other than an arbitrary 'gp' - I suppose that could be exp like in 3.x, or it could be something arbitrary. Wait, I thought the 5e Big Lie was that magic items weren't 'assumed' (even though they're in all the APs).. - or, no, was it that the game was 'expected' to be paced in 6-8 encounter days (even though it's trivially easy to rest more often)? [i]Edit: You need a manifesto or blog (Cap'n's Log?) or something, where you can give us a definitive ranking of the biggest pranks 5e has played on us, the loyal D&D fanbase. [/i] [/QUOTE]

Verification