Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6995521" data-attributes="member: 37579">Magic item economies are reflected in the settings (or rather, in the Realms and Eberron) following 3e because they were in the game. The settings changed to accommodate the new place of magic in the rules. And now it's changing back.It's not a huge problem for the Realms. The Sundering and restoration of the Weave are a good excuse for depowering magical items from 4e. (And the canon of the Realms even has the Spellplague rendering many magical items nonfunctional). Plus in 4e, low and middle level magic items were continually reduced to residuum and used to enchant higher level items. So the many mid-level magic items of 3e were destroyed to empower legendary items currently in possession of epic adventurers. It's funkier for Eberron, but that was always meant to be minor magic items. Everyday items. The mundane stuff of that setting doesn't affect adventurers, so the included magic item crafting rules are sufficient, as is the existing magic item shopping rules. The DCs for finding items are just lowered. But it can't just create everything all at once. No edition has ever had a 100% conversion rate. (Okay… maybe OD&D to 1st Edition.)Where was Moon Magic for Dragonlance in 4e? Where was Dark Sun defiling in 3e? How about races like muls, kender, half-giants, etc? The divine mandate from Birthright. Dragon PCs from Council of Wyrms. Immortals from Mystara. New editions should *try* to offer mechanical support for past editions, but they can't include everything for every setting ever published.I'm a Dragonlance and Ravenloft fan. Apart from Barovia/Strahd, neither have seen any real love in 5e/4e, and only 3rd Party support in 3rd. That's not idea, but that's life. And making support for those settings is easy as it's additive: new classes/ races/ monsters. In contrast, the magic item economics is a huge rules revision. It's a crazy amount of work to replace rules that are already in the game and work for most people's campaigns. The cost/reward benefit is not high compared to making new options.When 5e has spellscars and dragonmarks, defiling and moon magic, devas and shardminds, psionics and the artificer, Ghostwalk and Council of Wyrms then maybe WotC can look at completely revising the magic item economy.I disagree. It's the exact same thing. The DM says "this is the rules we're using". There's not something magical about official rules that make them easier to accept. A optional rule added to a game is still a change and correction of mental rule knowledge, regardless of the source. And unless the players in question have read the entire DMG and have memorized the rules, there's no real difference at the table between a house rule and an optional rule. If DMs are lacking trust at the table, any new rules will be greeted with hesitation regardless of the source. If the DM is not trusted at the table, are economics in the game world really the largest concern?If it were as difficult as you make it sound, there would be no house rules used ever. But, honestly, in my 25+ years of gaming, I've never seen a non-Organized Play table NOT use house rules to some degree. Yes, making a change for the worst causes more disatisfaction. However, your example only has two examples: no change and a change for the worse. Your thought experiment lacks a control. For it to accurately reflect the desire for new rules you need a third scenario: new official grappling rules. So you have the control (no new rules), official new rules, and homebrew new rules. All the grappling rules are equally awful, the variable in this case is the homebrew vs official. I posit that both tables with the new rules would be equally dissatisfied because a change was made, seemingly for the worse. The solution: don't make a changes that are more negative than positive. Don't make awful rules.That's iffy. In a long running crunchy game like 3e/Pathfinder, a house rule that tries and fails to fix a problem is worse than leaving the rule alone. Since it means learning a new rule and introduces confusion. The devil you know and such. (Or the grass being greener. Some adage.) Plus the complexities and interconnectivity of the rules made small changes ripple outward. 5e is much more rules light and people have been playing it a far shorter time, so it's a little easier shifting the rules. The game is much more accepting of house rules, with small changes being more confined and having less side effects.</blockquote>

Verification