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: 6995714" data-attributes="member: 37579">The Realms was always high magic, but the amount of magic items that were bought and sold varied depending on campaigns. It happened, but it increased dramatically with 3e. The amount of expected magic in that game is kinda ridiculous. I recall the 1/5th sell/disenchant price. Which makes this so interesting, as the "magic item economy" of 4e was pretty funky. The whole system was designed to discourage you selling items (IIRC, that was explicitly the point, and the designers commented as much at one point). Which makes sense, as 4e was also trying to move away from the Christmas Tree of magic items from 3e into a more regimented 3-4 items per character. Similarly, buying magic items wasn't nearly as much of a thing in 4e, since you could make them for the same price as you could buy them, and were expected to find 4/5ths of them in treasure parcels. And there was the inherent bonuses optional system in one of the books, where you could also dump magic items from the game.So it's odd that 5e gets called out for not having a robust magic item economy when 4e didn't really either. Emphasis added. The thing is "magic item economy" is not an edition. Neither is "Eberron". The edition is meant to have *some* appeal for fans of past editions, but it was never going to do everything or completely replicate past editions. There were always going to be elements that didn't make the transition, or that couldn't work for balance reasons or because their inclusion didn't work with other editions. I think a lot of 5e appeals to fans of 3e, even without the magic item Christmas trees. That was a small part of the edition. Your mileage will vary with that. Not all players have read the entire PHB, let alone the DMG as well. Some players will only know the rules as taught to them by the DM or the rest of the table. They'll learn by playing. How many players own the PHB at your table? Do they all own a copy? Have the all read it cover to cover? Do they all know all the rules? I think you underestimate the amount people homebrew. Gamers love to mod and hack and customize. The Unearthed Arcana reddit is always showing off something new. <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/" target="_blank">https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/</a> I just don't see "because it's not official" being a reliable or reasonable hurdle. Let alone some insurmountable obstacle.That aside, any new rule, be it official, downloaded from the Guild, or created by the DM will be less widespread than content in the core rules. The majority of tables will not adopt that content. There will ALWAYS be hesitation and people that will need to be won over. The WotC logo on the cover changes nothing. It's not a magic seal that makes it approved on every table everywhere. WotC published a tonne of content for 2e, 3e, and 4e and most tables ignored the vast majority of that content. New character content will have a higher rate of usage than new house rules, because the former are harder to add to the middle of a campaign. But it's easy to add a new race or subclass. A DM will have greater hesitation allowing homebrew than not, but the players are unlikely to experience that to same degree. Especially if it benefits them, which magic item crafting would.Are player's *really* going to say "no" to something that makes them more badass? Which is probably an issue. A magic item economy optional rule will create more work for the DMs and benefit the players by increasing their power levels dramatically. That's the kind of rule that if many DMs saw in an official book would be very, very hesitant to use.</blockquote>

Verification