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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6995878" data-attributes="member: 996">Yep. The idea was to support PC adventurers, rather than PC merchants or manufacturers.  Selling just about anything was 1/5th, while making was the same cost as buying.  You could go broke really, really quick by trying to be a merchant or set yourself up making stuff.   Any hypothetical 'rules' governing NPCs weren't even hinted at:  as in 5e, if the rules didn't cover it, the DM just decided what was what.Nod.  I seem to remember something like it in 3.5, too, though 3.5 assumptions extended to other capabilities than just enhancement bonuses.  And, of course, 5e goes the opposite direction, assuming no items.  Not sure where you got that.  4e's handling of magic items was /very/ robust.  Oh, but I guess calling it an 'economy' would be pushing it.  Yeah, OK.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />It doesn't have to 'do everything' - just the things past editions have supported you doing.  It doesn't have to 'replicate' past editions, either, just support the same things and same styles.  Again, there's tons of overlap among the past editions, so that's not as crazy as it sounds.  (Probably not entirely possible, but something it can continue working towards.)Think about how much 5e delivered, just in the PH.  Every full-class in a past PH1 except the Warlord.  Every type of character possible in a past PH1 but the Psionic.  Classsic-game style Fighters (the Champion), Thieves, and Clerics (the Life Cleric), even a faint stab at the classic fighter/magic-user in the EK.  3.5/4e Warlocks, the 3.5 Sorcerer (OK that's debatable).  A Bard that doesn't exactly fail at emulating the various prior-edition bards (mostly it's just better than prior-edition bards) with the possible exception of the PH1 appendix Bard-as-proto-PrC.  Very nearly as thorough a handling of the Druid.  A Paladin that does justice(npi) to both the original LG PITA, and two non-G alternatives that even incidentally hint at the PH2 Warden and HotFK Balckgaurd.  Every race ever in a PH1 (I suppose we could quibble over the odd sub-race).  And, proficiencies & Backgrounds cover the same ground as ranks, training, NWPs, Kits, NPC classes, Backgrounds & Themes.  What's missing isn't really /that/ voluminous or intimidating, especially if that start at PH1's, and work our way out through Core rather than skipping ahead to obscure supplements or setting-specific stuff (though there's also already plenty of setting-specific stuff!).Some of that's even in the works.  The Psionic, present though not as a class in a PH1, in the form of the Mystic has been in the pipeline a while.If 5e cut things for balance reasons it wouldn't have half the classes it does.  ;P  Similarly, you could argue that a lot of things "didn't work" in D&D in the past - especially the early days when it was all pretty haphazard, mechanically - but you probably couldn't get a lot of agreement.  If people got some broken bit of crazy working back then, why begrudge them some less-broken bit of crazy as a starting point in 5e?  (I know, space, pace of publication - fine, pencil it in for the 2020's)Item crafting and assumed wealth/level were huge parts of 3e.  There were myriad items, and the expectation of them was baked into progression.  So, no, it's not a small thing to be missing.  There are plenty of magic items, though, and running a high-magic-item campaign doesn't, IMHO, require a lot of totally new or extensive rules.No player at a 5e table I've ever met was unaware, say, of the existence of character classes, or feats, for instance.  Awareness of PH content is going to be greater than that of other core books, which in turn will be much greater than non-core.  That's inevitable given the presentation of the edition.  It's not like UA content is sitting on store shelves. I agree, tons of homebrewing happens.  I don't agree that someone, somewhere, homebrewing something you might want to play helps you in the least.IDK about majority.  But I'd think far more tables would be open to a Bladesinger (recalling 2e) from SCAG, than J.Random Homebrewer's off-the-wall Millipede* race.  Both because the Bladesinger /was/ in D&D in past editions, and because trees were sacrificed to it in the form of the official hardcover SCAG supplement.Nod.  A player's concerns are narrow than the DMs.Don't see how that's a bad thing.* Not a thing, AFAIK, but FWIW, I did play a millipede once.  In the 80s.  In a Champions! game.</blockquote>

Verification