D&D (2024) New equipment list

[tetrasodium]

Ideally, such lists should be in the relevant setting books, though.

That runs into problems with such lists needing to have room carved into the system from the start either by default or with built in levers that the entire system is built around respecting though. Simply changing the name ms of wildly inappropriately powered equipment does not accomplish anything of value & risks just destabilizing the game
.

 

[Azzy]

That runs into problems with such lists needing to have room carved into the system from the start either by default or with built in levers that the entire system is built around respecting though. Simply changing the name ms of wildly inappropriately powered equipment does not accomplish anything of value & risks just destabilizing the game
.

Why on earth would there be wildly inappropriately powered equipment? And why would their location in a setting book be any different than if they were in the PHB? This seems like a non-sequiter.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

That runs into problems with such lists needing to have room carved into the system from the start either by default or with built in levers that the entire system is built around respecting though. Simply changing the name ms of wildly inappropriately powered equipment does not accomplish anything of value & risks just destabilizing the game
.

Really tough to understand the point you're trying to make here...

 

[tetrasodium]

Why on earth would there be wildly inappropriately powered equipment? And why would their location in a setting book be any different than if they were in the PHB? This seems like a non-sequiter.

Because the game math is built entirely around a different standard than one that fits the themes tropes & power levels of a given setting without leaving room for a setting book to provide an appropriate equipment list. As to your non-sequitur claim, how would you expect a setting book to provide equipment lists to fit their themes tropes & power levels in any way other than pointless name swaps if the system is not built to provide the mathematical room needed to differentiate such a list to give them a different feel at the table?

 

[Azzy]

Because the game math is built entirely around a different standard than one that fits the themes tropes & power levels of a given setting without leaving room for a setting book to provide an appropriate equipment list. As to your non-sequitur claim, how would you expect a setting book to provide equipment lists to fit their themes tropes & power levels in any way other than pointless name swaps if the system is not built to provide the mathematical room needed to differentiate such a list to give them a different feel at the table?

Why on earth would there be different power levels between settings? And why would it matter if it's in the PHB or a setting book?

 

[tetrasodium]

Why on earth would there be different power levels between settings? And why would it matter if it's in the PHB or a setting book?

"Why on earth" would you expect every setting to have the same baseline? Take the settings mentioned so far as an example

• A: darksun or some other low magic sword & sorcery setting. Storebought gear is pretty minimal in value but the setting allows & expects players to have opportunities they can improve their gear over the campaign's course Things like at will cantrips & cradle to grave equipment& cantrips are ill fitting
• B: Eberron/spelljammer/sigil/maybeGreyhawk. Wide magic & capitalism exist. Starting gear is acceptably good but it's expected players will have many chances to improve their gear over the campaign. Cradle to grave gear & cantrips are very ill fitting
• C: 5e's FR: Magic items are "optional", mundane gear is so good that players are not even expected to find magic items at all but the rules still pretend that this equipment list is suitable for A&B

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

"Why on earth" would you expect every setting to have the same baseline? Take the settings mentioned so far as an example

• A: darksun or some other low magic sword & sorcery setting. Storebought gear is pretty minimal in value but the setting allows & expects players to have opportunities they can improve their gear over the campaign's course Things like at will cantrips & cradle to grave equipment& cantrips are ill fitting
• B: Eberron/spelljammer/sigil/maybeGreyhawk. Wide magic & capitalism exist. Starting gear is acceptably good but it's expected players will have many chances to improve their gear over the campaign. Cradle to grave gear & cantrips are very ill fitting
• C: 5e's FR: Magic items are "optional", mundane gear is so good that players are not even expected to find magic items at all but the rules still pretend that this equipment list is suitable for A&B

It's really hard to follow what you are trying to say.

 

[Azzy]

"Why on earth" would you expect every setting to have the same baseline? Take the settings mentioned so far as an example

• A: darksun or some other low magic sword & sorcery setting. Storebought gear is pretty minimal in value but the setting allows & expects players to have opportunities they can improve their gear over the campaign's course Things like at will cantrips & cradle to grave equipment& cantrips are ill fitting
• B: Eberron/spelljammer/sigil/maybeGreyhawk. Wide magic & capitalism exist. Starting gear is acceptably good but it's expected players will have many chances to improve their gear over the campaign. Cradle to grave gear & cantrips are very ill fitting
• C: 5e's FR: Magic items are "optional", mundane gear is so good that players are not even expected to find magic items at all but the rules still pretend that this equipment list is suitable for A&B

What has this to do with armor, weapons, and other mundane equipment that are setting-specific? And, again, how does the placement in the PHB or setting-specific supplements change anything other than location?

 

[tetrasodium]

What has this to do with armor, weapons, and other mundane equipment that are setting-specific? And, again, how does the placement in the PHB or setting-specific supplements change anything other than location?

I believe the disconnect might stem from overlooking or ignoring the very explicit question in post 14 "How would you expect a setting book to provide equipment lists to fit their themes tropes & power levels in any way other than pointless name swaps if the system is not built to provide the mathematical room needed to differentiate such a list to give them a different feel at the table?" I can't provide you with the answers your repeated questions are seeking without insight into the disconnect.

 

[Composer99]

I might be misunderstanding @tetrasodium, but I see their point as being a stronger version of the below:
(1) Different campaign settings have different expectations as regards the power level and availability of equipment and magic items. That seems pretty obvious to me given the examples given of Eberron versus Dark Sun - both of which have pretty divergent expectations from each other and from the PHB baseline.
(2) The game system should be built from the outset to smoothly accommodate these differences.
(3) If you wait until you're developing the setting books to do this work, it's too late - the system will be inflexible and the adjustments creaky and ill-fitting.

Now, personally, I don't know that I'd want those changes to equipment lists in the PHB, but I do think the DMG should have more support on running games that line up with the different "flavours of fantasy" discussed therein. That includes how to change equipment lists to match:

• "low fantasy" - swords & sorcery and pulp-style stuff
• "medieval fantasy" - which is a bit lower-tech than the more early-modern PHB gear
• "magitech" - Eberron and the like.

So some alternates should be in the DMG at the least, IMO, even if a more fulsome treatment of running games in those settings, including more equipment, might wait until setting-specific supplements are released.