D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[Guest 6801328]

I don't get this post. Why would you omit the very common
16. Buy magic items

And no, I don't shift goal posts.

Just gotta interject that in the first quote you very much shifted goal posts. You asked what else, other than magic items, players could spend money on, and then complained that buying magic items weren't included in the answer. If that's not changing goal posts I don't know what is.

(In your defense, I think you forgot what question he was answering, but the blanket, ironclad "I don't shift goal posts" comes across as just a bit too...certain.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

A great idea! You do that!

Myself, since my players actively like getting to choose what items they acquire, I plan on keep handing out more gold and less items, and feature the items in shoppes instead, just like I have done since 3rd edition first came out

What if your players know/trust that you tend to choose treasure based on what they want?

 

[CapnZapp]

This requires WotC to re-write the entire game. The game does not assume magic items. In order to prepare a price list that is fair in a wealth by level format, they would have to re-write the entire game to assume magic items.

No.

 

[cmad1977]

I find it unsurprising that the people who are incapable of dealing with magic marts of their own are also the ones incapable of handling feats like sharpshooter in their games.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

Hi Capn -

I'm curious so I'm going to ask the question and see what your answer is?

How do you create standard prices that take into account the utility of an item, without taking into account the specific utility the item has to the particular player or group that would be purchasing it?

Ex. I may have a group that doesn't really need a bag of holding so they wouldn't pay as much for it.

With the back and forth that I'm seeing, know that I'm writing this with no tone and no intention to be snarky. I'm just curious how you'd go about it in a way that would make a standard list based on utility in a rulebook work for everyone's situation.

You need to know that the naysayers argument that you need a price that works equally well for everybody is a huge straw man, only made in order to be able to say "that's so difficult it's impossible, and impossible requests are unreasonable requests".

What you want is *a* price list as a base line. Obviously nobody is arguing the DM should be able to leave his brain at home.

But what then is the difference to the rarity-based pricing guidelines we did get?

That they don't even attempt at setting a utility-based pricing. As far as I am concerned, their rarity settings are essentially random from a utility perspective, since they bring in entirely irrelevant factors like what "should" be rare while ignoring what the items actually do.

And no, I don't intend to provide examples to prove my point. If you're curious, just peruse the Sane Magic Item price list and pick two items of equal rarity. Chances are those two items will vary wildly in price. In extreme cases, over a hundred times.

(Not saying Sane is perfect or even close to perfect. But I certainly trust it much more than rarity)

Not even the most ardent defender of the current pricing scheme should be able to argue it is useful for my purposes with such baffling pricing differences.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because the whole point of this thought experiment it that some of you don't trust the opinions of WotC staff and want "objective" data.

Note: I am staying out of the sub-discussion of using surveys or whatnot.

I do trust the opinions of WotC staff. I just need them to work on goals that are compatible with mine.

 

[CapnZapp]

What if your players know/trust that you tend to choose treasure based on what they want?

That's great!

And also not an argument to not support a play style.

 

[Kobold Boots]

You need to know that the naysayers argument that you need a price that works equally well for everybody is a huge straw man, only made in order to be able to say "that's so difficult it's impossible, and impossible requests are unreasonable requests".

What you want is *a* price list as a base line. Obviously nobody is arguing the DM should be able to leave his brain at home.

But what then is the difference to the rarity-based pricing guidelines we did get?

That they don't even attempt at setting a utility-based pricing. As far as I am concerned, their rarity settings are essentially random from a utility perspective, since they bring in entirely irrelevant factors like what "should" be rare while ignoring what the items actually do.

And no, I don't intend to provide examples to prove my point. If you're curious, just peruse the Sane Magic Item price list and pick two items of equal rarity. Chances are those two items will vary wildly in price. In extreme cases, over a hundred times.

(Not saying Sane is perfect or even close to perfect. But I certainly trust it much more than rarity)

Not even the most ardent defender of the current pricing scheme should be able to argue it is useful for my purposes with such baffling pricing differences.

Hi Capn -

Thanks for replying. I'll go through your points in order because you're coming off rather sanely, so I want to as well in order to bridge any gaps.

1. Yes, a base line price list is entirely doable. I personally never said it wasn't. However, I did mention that any price list that requires significant modification to be useful is of dubious value to begin with, and we're already at that point.
2. I think that you and I are arguing (and perhaps others too) that the DM should not expect to leave his brain at home. I do not think that everyone is arguing that, and I don't think the two of us could be certain they weren't.
3. You're correct that there's no utility based pricing. They're assuming that rarity drives price more than utility in a magic heavy setting (if they're even thinking that far ahead about it.)
4. You don't need to provide examples. This isn't a rules discussion that has a hard and fast interpretation or debate about interpretation. Situation simply is what it is.
5. I personally, was not defending anything.

What I am saying is that if something is broken, it's better to fix it and present your solution for discussion rather than argue about something that's broken. Generally you'll get more value out of the discussion, but it may be drier than this or create fewer pages.

For what it's worth, I'm just as culpable as far as this thread is concerned.

Be well
KB

 

[Kobold Boots]

Note: I am staying out of the sub-discussion of using surveys or whatnot.

I do trust the opinions of WotC staff. I just need them to work on goals that are compatible with mine.

Being honest, I think you know that the only person in life that has the ability to make that happen is you. When they posted a position for game designer, you should have applied. Personally, based on what you've been asking for, I'd buy your stuff.

Otherwise, you're going to have to get used to doing the work to create the rules modifications and content you want for your game like many of us already do.

Be well
KB

 

[delericho]

Because the whole point of this thought experiment it that some of you don't trust the opinions of WotC staff and want "objective" data.

There's a big gap between asking for support for alternate playstyles to assuming they're incompetent.

In non-competitive D&D, why does it matter?

I've found that 5e works really well if I run it like I used to run 2nd Ed, but it is deeply dissatisfying when I try to run Eberron. A big part of that is conflicting style choices - 5e assumes items are not easily for sale, and Eberron assumes that there are. That doesn't mean either set of assumptions is wrong, it just means that they don't work together.

Since I like 5e and I also like Eberron, I'd like to see them play well together, and a reasonably well-constructed set of item prices is a big part of that. I'm willing to wait, but my interim solution is "don't try to run Eberron in 5e", which is far from ideal.

That's why it matters.