D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[abirdcall]

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



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.

This comes down to a setting support issue.

It is also a lot of work to try to run Dark Sun or many other settings.

 

[Satyrn]

I disagree and don't get that impression at all.

Hey, I don't get that impression (that the rules say magic items can't be bought) either. I mean, my whole post was saying the rules don't say that. But there are people with that impression. Well, maybe not a lot of people. Maybe just Lanefan. I don't know.

 

[Satyrn]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], I'm with you on this. I think a list of magic item prices would've been a better inclusion in Xanathar's than than a list of names (although I like that list of names, too).

It would've been an ideal place, I think, because it signals that they are entirely optional, a tool for the DM that wants it and not the base assumption for every setting out there.

Maybe the Eberron adventure book (if they ever do one) will have that list.

Or the Sigil book. That's coming very soon, I hear.

 

[delericho]

This comes down to a setting support issue.

It is also a lot of work to try to run Dark Sun or many other settings.

Sure, and I'd like to see Dark Sun support, too - it's another favourite. Indeed, I'd kinda hoped that "Xanathar's Guide" would instead be "Iggwilv's Guide to the Multiverse", or similar, and include all the bits of rules needed for all the various settings (Dragonmarks and the Magic Item economy for Eberron, Psionics and Defiling for Dark Sun, Giff and spelljamming for... well, you know). But it wasn't to be. Maybe next time.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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

Except they gave you that support (rarity based pricing) and you are all complaining that it's insufficient. You want something different and specific. I strongly suspect that if they did try to please you with the 'support' you are asking for, virtually everybody asking for it would immediately start picking apart the numbers they came up with.

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.

I've never played with Eberron so can't comment. I'll take your word for it that somehow in Eberron these prices are needed, but if that's the case it seems like an Eberron setting guide would be the perfect place for it.

 

[Guest 6801328]

....aaaaaaand with that I think I'm going to sidestep out of this thread. It's been illuminating. I came into the thread convinced that magic marts are a bad idea, but hadn't really thought through magic item price lists. Now that I've had a chance to do so, and heard some of the arguments, I'm pretty convinced that's also a pretty bad idea.

Have fun storming the dungeon!

 

[abirdcall]

Sure, and I'd like to see Dark Sun support, too - it's another favourite. Indeed, I'd kinda hoped that "Xanathar's Guide" would instead be "Iggwilv's Guide to the Multiverse", or similar, and include all the bits of rules needed for all the various settings (Dragonmarks and the Magic Item economy for Eberron, Psionics and Defiling for Dark Sun, Giff and spelljamming for... well, you know). But it wasn't to be. Maybe next time.

Yeah, I think 5e was able to handle the additional player content in XgtE. I don't want to see another one for some time though. As another supplement I think a collection of settings would be great.

(though we are getting a multiverse guide in May so that is something. I'm betting it will be more about planes than settings, but still a good place to go for 5e)

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, that was my point. Sane essentially keeps (the roots of) a pricing mechanism despite essentially everything about it being gone (or changed)

PS. Do note that Fan's depiction of 3.5 DR is simplified. It certainly was much more of a factor than it is in 5E, even if it no longer was absurdly prohibitive as in 3.0. For instance, the 3.5 rules prompted Monte Cook to suggest +2 weapons to penetrate silver DR, and +4 weapons to penetrate adamantium DR, as a house rule.

In contrast, you could easily envision a 5E campaign where damage resistance NEVER comes up AT ALL, simply because the campaign drops two or three magic items relatively early, while the campaign just happens to not feature the two or three monsters that feature damage resistance at low CR. And this campaign would not be non-standard or strange in any way.

Sane does keep the pricing of 3.0 despite that it is far removed from 3.0, but 3.5 was in basically the same boat as Sane. Despite that, it worked for 3.5 well enough (and AFAIK still works for Pathfinder). That was my point.

As you say, Monte Cook did propose that but it was nonetheless a house rule. While you are correct that DR was a major thing in 3.0, it was only around for 2 or 3 years before 3.5 replaced it. Including Pathfinder, 3.5 has been the core of d20 for about 15 years now. 3.0 was a blip by comparison.

In 3.5, unless you count having to reach into your golf bag to change clubs as mattering, DR could easily not matter. Once you acquired a magic weapon, a silver weapon, a cold iron weapon, and an adamantine weapon, DR was easy to circumvent. Unlike 5e, 3.5 expected you to find or buy a magic weapon early on, and the other materials were even easier to obtain. Figuring out what to use was also trivially simple in most cases: cold iron for fey, silver for lycanthropes, etc.

It's probably fair to say that DR mattered more in 3.5 than in 5e, but only minimally so. I did play in a number of 3.5 campaigns where DR NEVER came up AT ALL.

 

[Maxperson]

But if the gold has no value (because it's not your character, and you will never have an option to spend it on anything else) then it has no value. It's meaningless to ask players whether they would be willing to spend 50,000 gold on a sword if they will not only never have another opportunity to spend the gold, but will also never have an opportunity to use it.

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I didn't say that would look at what they would spend on items and that's it. I said they would buy those items and test them. That means that they are going to have encounters to find out how powerful the items are vs. the money spent. If the +1 sword is at 50,000 and no one buys it for their encounters, it's priced too high. If it's at 1,000 and everyone buys one, it's probably too cheap. That combined with how effective items purchased are against the encounters they play against will show the best average price for an item.

Actual investment in a character is a detriment as it will skew the combat perceptions on the effectiveness of items.

Simulating the purchase of magic items falls squarely into the last category. There are no actual incentives to balance
cost vs. utility. All you are measuring are players preconceived notions of value vs. utility, by players who already have an opinion of such things.

They wouldn't be simulating the purchase of items, though. They would be simulating combats with purchased items to see if gold values are proper, too cheap, or too expensive. Who buys what for the combats would help with pricing. The same would be done with standard campaigns. Once they get the combat pricing down, they would playtest games with both combat and out of combat situations to see what non-combat items are purchased and how frequently. Those numbers would be used to adjust the non-combat items. At no time would they be just testing the purchase of items. That would be silly.

 

[Maxperson]

If you're content with prices entirely divorced from utility, yes.

Incorrect. Utility plays a part in the values I come up with in seconds. As do the circumstances surrounding the sale.