D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[Guest 6801328]

Can we please just let this thread die?

Nobody is forcing you to read it.

I've gained a clearer understanding of why others want prices in just the last few pages.

 

[Nevvur]

Nobody is forcing you to read it.

I've gained a clearer understanding of why others want prices in just the last few pages.

You're right, of course, I don't have to read it, and if what you say is true then I've clearly overstepped in my assessment. Like yourself, though, I seem to be irresistibly drawn here despite my intent to bow out pages ago.

Is there a way to put a thread on my block list?

 

[Lanefan]

This has never really been an issue in my game. Primarily because people with enough liquid gold AND a desire to purchase a +1 sword are very rare. Couple that with the vast majority of towns aren't going to have any magic for sale anyway. There's no way for a merchant game like that come about in my world. I can see that becoming an issue if magic items are fairly commonly bought and sold, such that each town will have a number of them for sale and have people to buy them.

Most of the people who would buy items and most of the people who try to sell them are the same: adventurers.

I take it as a given (for a boatload of reasons) that the PCs I happen to be DMing or playing are by no means the only adventurers in the world, or even in the town. There's almost always others, and those others are just as likely to have sellable items as the PCs are; and just as likely to have coin enough on hand to buy from the PCs if they see something they can use. Toss in the occasional item made on commission by an artificer and then never claimed, along with an heirloom or two now and then, and yeah: trade in items, though far beyond the reach of the common folk, is going to become relatively common among the adventuring class.

This still doesn't mean a PC can always - or ever - buy exactly the item it wants. What's available is random.

Lanefan

 

[Sunseeker]

I think you're misinterpreting my concern a little bit. It's not that if prices get published suddenly a bunch of players will start demanding they get to purchase anything they want.

It's more that a price list normalizes the idea of buying/selling magic items. It gets used in different ways by different tables, but overall the existence of official "prices" can easily give the appearance of blessing the idea of buying your way to magic item nirvana, regardless of what the supporting paragraphs say. And then that idea ends up getting baked into the community's...or a sub-set of the community's...perception of what D&D is.

For example, a group of kids new to the game might see such a price list and in the process of figuring out the game on their own (just picturing myself in the 80's) and, based on the existence of that price list, freely allow buying/trading of magic items. 15 years later they're all, "WTF? Of course you can buy whatever magic items you want! I've been playing that way since 1977!* In 5e there's even price lists! It's right there in the rules!"

Why do I think that's going to happen? Because a) that's what happens with D&D, and b) it happened right here in this thread.

(*Because, as we all know, as soon as you get on the Internet to discuss D&D it turns out you were besties with EGG.)

Perhaps our difference lies more in how we see the price. I see the price less as a price tag and more of a monetary valuation.

It's something I've wished many editions of D&D had been more specific, granular and generally more standardized about.

Take for example the 3.5 spell "Trap the Soul" the spell requires a gem worth 1kGp/HD of the target.

Without a standardized price for gems, we can never determine what a 1kGp gem actually is. And attempting to make a living economy in our game we only make this problem worse since now we've got the problem that a 1k gem in Civilization A might be a 10k gem across the ocean. And it does nothing for addressing the fact that a 1k diamond and a 1k amethyst would be completely different in size. Are diamonds only more expensive because they are more rare? Or are they more expensive because a massive diamond conglomerate artificially limits supply in order to increase the value of a diamond well beyond it's actual value? *cough*DeBeers*cough*

In real life there are many functions to determine the value of a gem but they are fairly standardized (at its basics: size, type, quality). But D&D has traditionally not addressed these fairly simple elements to IMO, its own detriment and the detriment of the game.

I see magic item prices much the same way. It's an issue of developing a standard for a functional analysis of value. Why is X weapon worth more than Y weapon? Because it's a +1 not a +2. Because it is Shocking and not Flaming Burst. Part of this is me coming at magic items from an MTG card-game angle. Any MTG player can look at a card, and most people will come to a general consensus that most Uncommons are about right for an Uncommon. There's variance, but it's within a tolerable range, sometimes there are exceptions.

But with D&D gear, there's no "range". There's no commonality between their magic items. This is because, much like the CR system, they are only using one variable to analyze the value of a magic item (and frankly I don't think they're even using it very well, a lot of them are just holdovers from their rarities in previous editions). Using more variables to set the value allows you to come to a better understanding of what you are actually producing. Honestly, it would be good game design for them to use multi-variable analysis on their end.

Then you wouldn't have the devs saying things like "We left Fireball more powerful because it's a holdover iconic spell from previous editions." Translation: we left a broken spell broken because it's important to keep broken things. LOLWUT.

 

[cbwjm]

4 Types of Statements:

Convention: a statement that is true or false because we define it as true or false. A field goal is worth 3 points (true). A simple majority is <50% (false).
Fact: a statement that is true or false because it can be verified through observation in the real world. There's a tree in my front yard (true). Hillary Clinton is the POTUS (false).
Preference: a statement that is neither true nor false because it is based on subjective criteria. I like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate, or Snoop Dogg is the best rapper ever.
Opinion: a preference which uses a fact or convention to support itself. Opinions cannot be true or false (or right or wrong) because they are essentially preferences, even if the supporting statement is true.

I've posted this little block of statements in other threads that have gone on way too long. To remind people what's really happening here...

We have two basic preferences: "I want magic item price lists," and "I don't want magic item price lists."
We have several facts: "Previous editions had magic item prices," "The 5e DMG says magic items are generally not for sale," etc.
And we have a butt load of opinions, "I want magic item price lists because previous editions had them," and "I don't want magic item price lists because the DMG says..."

There have been other preferences and opinions (with corresponding facts), some more nuanced than others, but no one is right or wrong here because all our preferences and opinions cannot, by convention, be right or wrong.

Since no one can be right or wrong, the only point (IMO) of arguing these opinions/preferences is to sway the opposition. Over the course of almost 60 pages I haven't seen a single person switch sides. I rarely advocate for shutting down discourse, but all meaningful discourse has been made and rehashed ad nauseum.

Can we please just let this thread die?

Never!

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Maxperson]

Most of the people who would buy items and most of the people who try to sell them are the same: adventurers.

I take it as a given (for a boatload of reasons) that the PCs I happen to be DMing or playing are by no means the only adventurers in the world, or even in the town. There's almost always others, and those others are just as likely to have sellable items as the PCs are; and just as likely to have coin enough on hand to buy from the PCs if they see something they can use. Toss in the occasional item made on commission by an artificer and then never claimed, along with an heirloom or two now and then, and yeah: trade in items, though far beyond the reach of the common folk, is going to become relatively common among the adventuring class.

This still doesn't mean a PC can always - or ever - buy exactly the item it wants. What's available is random.

Lanefan

That would do it. It doesn't work in my game, though. While I don't view PCs as the only adventurers, they aren't at all common in my game. It takes a special kind of crazy to decide to go after evil wizards, monsters, tombs with deadly traps and undead, etc. Not many go that route.

 

[Maxperson]

Never!

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

Don't you mean Nevvur?

 

[cbwjm]

Don't you mean Nevvur?

I didn't want to be too obvious

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Hussar]

You're right, of course, I don't have to read it, and if what you say is true then I've clearly overstepped in my assessment. Like yourself, though, I seem to be irresistibly drawn here despite my intent to bow out pages ago.

Is there a way to put a thread on my block list?

Go into your settings and unsubscribe to the thread. It will stop showing up in your sub list and you won't get any notices anymore. I find myself doing that with threads that I've lost interest in but others are continuing. Works well.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

...

We have two basic preferences: "I want magic item price lists," and "I don't want magic item price lists."

Well, not really. The "I want magic item price lists" folks actually want an official, power-rated categorization system that aligns game-power of magic items with a gp cost. The DMG and XGtE already provide guidelines for magic item purchasing, vending and creation, though not in the vein this camp wants. They tend to discard any other use of gp as untenable in game play and as a useless artifact even when given rational alternatives for how gold has value in game play.

Can we please just let this thread die?

+1