D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[Maxperson]

That highlights another pitfall of magic shops and price lists: the DM introduces a fun and interesting magic item, and the players thinks, "Cool...I can sell that for 1.5x the price of a +1/+1 weapon, which would statistically be more useful."

Yeah. If they can buy and sell what they want, you only ever see a few items get use in play. Get rid of magic mart and the hundreds of tier 2 items are suddenly very useful and players are happy to have them.

 

[Hussar]

If you try, you can set things up to kill PCs, sure. If you play the game as the rules lay out, it's pathetically easy.

When most people talk about 3e having magic shops or magic marts, they are talking about how the rules set it up so that every major city has every item easily available. The city itself IS the magic mart. It's what the rules set up, and it makes an easy game into a pathetically easy one. In order to challenge a group that has access to magic marts, you have to bring out monsters with CRs well above the party, or set up the terrain so that it magnifies the CR to one well above the party.

Again very different experiences. I've never understood how dms had such problems whacking pcs. I tended to average about one pc death per level.

 

[5ekyu]

On this piece from several days ago...

"You keep saying the entire game must be rewritten. You base it on some logic where the way that PCs acquire the very same magic have profound influence on the entire game as is and any future supplements. "

I think the first key and flaw is that changing the HOW they acquire does impact the items so that you do not end up getting "the very same" magic items.

The assumption of a utility pricing svheme that **is used** for pc buy and sell of magic shifts the gain to cost ratio a great deal. Players will tend to see this from efficiency standpoint. After all the GM is handing them a market based on utility, not typical market factors.

So, magic items that are "second best" **to this party** can be cashed out and items more potent **to this party** brought in.

Second and related, after tier 1 and maybe tier-2 gold/wealth is not a direct combat boost power up, but once you provide a utility market for more and more powerful magic you effectively weaponize gold.

You have now taken major non-combat setting influencers and thrown them into competition with combat function and given the GM is establishing market driven by "utility" which mostly is a euphemism for "combat value."

Magical wellstone - wells with this stone in their construction for at least a full and new moon will never run dry or become foul or tainted as long as the stone remains. Those annointed in this water drawn fresh under the new moon will be cured of diseases. On the full moon, it will cure injuries.

Would so called utility based pricing make these items which are tremendous value to the vast majority of the world (but almost no practical use to wandering monster killers) set its price at say higher than a +2/+ 2 handaxe?





Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Kobold Boots]

Again very different experiences. I've never understood how dms had such problems whacking pcs. I tended to average about one pc death per level.

I agree with this sentiment, but I'd say I'd TPK about once a module. I think the catch is knowing how you roll dice, knowing your dice and being smart about how you load your hand. If you know you have a long roll across the table then do yourself a favor and face the 20 on your D20 at the bottom of the tip of the last finger to touch the die before it leaves your hand. It's a sphere so if you make sure that you toss the die on the axis of the 20, you just doubled or tripled your chance for a crit.

On magic items and assumptions in 3e, it's pretty clear that the game expects you to have at least one magic item in the party by level 3 as the first incorporeal monster in the lexicon is CR 3. Beyond this it's clear that the rules expect there to be at least one crafter in a city of a certain population size. So yes, there's some balancing there that DMs need to take into account. However, if the players meet the one crafter in the city and end up making an enemy of him, they need to move on.

That said, 3e is not 5e and folks can do what they will to do what's right for their game. Just understand that the need to balance 5e exists if you go overboard.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I agree with this sentiment, but I'd say I'd TPK about once a module. I think the catch is knowing how you roll dice, knowing your dice and being smart about how you load your hand. If you know you have a long roll across the table then do yourself a favor and face the 20 on your D20 at the bottom of the tip of the last finger to touch the die before it leaves your hand. It's a sphere so if you make sure that you toss the die on the axis of the 20, you just doubled or tripled your chance for a crit.

Rub crayon in the 1 to weight that side of the die. And then do the same in the 20 of another die. Just don't forget which is which!

I kill a lot of Rapier wielding characters this way.

 

[Hussar]

Sometimes I’m glad I play online...


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Who determines an item is fun and interesting? The DM? Or the players? I mean, I'm pretty sure the players get to tell the DM when they're having fun and when they're not. The DM can intend for something to be fun all they want, but that doesn't mean that just because the DM thinks it would be fun that it ya know, IS.

It's sort of the conundrum of presents for kids, for all your best intentions, sometimes cash is the best gift.

This made me chuckle as it led me to picture a younger player (and/or PC) being more interested in the box than what's inside. After the party dumps out the chest and divvies up the goodies, that one young character gets into the chest and pretends its a boat.

 

[Sunseeker]

This made me chuckle as it led me to picture a younger player (and/or PC) being more interested in the box than what's inside. After the party dumps out the chest and divvies up the goodies, that one young character gets into the chest and pretends its a boat.

I immediately thought of Calvin and Hobbes, and then I found this.

Now I have a wicked idea to have the box be the loot, maybe it'll even be blue.

 

[Guest 6801328]

On this piece from several days ago...

"You keep saying the entire game must be rewritten. You base it on some logic where the way that PCs acquire the very same magic have profound influence on the entire game as is and any future supplements. "

I think the first key and flaw is that changing the HOW they acquire does impact the items so that you do not end up getting "the very same" magic items.

The assumption of a utility pricing svheme that **is used** for pc buy and sell of magic shifts the gain to cost ratio a great deal. Players will tend to see this from efficiency standpoint. After all the GM is handing them a market based on utility, not typical market factors.

So, magic items that are "second best" **to this party** can be cashed out and items more potent **to this party** brought in.

Second and related, after tier 1 and maybe tier-2 gold/wealth is not a direct combat boost power up, but once you provide a utility market for more and more powerful magic you effectively weaponize gold.

You have now taken major non-combat setting influencers and thrown them into competition with combat function and given the GM is establishing market driven by "utility" which mostly is a euphemism for "combat value."

Magical wellstone - wells with this stone in their construction for at least a full and new moon will never run dry or become foul or tainted as long as the stone remains. Those annointed in this water drawn fresh under the new moon will be cured of diseases. On the full moon, it will cure injuries.

Would so called utility based pricing make these items which are tremendous value to the vast majority of the world (but almost no practical use to wandering monster killers) set its price at say higher than a +2/+ 2 handaxe?

This a great example of the "many things besides combat utility determine price" argument.

We can even just use bags of holding as examples. I very much doubt a price list based on what players are willing to pay would value a bag of holding above a +1 weapon, but in the "real world" bags of holding (and the like) would be invaluable to merchants and smugglers. Far, far more valuable than a +1 weapon.

 

[CapnZapp]

This a great example of the "many things besides combat utility determine price" argument.

We can even just use bags of holding as examples. I very much doubt a price list based on what players are willing to pay would value a bag of holding above a +1 weapon, but in the "real world" bags of holding (and the like) would be invaluable to merchants and smugglers. Far, far more valuable than a +1 weapon.

If you play Merchants & Smugglers, then yes, by all means set the price accordingly.

Meanwhile, I am playing Dungeons & Dragons, and to me it is entirely uncontroversial that prices are based on the adventurer's needs and wants.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app