D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Ovinomancer]

Calm down.

Oh, no, you're quite mistaken. This largest emotional response I've had so far is a wry eyeroll.

I don't think they're fools just because I can see what they write. I just think the situation is funny is all.

Yeah, hence the choice of word. Think it through -- people acting to amuse you with their antics? If only there were a word for that....

And it isn't cheating, it isn't my fault the app doesn't integrate well with the website's block function and I don't feel the need to change how I use the site (as in accessing it primarily via the app). If anything, they could use this lack of integration as fuel for a change in how the block function works.

Sigh. You did three things. You 1) use the app to avoid blocking. So what? Really, not a big deal, to me at least. You then 2) engaged in cheerleading for a feature of blocking that you sidestep. Okay, meh, that's pretty garden variety hypocrisy. Mildly distasteful, and doesn't say much for you, but whatevs. After that, you 3) chose to brag about your ability to sidestep blocking, multiple times. Yeah, that with 2) got me to post about the hypocrisy in a joking way. Now, we're here. I'm still mildly amused at the contortions to avoid the point of 2 and 3 above, such as "the app made me do it, it's not my fault!" Really?

The app works great (perhaps a little too great). I'm not going to access the site via a browser on my phone when the app works fine.

Just as you mistook my emotional state because tone is hard, I failed to make that suggestion as obviously sarcastic as I intended it. I never expected that, given the option, you'd choose to use a different tool so that blocking worked as intended for you. Why would you? You clearly enjoy being able to circumvent blocking while imposing its restrictions on others. I made the comment to point that out, not in any expectation that you'd actually change anything. Well, maybe that you'd admit to the hypocrisy, but I was prepared to fail. I didn't expect "the app does it, it's not my fault" though. Classic!

This has run it's course, though. Enjoy the last word.

EDIT: On a different note, [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] has blocked me, again. I'm not sure why.

EDIT 2: huh, mentioning does break if the mentioned has you blocked.

EDIT 3: you can manually push the mention, but you have to get the member number as well as fix the text of the mention. Getting the member number requires logging out and going to that poster's profile page and extracting it from the URL. I did it this time out of interest in seeing how it works, but I wouldn't bother with it again.

 

[Maxperson]

No, you don't have to do anything.

Only because I have no choice. It's forced on me.

 

[Maxperson]

As this year's Christmas story, and swerving back on-topic, here is what the 3rd Edition supplement Magic Item Compendium had to say on the subject. Merry Christmas!

A player points to an item published in this book or the Dungeon Master’s Guide and asks, “Can I buy this?” The answer should usually be, “Yes.”

Magic items are an important part of every character’s arsenal of abilities. Most monsters and encounters assume that characters have a certain amount of gear to make the challenge appropriate. Furthermore, at many levels magic items represent a character’s only option for customization; picking up a new magic ring or bag of potions is significantly more fun than allotting skill points.

That’s not to say that you can’t apply occasional constraints to how and when magic items can be purchased, only that the constraints should be reasonable and shouldn’t prevent players from equipping their characters fairly. For instance, a character seeking a magic item should be in a community whose gold piece limit is equal to or greater than the cost of the desired item (see Table 6–10: Community GP Limits). You might also choose to limit particular items for campaign story reasons—maybe the knowledge of how to create certain items is a closely guarded secret of a particular group, or even forgotten to all.

In general, though, you should allow characters with sufficient funds to equip themselves as they desire. Even the most thoughtfully constructed series of treasure hoards almost certainly fails to provide all your players the items they want to maximize their enjoyment as they advance in level.

Large one-stop-shop “magic emporiums” are unrealistic and rare even in metropolis-sized cities. Instead, a community’s total stock of magic items for sale is widely distributed among dusty alchemist’s shops, bookstores, scribers’ boutiques, pawn shops, elixir brewers, the residences of retired adventurers, the old mage on the corner, curio shops, and so on.

View attachment 103822

That entire statement is irrelevant to 5e. In 3e magic items were required just to be able to meet like level challenges. In 5e they are pure bonus, so none of them are required like they were for the 3e treadmill. That's not to say you can't have 5e magic shops. You can. It's just that the reasoning behind 3e magic item sales doesn't apply to 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

EDIT 2: huh, mentioning does break if the mentioned has you blocked.

EDIT 3: you can manually push the mention, but you have to get the member number as well as fix the text of the mention. Getting the member number requires logging out and going to that poster's profile page and extracting it from the URL. I did it this time out of interest in seeing how it works, but I wouldn't bother with it again.

That's the one change that isn't actually broken. Mentioning notifies the person, so if they have blocked you it make sense for it to be disabled. They don't want to have interaction with you any longer. "Fixing" it is one of those cheats you are talking to [MENTION=44144]CB[/MENTION]WJM about.

 

[Sadras]

From a user experience perspective though, it sucks. Anyone can block me for any reason, and suddenly I’m missing a significant chunk of most conversations, I can’t engage in certain threads at all, and my notifications are all but completely broken. Doesn’t really seem fair. Heck, I’d be fine with not being able to respond to the posts of people who blocked me, if I could just read a conversation without having to treat it like a puzzle with a dozen pieces missing and notifications actually linked me to the proper posts.

Bold emphasis mine.
I agree. This happened to me a while ago with someone whom I actually enjoy engaging with and find their posts insightful. When I realised I had been blocked I messaged him directly curious for the reason. Turns out he completely misread a post of mine to someone else.

 

[Maxperson]

Bold emphasis mine.
I agree. This happened to me a while ago with someone who I actually enjoy engaging with and find their posts insightful. When I realised I had been blocked I messaged him directly curious for the reason. Turns out he completely misread a post of mine to someone else.

The whole point of blocking someone is to not have contact with them. That you can still directly message people who have blocked you is just another broken aspect of the ignore system. I understand that in this case it worked out for the best for each of you, as it was a mistake, but as a general rule being able to contact someone who has put you on ignore should be stopped. The more we talk, the more broken the ignore system is becoming.

 

[Sadras]

The whole point of blocking someone is to not have contact with them. That you can still directly message people who have blocked you is just another broken aspect of the ignore system. I understand that in this case it worked out for the best for each of you, as it was a mistake, but as a general rule being able to contact someone who has put you on ignore should be stopped. The more we talk, the more broken the ignore system is becoming.

You're right ofcourse but personally I truly detest the feature (ignore or block).

 

[Mistwell]

I guess people blocked me before I mentioned that I tend to use the app. If I used it exclusively then I would have no idea people blocked me due to it not integrating properly. Basically, no one is talking about me behind my back.

I did see the effect in the browser. It just meant I had to scroll back a bit. Not that big of a deal although I can see how it would annoy some people.

So you tend to use something which circumvents the thing you're advocating for, and when people said hey it impacts us in a bad unexpected way you didn't think it was relevant to mention the thing you're advocating for happens to rarely impact you?

Dude...I call foul. Why would you advocate for a feature which you've circumvented, whether by intent or not, in a way where it doesn't harm you but does harm others? Wouldn't that be the very first thing you'd say, that it doesn't even work for you? And then to intentionally brag and laugh about it behind people's backs?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have no desire to truly block anyone, yet as soon as someone blocks me, I am forced to block them right back so that I cannot see their posts.

This is absurd. If I block you, I haven’t forced you to do anything.