D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[delericho]

Here's another way of asking it. Let's say WotC does this survey, and 100,000 people respond, and WotC publishes the data without any editorial correction.

Why on earth would they do something so foolish?

 

[CapnZapp]

What to use gold for:

1. Upkeep
2. Relations that realize you have money now.
3. Taxation because nobles really like you once they get to know you.
4. Bribes because your enemies like to hire assassins to come get you.
5. Tithes because your gods, though immortal and without peer, have an odd need for coin.
6. Armies so you can hold on to your stuff when Tiamat shows up.
7. Castles so you have a place to camp your army
8. Patronage so you have artisans to help decorate the castle
9. Retainers so you have a sure supply of red shirts to carry the one ring into the lava.
10. Dowries so your character can eventually get married to someone other than the village courtesan
11. Courtesans so they don't stick around to become your wife or husband.
12. The occasional magic item swap when it's not item for item (speaking only of my own setting)
13. Feasts when the king shows up with his 100 retainers.
14. Tournaments when said king needs to remember how capable you are.
15. More feasts when the tournaments result in 12 nobles showing up with the small village of 500 retainers.

I could go on and on and on. It's not like the economy lives inside an equipment and magic item vacuum. Thread is a bit narrow in scope as it pertains to gold use. Especially true when folks complaining about what to use gold for may be very much into the roleplaying aspects of a medieval fantasy setting.

Characters gain power, power attracts wealth. Wealth and power attract people that want to take that wealth and power. The more dangerous people do it under the auspices of law.

Be well
KB

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

After all, you don't need rules for courtesans or red shirts or red-skirted courtesans. But you do need rules for a balanced means to convert gold into magical enhancements of your character.

 

[Kobold Boots]

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

After all, you don't need rules for courtesans or red shirts or red-skirted courtesans. But you do need rules for a balanced means to convert gold into magical enhancements of your character.

I omitted it because at the time it was written the motivation was to counter the argument that there wasn't enough to spend excess gold on except for magic items. Specifically that argument made by folks who in other threads were making the argument that they needed strong rules frameworks around social encounters.

There's plenty within the confines of a game to spend on if time is spent on the logical effects of characters acquiring wealth.

From my own perspective I'm against magic shops in most games, but if the setting allows it to make sense, then I'd allow it. Since balance is different from table to table, I'd end up having to modify any rules that were given to baseline balance things regardless, so I don't particularly care if they exist. If every merchant sold magic for the same price then there'd be no way for magic shops to compete. At the point where haggling becomes a thing, it doesn't matter if the standard price list exists or not.

Conversation in the thread has been good thus far though.

KB

 

[CapnZapp]

That's only true of 3.0. IIRC, by the time 3.5 came out, that damage reduction would have been 15/magic. They roughly slashed the DR values in half and replaced the +1/+2/+3/etc progression with magic and epic (magic was +1 or better, epic was +6 or better). Unless I'm mistaken, however, the magic item prices didn't change significantly in most cases.

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

No, you are mistaken. ANY plus from magic items is a huge bonus in a system where the monsters are not designed around those pluses. You're right, the PC's are easily hitting most foes without magic. That's the point of bounded accuracy. You don't need magic items to hit the bad guys.

No, a +1 from a magic weapon is no better or worse than another +1 from anywhere. But you're missing my point. My point is that a +2 weapon is exactly +1 better than a +1 weapon, which wasn't the case in d20 where you actively differentiated between +1 weapons and +2 weapons for purposes of damage reduction. In contrast, even a +0 weapon bypasses damage reduction in 5E.

But, if you have plussed items (and possibly other plussed stuff that stacks like stat bonus items), then you are going to hit that much more often, and get to do extra damage. Which then makes things like those +5/-10 feats just that much more effective.

In a system where the maximum bonus your character is ever going to see outside of magic is about +12 (ish) to hit, adding +1 or +2 from magic is HUGE. Compared to 3e/3.5 where that bonus is pretty much an after thought compared to your BAB for the most part.

Yeah. So?

I'm not talking about the fact that a +1 weapon adds a +1 you couldn't get anywhere else, since that's obvious.

I am talking about the shift in value of +1 vs +2 weapons. Not questioning the value of having +X weapons.

If you don't want to keep on subjects just to make cheap points, be my guest.

Again, you keep speaking for "many" gamers. How do you know this? in 3 campaigns, 24 levels of play, I have not found a SINGLE magic weapon for my three PC's. Not one. My fighter inherited a magic sword from another dead PC, my Ranger in Ravenloft went 8 levels and never did find a magic bow, and my cleric in Storm King's Thunder is now 6th level and has no magic weapons.

So, it certainly has not been my experience.

Did I speak for every gamer? Did I speak for you?

No.

Unlike what you're doing here below, I don't presume to know what you want.

Hang on, you've shifted the goal posts. You went from Utility based pricing for magic items, which the game has never had in any edition, to simply being able to spend gold on magical upgrades. Well, if all you want is to be able to spend gold on magic upgrades, the rules are right there. You might not like the pricing, and that's fine, but, the rules ARE right there.

Again BINGO. You've told me repeatedly there are rules despite me repeatedly saying those are useless for my purposes. Way to go, Hussar!

And no, I don't shift goal posts.

And, again, since you ignore it the first time around, how are you going to account for the idea that you turn gold into direct PC power in a game which does not presume ANY magic items? You are asking for a complete rewrite of the game from the ground up on the DM's side.

No I'm not.

Which spins back around to "D&D on easy mode" complaints that are fairly common.

Your usage of "spin" is accurate, since now all you're doing is trying to conflate two issues where I have been active in order to score cheap points.

Don't do that, it's tiresome.

I do kinda wonder if there isn't some correlation between folks complaining about how easy D&D is and folks who see magic items as standard power ups.

I do kinda wonder when you are going to stop arguing you can't or shouldn't have magic item shops, as if you're playing D&D wrong if you do, and instead be content with the fact that you don't want or like them.

 

[CapnZapp]

I have an idea: spend gold hiring NPC adventurers to go loot dungeons for you, in return for getting all the magic items they discover. That way you get a place to spend your gold and you get magic items! If you feel like you're missing out on the fun, ask your DM for permission to control the NPCs, since your PCs will be resting at home. It's a win-win-win.

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

 

[CapnZapp]

It's really easy to come up with prices for magic items. It literally takes only a few seconds.

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

 

[Kobold Boots]

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

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.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Why on earth would they do something so foolish?

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.

But, ok, I'll play along. Let's say they do edit the results, so that +1 warhammers and +1 longswords have the same price. What are you going to do with that number? Are you going to consider it "RAW" and not deviate from it? Or are you going to change the price to something you think makes more sense in your game?

Remember, we are not talking about player entitlement. No, "DMG2 says 1,500 gold, so you have to sell it to me for 1,500 gold!"

If you're going to adjust the price to what you think works, what value do the published numbers serve? Does it really matter, in any way, if the current rarity-based pricing says 50,000 gold, and the new survey says 17,500 gold? If 50,000 is too high, your players won't pay it. Or maybe they will? In non-competitive D&D, why does it matter?

 

[Kobold Boots]

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.

I'd also say that the real point of any of these thought experiments is to complain about what is not in the rules set.

The problem with this is folks don't remind themselves that 5e is about half way through it's production cycle based on the lifecycle of 2e. Because of what this edition was supposed to be about, I doubt it's going to be five years and done for this edition and if it's offline before then, then 6e will be highly backwards compatible.

So before people start getting all heated about the designers, they really need to realize that there's another 5 years worth of books coming and things do take time. Most of the hot and heavy 2e development came in years 4-8 if I remember right. (I may not be, so don't pillory me.)

Thanks,
KB