D&D 5E No Magic Shops!

[Hussar]

You are certainly free to like or dislike whatever you wish.

But that is not the issue here. As long as you don't try to deny others their preferred play styles, have a nice day

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Look no one is trying to deny your playstyle. The issue is simply one of practicality. In a system where magic items are not presumed, how can you determine the value of magic items?

Never mind the impact that 3e style has on game balance.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

 

[Lanefan]

Just a few catch-up observations:

- A generic and tweakable base-line price list for magic items is a useful thing to have - in the DMG.
- A DM should then tweak/edit/add to this list to suit her own campaign and-or experience.
- This amended price list should then be for the DM's eyes only and not in any way accessible (in its entirety) to the players!

This last is where the problems arise. For some reason 3e moved the magic item lists out of the DMG and into the PH; which was a colossal mistake as it quickly led to a much greater player-side expectation of getting what they wanted, right now, at the listed price. Echoes of this mistake are still reverberating today; some even in this thread.

Moving magic item pricing from DM-side to player-side also made it much more difficult for a DM to tweak the price list or remove listed items to suit her own campaign (though it remained easy to add new ones in, of course).

And yes, going through a great long list of items and doing the requisite tweaking is tedious. I earnestly hope you each only ever have to do it once.

Lanefan

 

[Kobold Boots]

Look no one is trying to deny your playstyle. The issue is simply one of practicality. In a system where magic items are not presumed, how can you determine the value of magic items?

Never mind the impact that 3e style has on game balance.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World mobile app

Solution set 1:

1. Unless you have to come up with a price for a magic item because someone is trying to sell it to another for coin, don't come up with the price.

2. What the price will be comes down to some base value a DM determines multiplied by the perceived importance to the buyer and the negotiating skills of the seller.

3. At minimum the cost of the item is the cost of a masterworked base item, the cost of the spells used to empower it and the time of the artificer that put it together. If the artificer is not part of the concern because he's dead and the item has changed hands many times, then there's going to be a multiplier based on how well known the item is and what its history is.

I sort of see magic items like college educations, they can be super expensive for very little in return, or you can get one good one that's worth its weight in gold. Either way, buying them should not be trivial, unless you're running the sort of campaign where it makes sense to do so.

 

[Sunseeker]

Just a few catch-up observations:

- A generic and tweakable base-line price list for magic items is a useful thing to have - in the DMG.
- A DM should then tweak/edit/add to this list to suit her own campaign and-or experience.
- This amended price list should then be for the DM's eyes only and not in any way accessible (in its entirety) to the players!

This last is where the problems arise. For some reason 3e moved the magic item lists out of the DMG and into the PH; which was a colossal mistake as it quickly led to a much greater player-side expectation of getting what they wanted, right now, at the listed price. Echoes of this mistake are still reverberating today; some even in this thread.

Moving magic item pricing from DM-side to player-side also made it much more difficult for a DM to tweak the price list or remove listed items to suit her own campaign (though it remained easy to add new ones in, of course).

And yes, going through a great long list of items and doing the requisite tweaking is tedious. I earnestly hope you each only ever have to do it once.

Lanefan

Why do posts like this keep positing the idea that players are somehow incapable/banned of reading the DMG? You know some of them DM too, or just like to read the material.

Sure, you might be able to say "Well, it's in the DMG, therefore the DM has final say over it." But that's true of everything. Players who expect A or B or C to be available because it was in X or Y or Z book are the problem. Not that A is in book Z or whatever.

I mean really if someone is going to boot a player from the game for reading a book (regardless of what their expectation or takeaway from it is), isn't that a problem? Or do some folks really hold the idea that players should not be allowed (who's going to stop them, YOU?) to read anything other than the PHB?

 

[Amatiel]

I DM a group in Eberron. Took me a while but a created a magic item guide based on the 3.5 Magical Compendium. Prices are a good match for 5e, and it suits my groups play style and a magic item richer world like eberron. Plus, its nice that the PCs actually have expectations on what they can spend that pile of gold they found on, rather than just a prettier horse or that fancy house on Flower Street

 

[Lanefan]

Why do posts like this keep positing the idea that players are somehow incapable/banned of reading the DMG? You know some of them DM too, or just like to read the material.

Yes.

That said, those who read the DMG to find information they shouldn't have - e.g. what does this item do that our party just found - are IMO flat-out cheating.

Sure, you might be able to say "Well, it's in the DMG, therefore the DM has final say over it." But that's true of everything. Players who expect A or B or C to be available because it was in X or Y or Z book are the problem. Not that A is in book Z or whatever.

In this case, however, A (the magic item price list) was moved from book B (the DMG, where the DM in theory has final say over it) to book C (the PH, which as it's in the players' purview is somewhat harder for a DM to mess with and impossible for her to do so secretly; and also adds an assumption of availability that wan't there before).

I mean really if someone is going to boot a player from the game for reading a book (regardless of what their expectation or takeaway from it is), isn't that a problem?

Intent has a lot to do with it. I keep my rebuilt magic item lists in my computer, for example, along with a lot of other DM-only stuff; and if I ever found anyone snooping around in there without permission my immediate assumption of motive would be cheating...and cheating is something that will get you tossed.

And I've done it this way in part because I've DMed for a number of people who have read the DMG (and a few who know it better than I do!) as well as for some who haven't and-or flat-out don't want to, and I'd prefer to equalize the knowledge level a bit where I can by in some cases invaldating knowledge gleaned from the DMG as written.

Or do some folks really hold the idea that players should not be allowed (who's going to stop them, YOU?) to read anything other than the PHB?

Back in the very early days when we only had one DM (not me) this is exactly what we did: the DMG and MM were strictly off limits to anyone except the DM. And perhaps ironically I was the first in our crew to break this rule: as I'd decided to try my own hand at DMing I picked up my own copies of the DMG and MM and read 'em through. Caused quite a ruckus at the time, if memory serves; but I did start DMing and haven't really stopped since.

Lanefan

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes.

That said, those who read the DMG to find information they shouldn't have - e.g. what does this item do that our party just found - are IMO flat-out cheating.

Lanefan

I'm sorry. I stopped there.

You wouldn't call a guy who read the book first, and thus happened to already know what the item you just gave out did a cheater.

Why would you call someone who read up after a cheater?

This is the one and only time I will say this: if you persist in calling people cheaters for not actually breaking any rules (though perhaps table etiquette) I will put you on ignore. I have no desire anymore to engage with people who toss around words like "cheater" except for people who actually break the game rules.

You want to call them dishonest? Rude? Power gamers in that way that we all know is really a derogatory remark? Fine. Cheaters? No.

 

[Caliban]

Every dungeon should have a magic item shop on every level or you are playing the game wrong. How else do monsters get all the items adventurer's find on them?

Also, every item should be clearly labeled and identified ... and cost more than the party's total wealth. No matter how many times they visit the shop. (Inflation is a terrible thing.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

Every dungeon should have a magic item shop on every level or you are playing the game wrong. How else do monsters get all the items adventurer's find on them?

Also, every item should be clearly labeled and identified ... and cost more than the party's total wealth. No matter how many times they visit the shop. (Inflation is a terrible thing.)

And also a trainer for each class. When you accumulate the XP you yell "Ding!" as loud as you can and the trainer hurries over to certify you for your next level.

 

[Maxperson]

Would you do this, if WotC asked us all to playtest magic item prices? Is this how you would spend precious table time? I still stand by my assertion that it would produce worthless data, but that aside...would you participate in this playtest? How many times?

I would absolutely do that if I volunteered to do that, which is what playtesters do.