Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jay Verkuilen" data-source="post: 7725197" data-attributes="member: 6873517">I lost you there with the double negative, sorry. Inherent bonuses didn't come around for a while, though... I think in the Dark Sun book. Yes they could, though many of them really didn't. I've run a ton of 2E (still am) and it's certainly the case that better items mattered for the character, but your character fundamentals still mattered quite a bit. I'm not sure I agree completely. For instance, the 1E DMG had some basic alchemy rules and it did have item prices. There were spells (albeit high level spells) such as Enchant an Item and Permanence that were part of item creation. They certainly did the whole "don't bother to make permanent items" by requiring Wish for many of them, but still, there was a basic system. The problem is that some kind of economy could be intermediate between the fabulous wealth and items of 3E and 4E but they chose to go to absolutely no economy at all. As you said elsewhere, they often over-react to the perceived flaws of previous editions and I think this is very much the case here. Yes, this makes other kinds of campaigns possible than the "wish list your items out" of 4E or the "save your pennies and buy what you want" of 3E, but removes the possibility of a game that does involve an economy, or at least makes it difficult design labor on the part of a DM wanting to run such a game. I was hoping that the DMG would actually have some alternate rules for some of their choices, most notably item attunement, concentration, skills, economy, and creation, but quite frankly it was one of the weakest books they wrote, and highly disappointing. They do have some "how to build monsters" advice but from looking at the MM they don't even follow their own advice all that closely! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />True, they had, and I'm sure you're right that these were design decisions. But kicking the can down the road is, of course, a decision of a sort. Not putting any detail into something like the skill system or the economy devalues them. Yes, "freedom for the DM" and that's true, but without at least some suggestions of how one might use a skill like, say, Arcana combined with Alchemist Kit, how do you know that it would even let you make potions? They didn't even list how much brewing the simplest of potions cost. Presumably someone makes them. The Common and Uncommon potions aren't aren't so amazing that relatively ordinary folks couldn't buy them or want them (as is hand waved on pp. 135-136 of the DMG5E, with whatever creation rules are provided being on p. 128; I might have missed something but did check the PHB5E, too). I have absolutely no clue why anyone would want to buy Alchemist's Supplies (which are listed and cost 50 gp) and, ironically, if you brew a Potion of Healing according to the DMG5E's rules you are actually paying 100 gold for something that you could, mysteriously, buy for 50 gold! That's a Murphy's Rule if I ever saw one, and a sign of very little thought being put into this part of the game.  (This is to say nothing of the various gaming set proficiencies, which are assuredly booby prizes.) IMO giving people actual options would be very, very helpful. One option would be the "DM makes all the decisions, no magic item sales, too bad." If that's the game I want to run, I should just decide and say so. Another would be to have some basic creation rules and a basic economy better than the ad hoc Common/Uncommon/Rare/Very Rare/Legendary. There's a lot of space between the excessively detailed 3.X magic item creation rules and essentially no rules at all. There's a lot about 5E I feel is right and they did a good job speeding things up for combat, but the design team's general level of "we decided this, so screw you if you don't like it, followed by some weak-kneed rationalization" is not an endearing feature to me.</blockquote>

Verification