D&D 5E Rarity: Winged Boots v Boots of Levitation - Huh?

[transtemporal]

Again, it is about whims, I cannot trust myself to be consistent like that all the time, I need something the players can do on their own

Write a couple of paragraphs as a guideline, get them to follow that and run it past you before it gets into play. Easy.

I know you want a system that runs without your intervention but an "official" crafting system won't necessarily be better or more balanced than yours.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

IMHO, which I've pointed out in other threads about Flying (like the notorious "Aaracockra" thread), there are two methods of 'flight' in the game: Flight, and Hover.

Flight is just that; movement through air. You can NOT just "stop dead in the air and not move". So, Wings of Flying allow all the stuff it says, but with FLYING MOVEMENT. Boots of Levitation allow you to use the spell...basically, you DON'T move unless you want to, and that is up/down only.

Now, one thing that needs 'work' in 5e is a bit more info on the capabilities of Flight. It's a bit too vague for me, so I use the Hackmaster 4e rules for flying (very similar to that of 1e AD&D), with rules for climbing or decending in altitude, start and stop distances needed, "Maneuverability Classes" of flight (A, B, C, etc; determine how 'agile' you are in flight...like how sharp of a turn you can make each round), etc.

That said, with 5e, I make the distinction between "Fly" and "Hover". I allow some creatures to "hover' for a round or two, costing full actions and some other stuff (so no Flying creatures 'hovering' in mid air to cast spells willy nilly, etc).

As for creating magic stuff and the whole "whim" thing.... errr.... uh... Hmm. Ok. I got nothing. I guess, uh, "No comment"?

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Aenorgreen]

5e has very spotty rules on the difference between flight and hover.

From PHB 191:

"If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic."

That is all it has to say. It does not say that you have to move with flight, just that you have the ability to move. Also, the boots probably fall under the "held aloft by magic" clause. You can certainly say creatures without hover must keep moving every turn, it may even be RAI, but it is not required in RAW.

 

[bedir than]

5e has very spotty rules on the difference between flight and hover.

From PHB 191:

"If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic."

That is all it has to say. It does not say that you have to move with flight, just that you have the ability to move. Also, the boots probably fall under the "held aloft by magic" clause. You can certainly say creatures without hover must keep moving every turn, it may even be RAI, but it is not required in RAW.

It does say you need to move to fly. Removing items from a list and you get

"If a flying creature has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic."

Non-moving creatures fit both speed zero and self-deprived of the ability to move.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It does say you need to move to fly. Removing items from a list and you get

"If a flying creature has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic."

Non-moving creatures fit both speed zero and self-deprived of the ability to move.

"Speed" in the 5E sense is a game statistic, not the physics definition of "velocity converted to a scalar". A non-moving creature with a speed of 30' (flying) has a non-zero speed. Neither is it deprived of the ability to move, which is why the rule says "deprived of the ability to move" and not "is not moving."

That being said, I think 5E is more fun with AD&D movement rates, and I approximately use them in my games. It doesn't come up often enough for me to have assigned maneuverability ratings to very many creatures/items, but based on my memory of AD&D stats I'd say that Winged Shoes are class D, dragons are class C (with wingover capability in addition), Aarakocras are class C (like most birds), and a Broom of Flying is class C. So you couldn't hover with Winged Shoes or a Broom of Flying because that requires class B. Obviously this is a house rule though.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I prefer to think of it as a reason not to allow universal access to all magic item recipes.
No system is perfect, and even if each item had a unique set price based on its value and power (likely as decided by one designer) there'd still be some that were unusually expensive or cheap.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" =/= "every system is so flawed you shouldn't even try." You're totally right that oddities here and there, whether raised by the quirks of a particular campaign or caused by simple design oversight, are probably unavoidable. Doesn't mean that it's totally pointless to have such information, for the people that want something to work from/adapt.

On the subject of whim...

Even if the in-book system is no better than a designer's whim, there are two important senses that that is better than DM whim: it wasn't chosen but accepted, and it was something everyone "learns" equally rather than being lodged in one participant's mind.

The first point means that nobody in the group has a special attachment to it, so they're going to be more likely to evaluate it objectively, or at least subjective to what it does for them, rather than subjective to what it means to them (e.g. it's nobody's "baby"). The second point means that there is less--not zero, but less--potential for unexpected "gotcha" ideas; everyone had to learn the system to the same degree, and from the same source. If there's a conflict of understanding, it can be addressed by reviewing the text and pointing out the places where one got the ideas one has, rather than having nothing but one's own mind to point to.

This does not, in any way, mean that conflicts are 100% guaranteed to be resolved, nor that the published material is necessarily "better" than a DM's efforts. But it does represent two things which legitimately cannot be acquired except by official pronouncement, whether in a book, tweet, webpage, supplement, or whatever else. Two things which very much can help identify and resolve disputes, if we're already making the basic assumption that people talk to each other.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But what if I really want to allow my players universal access? these rules don't work for me, and anything I could homebrew would be useless because I need something more universal and readily available for the players that shouldn't come from me.

If you are the DM then everything in the campaign including the very world the PCs inhabit comes from you. Anyone who doesn't want that responsibility should just play and let someone else be the DM.

 

[Jester David]

"The perfect is the enemy of the good" =/= "every system is so flawed you shouldn't even try." You're totally right that oddities here and there, whether raised by the quirks of a particular campaign or caused by simple design oversight, are probably unavoidable. Doesn't mean that it's totally pointless to have such information, for the people that want something to work from/adapt.

I agree that just because something is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
But they did attempt something. It's in the book. The problem is that what they did wasn't "good enough" for many.

If you're referring less to having magic item crafting and pricing and more having individual prices, it gets more complicated. I think time was also a factor, as the book was already late. Evaluating every item and fitting it into one of three categories is quick. Coming up with a individual price for each item and then comparing that to every other related item is much more time consuming.
A fan did this, and their work is linked elsewhere in this thread. It took them six months. Now, assuming they only spent an hour or two each day on the project, a couple dedicated writers focusing on that task for half of each workday could hammer that out in... a month and a half. I don't know how the fans would have reacted to the DMG being delayed until February for magic item pricing.
There's also the inflexibility of set pricing. It makes it harder to adjust the price since the default assumption, what is given in the book, is that Magic Item X costs "### gp". And varying from that, even if doing so is encouraged in the book, is a house rule. It's not as adaptive to customization.

And that's not considering the problems with setting a fair, absolute price for all magic items. Because magic can vary so much by situation. My favorite example is winged boots versus slippers of spider climb. Right now they're ostensibly the same price as both are uncommon. But if setting a firm price for each item most people would place the slippers below the boots because flying is seen as more powerful. However, going with the Princes of the Apocalypse adventure, at least 75% of the encounters in that adventure take place in small dungeon chambers where elevation means little. There's no functional advantage between flying near the ceiling versus climbing on the ceiling. Except someone spiderclimbing won't fall if knocked prone and the slippers function continually. So they're arguably far superior.
Which is the problem. The value of items doesn't just vary from campaign to campaign but from adventure to adventure and even encounter to encounter. An absolute price is arguably impossible. There are too many variables.
The only way around the number of variables is to assume a standard mode of play. However, there really isn't a single common playstyle. The surveys reportedly showed that. So it'd really be picking the largest majority or the preferences of the designer and codifying around that. Which may be somewhat unsatisfying for the majority of players. And makes the rules a trap for those new to the system who are unaware that prices are based on a playstyle they might not share.

The first point means that nobody in the group has a special attachment to it, so they're going to be more likely to evaluate it objectively, or at least subjective to what it does for them, rather than subjective to what it means to them (e.g. it's nobody's "baby").

This is true in theory, but gamers are nothing if not critical and argumentative. This thread alone proves we're not very objective at evaluating a magical system, even one not created by us.

The second point means that there is less--not zero, but less--potential for unexpected "gotcha" ideas; everyone had to learn the system to the same degree, and from the same source. If there's a conflict of understanding, it can be addressed by reviewing the text and pointing out the places where one got the ideas one has, rather than having nothing but one's own mind to point to.

This can be solved by printing out house rules and codifying the system. But, in the event of conflict, it's still typically going to be addressed by the DM's opinions and preferences, regardless if it's written down or not.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

5e has very spotty rules on the difference between flight and hover.

From PHB 191:

"If a flying creature is knocked prone, has its speed reduced to 0, or is otherwise deprived of the ability to move, the creature falls, unless it has the ability to hover or it is being held aloft by magic."

That is all it has to say. It does not say that you have to move with flight, just that you have the ability to move. Also, the boots probably fall under the "held aloft by magic" clause. You can certainly say creatures without hover must keep moving every turn, it may even be RAI, but it is not required in RAW.

-SNIP-

I just came back and re-read what I wrote. It sounded really snarky...so I'll just say this: There are a LOT of things that are and aren't "RAW". Those are every bit as important...or non-important...as "RAI". Neither is better or worse, and, despite some peoples disposition on it, both are equally viable at the table. Trying to argue that "RAW" somehow trumps "RAI" is just silly. No matter what the rules, or the DM, say about something, everyone at the table has to accept the end result decision.

In my game, in order for something with Flying movement to not fall out of the sky, it has to keep moving (depending on the rules found in my awesolitious Hackmaster 4e GMG). In your game, you can say all Flying creatures can Hover. As long as everyone at the table is happy, game on!

*sigh* ...sometimes I even out snark myself!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Tony Vargas]

Even if the in-book system is no better than a designer's whim, there are two important senses that that is better than DM whim: it wasn't chosen but accepted, and it was something everyone "learns" equally rather than being lodged in one participant's mind.

The first point means that nobody in the group has a special attachment to it, so they're going to be more likely to evaluate it objectively, or at least subjective to what it does for them, rather than subjective to what it means to them. The second point means that there is less--not zero, but less--potential for unexpected "gotcha" ideas; everyone had to learn the system to the same degree, and from the same source. If there's a conflict of understanding, it can be addressed by reviewing the text and pointing out the places where one got the ideas one has, rather than having nothing but one's own mind to point to.

The 1e DMG actually recommended the DM keep his players in the dark about the rules, and that he should always know the rules better than they do. In 5e, that same idea is reflected in DM Empowerment and 'Rulings, not Rules.' 5e isn't a player-DM negotiation, the DM role is distinct & privileged. Players decide what they want their characters to do, but the DM decides what actually happens. If a given magic item is or isn't available in the campaign, that's his call, how 'rare' the rules say the item is doesn't come into it. The DM might say how 'rare' it is as a detail when someone makes a check to recall facts about it, or a helpful NPC points it out, but it needn't match what's in a book somewhere, and he needn't share (nor even have) already-established house-rules to justify it.


Now, I'll readily admit that's not the only way to design an RPG, but it's how D&D was run for a long time, and lots of DMs are still up for it. It's a different "social contract" than in other modern editions.