• NOW LIVE! -- The Awfully Cheerful Engine on Kickstarter! An action comedy RPG inspired by cheerful tabletop games of the 80s! With a foreword by Sandy 'Ghostbusters' Petersen, and VTT support!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Sane Magic Item Prices

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
When it comes to dragons and archers, the "dragon loses" assumes that the dragon is stupid. In my campaign, dragons after a certain age category are not stupid. They'll wait until everything is in their favor, attack at night or even when there's rain or snow. Even races with darkvision the first they're going to know the dragon is coming is when the dragon fear kicks in.

Why on earth would a dragon attack in the middle of the day? They know where the city is. With any kind of reconnaissance they'll know the basic fixed defenses.
If I was a massive flying creature to whom one of the biggest dangers in my life is a high-speed uncontrolled crash landing, the last thing I'd want to do is attack something from the air in near-zero visibility* or darkness, no matter how well I knew the layout in daylight!

* - being unable to recognize a Dragon for what it is at 500' definitely counts as near-zero vilibility; which is usually defined as being unable to discern large things at under 1/4 mile
 

log in or register to remove this ad

S'mon

Legend
If I was a massive flying creature to whom one of the biggest dangers in my life is a high-speed uncontrolled crash landing, the last thing I'd want to do is attack something from the air in near-zero visibility* or darkness, no matter how well I knew the layout in daylight!

* - being unable to recognize a Dragon for what it is at 500' definitely counts as near-zero vilibility; which is usually defined as being unable to discern large things at under 1/4 mile

I think the dragon attacks at night so that the defenders don't see it coming from 1/4+ mile off, not so that they can't see it when it's 500' away. Much like real night fighting. Also if you're attacking a human city, they are likely to be mostly asleep at night, just as attacking an orc or goblin stronghold you do it in daylight.
I don't think dragon speed puts it in much danger of crashing into a city tower in typical night conditions; it's not an aeroplane.
 

Stattick

Explorer
If there's any moonlight at all, it's fairly easy to make out the lay of the land beneath you. Add to that the fires from a human city, and a dragon or other flying creature wouldn't have any problems finding a human city, while being nearly impossible to spot from the ground.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
If I was a massive flying creature to whom one of the biggest dangers in my life is a high-speed uncontrolled crash landing, the last thing I'd want to do is attack something from the air in near-zero visibility* or darkness, no matter how well I knew the layout in daylight!

* - being unable to recognize a Dragon for what it is at 500' definitely counts as near-zero vilibility; which is usually defined as being unable to discern large things at under 1/4 mile
Dragons have darkvision out to 120 ft, double that of most humanoids and blindsight out to 60 ft with a fly speed of 80 ft.

So in the densest fog they would clearly "see" everything when only a quarter of their movement was up. They have plenty of time to change direction, even if you limit their turning ability. At night? Especially if it's raining or even just cloudy? Avoid flying in front of the moon and they'd be difficult to see coming even if the defenders have darkvision.
 


That's just flat out false. You may not agree with the evidence, but there is evidence.


Same response as above. There is evidence, even if you don't agree with it.

You have provided no evidence. Only your opinions.

My opinion is based on game facts called rules.

So you can quote a game rule that explicitly supports the statement in question? It was this one, in case you've forgotten: "Mercenaries prefer not to fight. They want easy patrol jobs and guarding places that are unlikely to see much action. They're going to avoid almost certain death like the plague."

So, please, quote me the game rule that tells me that mercenaries prefer to get hired for easy jobs.

You're conflating people who like to fight with simple mercenaries. And Discworld? Really? A humorist, albeit a brilliant one who is worth reading every book of his, is not a shining example. LOL

Again, lots of conflation going on. It's like claiming that Norse berserkers are an example of why mercenaries who just want to get paid and not risk their arses, love battle.

You claimed that mercenaries (people who get paid to do jobs involving violence) avoid fighting whenever possible. I said that there are fantasy tropes of mercenaries who love fighting.

Now, you want to claim that "people who like to fight" shouldn't be conflated with "people paid to fight" because... why? Clearly those two things are not mutually exclusive, clearly someone who loves to fight would seek ways to be paid to fight, so they could support themselves doing the thing they enjoyed. And it is a relatively common trope.

Is their some rule that "people who like to fight" can't be called mercenaries? After all, I never claimed that every single mercenary ever was like this, only that it is a common trope. So, what is your problem with it?

Still not mercenaries.

Are you saying that because they are not involved in government sponsored war against another nation or because you just refuse to use that term for "people hired on a contract basis to use violence to solve problems"?

I don't really care about your definition of mercenary, you realize, because I know you are going to make it hyper-specific and fit only a narrow band of exactly what you want it to fit, but you must realize that adventurers check all the boxes for being a mercenary.

Nope. There was no personal attack, nor any sort of slippery slope. Nothing I said implied things would get worse and worse if you did something.

"Because you did Y thing I don't like, let's go even more extreme and do ZZZ because that follows you doing Y"

All slopes have an end, and you are implying that I did not consider why I did the math the way I did. A complete lie, since I have told you repeatedly why I did so.

If you hire them as a scout, then they are going to scout. Good like trying to find 30 scouts who all want to stop scouting and get into a fight to the death for 6 gold a day.

Again, based on no evidence except assuming that the title is all they can possibly be. Your position is still weak and lacking any sort of support.

Are you honestly saying that all types of NPCs are listed in that very, very small list of NPC jobs?

You seem to honestly think that if they don't have the right job title they can't do the job. And you are quite adamant that the job exists and that you have a pay scale for it. Now you are claiming that it doesn't exist. Therefore you don't need to support your position with any facts.


Have the DM make it. Oh. Nevermind. I found the mercenary stat block. It's ridiculously high, though, so I wouldn't use it as a DM and I wouldn't recommend you do it, either. The price would skyrocket from where I've been saying. It's in the MM under the listing veteran.

"Veterans are professional fighters that take up arms for pay or to protect something they believe in or value. Their ranks include soldiers retired from long service and warriors who never served anyone but themselves."

They are 9 hit dice and a full CR 3. That's going to be some serious spensive to hire 30 CR 3 dudes with 9 hit dice.

So they aren't mercenaries who can be hired for 2 gp, the thing I asked for. Remember, you've claimed that there is a "bottom of the barrel" mercenary that can be hired for 2 gp. And now you conveniently can't find it.

So, the rules allow for mercenaries to be hired for 2 gp, and then there is no mercenary that could possibly be hired for 2 gp. The only mercenaries in the book would cost, oh let's see you hate me using CR, so I'll use HD. HD 9 means level nine, your third level character won't get out of bed for less than 18 gp a day, I'll round to make it easier (note, I am doing this for ease, yes I could do it exact, but also leveling isn't a straight line, a 5th level character is multiple times more powerful than a 4th level character, so a straight additive measure would likely not be accurate anyways) so tripled the rounded number is 60 gp a day.

So, the rules are wrong. The only mercenaries you can hire cost 60 gp a day, minimum. Man, these guys are rolling in the cash.

Think about that for a moment. Stronger than guards, people paid to actually fight. As sell as bandits and tribal warriors. That's elite.

Guards are paid to police, not to fight. Saying a soldier in the army is better in a fight than a cop isn't saying that you are dealing with an elite soldier. Bandits are generally desperate peasants or deserters, beating them also isn't an elite.

Tribal warrior is tricky, and generally, I hate that it exists. But, a lot of the stuff in the game takes the position that "tribal" makes them worse than normal. Beating them doesn't make them elites.

Yes, seriously. Adventurers are much better than common mercenaries or even scouts once they get a few levels under their belts.

Right. Which my model shows too. But also, you've shown that your earlier objections are completely baseless. You objected to the 5th level troll hoard offering 3,000 gp, but you have a standard adventure for a 3rd level party earning them half that.

By 5th level, that hoard I was referencing is just going to be their standard pay for an adventure.

Lords don't suffer numerous cuts and bone breaks like gladiators do. Massive medical costs and good treatment would combine to make gladiator upkeep for more expensive than some lord paying to have some good food and some entertainment.

If only there was magical healing available.. oh wait. There is. And with healing potions being instant, there would logically be slower versions of them that would be a 1/5 or less the price. I mean, it is only logical.

Countries don't "hire" armies in the same manner as adventurers. You get drafted or you volunteer because you are poor as dirt and you suffer whatever they will pay, which is far less than you are worth.

Interesting. So, you remember that an origin for scouts is that they worked for the army right? USed to getting paid far less than they are worth. So... why won't they take 6 gold a day, which is likely far more than the army paid them, again?

Oh right, because you want to tell me that I'm wrong.

Played 30 of them at a time did you? I mean, talk about a massive False Equivalence. One dude with a bow in a tight dungeon corridor is the same as 30 dudes with bows in a tight dungeon corridor!! Edit: Sorry, 34-36 dudes. I forgot the party there.

Further edit: If you want to continue this conversation, please PM me with your answer. We can finish there. :)

Didn't see this til the end, but I really don't have an interest in continuing this. You clearly have no interest in doing anything except making things up to support your own view that I'm wrong, and none of this actually applies to the point I was making. Which is still unchanged
 




Hussar

Legend
Like @billd91 said, class abilities are treated differently than spending money on real people.

And sure, obviously there is no universal standard and someone has tried it. But, towards my point I point to the bolded. Your fellow players also pushed back. So, again, it isn't just a "if you give players enough money, they will hire armies to win all their fights for them" because the majority of players don't want to do that.

Oh yes totally agree with your basic point that groups don’t do this.

It’s just rather frustrating for me who would actually not mind doing it or seeing my players do it. And then the players endlessly bitch because I’m not droppingloot power ups I the form of magic items.

It’s like, if you want to deal more damage and you can’t buy magic items, here’s a very clear way to solve your problem. You have no problems summoning small groups every combat with your Druid and artificer, so why not spend some money and solve your problem?

Oh hell no. It must be magic items or nothing was effectively the reply. Hell even hiring a crew for a ship was a bridge too far.

Sorry bit off topic but something that just blows my mind as being treated by players and dms as just nota viable option. As a player I once had to endure three hours of pointless play to hire six level one warriors (3e) while in the middle of a major city.

I totally get why it’s an issue players have been taught that hiring help is just far more trouble than it’s worth.
 


Stattick

Explorer
If I calculated correctly, Speed 40 ft/round equals ~4.5 mph. Which is the speed of a slow jog. You could double that to 9 mph by assuming a flying dragon not engaging in combat is taking the dash action. Meanwhile, old fashioned, slow as hell blimps cruise at 35 mph, and modern blimps can cruise at 70 mph.
 

S'mon

Legend
They're the closest thing to an airplane a D&D world usually has, and their listed fly speed is stupidly slow.

Well I guess if you arbitrarily declare your dragons behave like aeroplanes, they can crash into stuff! But there's nothing in the rules to support that.

I noticed I think it was in BX Expert that overland flight speed is x2 combat movement. I think 3e just went with very high speeds. 5e gives low speeds appropriate for in-combat maneuvering rather than for overland flight.
 

S'mon

Legend
If I calculated correctly, Speed 40 ft/round equals ~4.5 mph. Which is the speed of a slow jog. You could double that to 9 mph by assuming a flying dragon not engaging in combat is taking the dash action. Meanwhile, old fashioned, slow as hell blimps cruise at 35 mph, and modern blimps can cruise at 70 mph.

Looking at a random dragon Roll20 - it has Fly 80' & a 40' move Legendary (2 actions), so it can move 200'/round in combat while maneuvering. That's about 20 mph or so. For long distance straight-line overland flight it's best IMO to double the rates, so 40 mph or so, which isn't exactly fast but looks reasonable enough to me.
 

Well I guess if you arbitrarily declare your dragons behave like aeroplanes, they can crash into stuff! But there's nothing in the rules to support that.

I noticed I think it was in BX Expert that overland flight speed is x2 combat movement. I think 3e just went with very high speeds. 5e gives low speeds appropriate for in-combat maneuvering rather than for overland flight.

Eh, not really.

If you take the combat speed of 30 ft per round and then look at the overland travel rules...

300 ft per minute -> 1 minute = 10 rounds -> 30 ft * 10 rounds = 300 ft

3 miles per hour -> 1 hour = 600 rounds -> 30 ft * 600 rounds = 18,000 ft = 3.4 miles (really dang close)

24 miles per day -> day of travel = 8 hours -> 3 mph * 8 = 24


So, they clearly rounded down for the travel over an hour, but this shows that they were very much thinking of travel speed in terms of multiplying combat speed.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Well I guess if you arbitrarily declare your dragons behave like aeroplanes, they can crash into stuff! But there's nothing in the rules to support that.
Wouldn't be the first time the rules got it wrong. :)
I noticed I think it was in BX Expert that overland flight speed is x2 combat movement. I think 3e just went with very high speeds. 5e gives low speeds appropriate for in-combat maneuvering rather than for overland flight.
I think more of dragons in fantasy/movies where they swoop over towns at a quite decent speed (think Smaug over Laketown)* and then try to translate that into the game; and realize that if a dragon flying and-or attacking at that speed can't see where it's going it's going to have to either a) slow down to walking speed and thus present a much easier target for ground fire to hit or b) risk crashing.

* - never mind the Harry Potter dragons which are even faster...as are the brooms. :)
 



S'mon

Legend
it's going to have to either a) slow down to walking speed and thus present a much easier target for ground fire to hit or b) risk crashing.
Sure. So the default speed & AC represents the dragon flying very slowly so it can maneuver, but at the cost of being vulnerable to ground fire.
 

S'mon

Legend
This bugs me in movies and it bugs me in RPGs, as I prefer more of a sense of things - including travel - taking the amount of time they realistically should.

How far do you think large flying creatures should be able to travel in a day? I generally feel 60-70 miles feels too little; something in the 90-200 miles range seems ok to me. My suggestion above that a 5e adult dragon should have a sustained overland flight rate of around 40 mph might indicate more like 320 miles in a day, though.

I guess a flying carpet doing say 20 mph would be maybe 12 hours of flight before it got too uncomfortable (is a carpet better or worse than a car?) would do ca 240 miles/day.
 

Awfully Cheerful Engine!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top