D&D 5E The logic behind magic items treasure tables?

[Li Shenron]

Do we have an official explanation of how they designed these "A-I" tables?

They are vaguely ordered by the relative power of their magic items, but not strictly. They also mix permanent items with consumables.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Nope. They made tables because some players like random tables, and probably didn't concern themselves with making them so organized that a system could be divined from them. Same thing with the Challenge Rating and Spell Components systems. They came up with basic functioning systems because some people liked and wanted them, but they didn't waste their time making them so waterproof that they could be easily reverse engineered by other players.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Maybe they figure if you're rolling on a table randomly for magic items, you probably arent overly concerned with exact balance. The lettered tables also feel similar to 2nd edition's treasure types (maybe 1st as well, I dont recall).

 

[Li Shenron]

Nope. They made tables because some players like random tables, and probably didn't concern themselves with making them so organized that a system could be divined from them. Same thing with the Challenge Rating and Spell Components systems. They came up with basic functioning systems because some people liked and wanted them, but they didn't waste their time making them so waterproof that they could be easily reverse engineered by other players.

Maybe they figure if you're rolling on a table randomly for magic items, you probably arent overly concerned with exact balance. The lettered tables also feel similar to 2nd edition's treasure types (maybe 1st as well, I dont recall).

But the point is that they did waste/invest time in making a system. Otherwise they could have just have one big table, instead you have a "table of tables" because you roll on the first table to know which magic items table you should roll from. Or at least they could have made it simpler by having the second-tier table by magic item type, or by magic item rarity or "level".

Instead, it does seem they put some thoughts behind this system. Roughly these tables seem to show some progression of power, but it's not just taht, so it would be nice to have an explanation.

And yes, reverse-engineering is what I was trying to do here. It could be useful for example if you are looking for a certain degree of "low-magic"/"mid-magic"/"high-magic". If we knew more about how each table is built, then we wouldn't need to check all the magic items one-by-one.

 

[Gnarl45]

The logic is that random treasures are fun! They're even better when you let the players roll.

Having powerful magic items on the list and not so powerful items is also part of the fun. It's kind of like gambling in Vegas .

The idea behind having multiple tables is to (randomly) give items that are appropriate for the characters' level. Some of them are powerful for their level and others kind of crap. 1st level characters shouldn't have a spell scroll with meteor swarm on it or a holy avenger.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Tables A through E are expendable items and permanent items with low impact on game play, with ascending levels of potency as you go through the alphabet. Some of the lower potency tables drop off the treasure table at higher levels.

Tables F through I are permanent items with moderate to high impact on game play, with ascending levels of potency as you go through the alphabet. Some of the lower potency tables drop off the treasure table at higher levels.

The basic function of the combined table sets is to weight items such that those with greater direct effect upon game play are rarer, and that potency of items found remains relevant to the characters' levels (i.e you don't find potion of healing in the hoard of a CR 18 dragon, but you might find potion of superior healing or better).

 

[DEFCON 1]

Instead, it does seem they put some thoughts behind this system. Roughly these tables seem to show some progression of power, but it's not just taht, so it would be nice to have an explanation.

And yes, reverse-engineering is what I was trying to do here. It could be useful for example if you are looking for a certain degree of "low-magic"/"mid-magic"/"high-magic". If we knew more about how each table is built, then we wouldn't need to check all the magic items one-by-one.

And if their answer was "Eh, we just made a series of tables that went from low power to high power" and that was it as far as deep thought and analysis... what would you then have to do? The fact that they haven't bothered mentioning any rhyme or reason as to the table's creation, would be a good indicator of this possibility. You might be stuck just having to come up with the analysis yourself.

 

[CapnZapp]

Do we have an official explanation of how they designed these "A-I" tables?

They are vaguely ordered by the relative power of their magic items, but not strictly. They also mix permanent items with consumables.

Nope.

In fact, it feels like they just made it up as they went along. All the experience designing and playing 3e and 4e went down the drain...

 

[CapnZapp]

And yes, reverse-engineering is what I was trying to do here.

First, you need to be aware of the following thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?462510-Sane-Magic-Item-Prices

If you still have any hopes of finding logic in the 5e magic item system after that, get back to us and we'll see what can be done...

 

[DEFCON 1]

Nope.

In fact, it feels like they just made it up as they went along. All the experience designing and playing 3e and 4e went down the drain...

Either that... or what they took and learned from designing and playing 3E and 4E was "Only a select few players actually give a rat's ass about this stuff to that precise a level, so our time and energy is better served elsewhere."