CapnZapp
Legend
Thank you.
D&D 5E Treasure Rolls & "a typical campaign"
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
CapnZapp
Legend
Nobody has said item pricing rules should be core.
A web article would be fine (assuming it really treats the subject with care, respect and attention to detail. It certainly isn't something you could put an intern on and have her write for next week's due date.)
CapnZapp
Legend
Strawman alert!
Nobody is trying to insert that price list in your DMG! So stop being scared of "expectations", and instead allow people to enjoy the game in their own way. Thank you.
Bollocks.
D&D contains countless phenomenon that are best left unexplained. Why should the presence of magic items be an exception?
This is a disingenuous argument.
Feel free to ask my why and I'll explain.
Thank you.
Getting all warm and fuzzy here
While my language before was probably a little harsh, I share your frustration at some of the workload that 5e designers have pushed back onto DMs.
I want to do less work myself and have professional game designers do that for me. I'm already spending a significant amount of time converting older content because of the slower release cycle, and I'd much rather they had given us more crunch to work with and less fluff.
You are only doing more work if you are demanding things from the system that aren't intended to be there. Just because a thing was part of a previous version of D&D does not mean it is intended to be in 5E. Detailed item creation rules are certainly not universal throughout D&D. The 5E ones echo the rules from every other edition besides 3.x. If that is a deal breaker, play 3.x. Otherwise find a solution.
Heaven forbid wanting something, even as a variant rule, that is a staple of most modern roleplay games in place of lazer rifles.
The rules are there, they clearly intended for them to be there, but like other rules (encounter tables, diseases, traps, etc) they're inadequate, increasing DM workload.
More like "Anything that seems to hard to balance we will get the DMs to sort it out!". Or "DM's at home must love laboring over this stuff like we do, they can create it and we can keep costs down!".
Whether or not that philosophy is going to work long term is yet to be seen. Pathfinder seems to be doing alright though. Maybe WoTC just realised they couldn't actually compete that system and decided to go the other route, after all, that seems aligned with their goal of keeping costs down and producing little content (while what gets outsourced is of poor quality).
5e is great but the DMG is poor. I dont want a book of guidelines. I want to pay professional game designers to give me content I can use and reduce my workload. Out of the 300 pages or whatever in that book, I find myself using Treasure, Monster Building, and that's it. I go back to the 3.5 SRD which actually has an index for sections like traps larger than the ENTIRE traps section of the 5e DMG itself.
WoTC seem to have avoided putting in any rules at all for traditionally core D&D stuff, yet had no problems going gang busters with rules for things that DMs will likely never use. It's almost as if they're too scared to even attempt to balance things that err on the side of difficulty, and instead we get a vague table thrown in there for good measure.
I've seen a few D&D youtubers switch from 5e over to PF of late now that there isn't actually anything to do in 5e (unless you love slaving away creating your own content), and they've all made comments how awesome the equipment guides are and such. But hey, I guess the grognards have spoken eh. Magic item prices are out and piles of meaningless treasure (and lazers) are in!
Last edited:
It is certainly true that 5E is not designed to scratch the same itch as Pathfinder. I think that is a good thing: neither game benefits from direct competition, and both benefit from a broad player base. It is important to remember that Pathfinder did not try to compete with 4E either -- they staked their claim on a particular style of D&D and excelled at it. 5 E appears to be doing the same thing. It just so happens that style aligns with my preferences ( and those of some odd few million other gamers, it seems). I don't take umbrage with folks disliking the design choices of 5E -- again, I abandoned D&D during the 4 E years so I am hardly a WotC Internet white knight -- but I think it is a little disingenuous and narcissistic go say 5 E is incomplete or badly designed because it is not the D&D you wanted.
As to the content issue, all I can say is I pine for the days when D&D was owned by a company whose primary interest was, in fact, D&D. I know the 2nd Ed years got a little ridiculous but I am certain D&D could support a product she duel (and therefore staff) on par with Pathfinder.
Mouseferatu
Hero
"Nothing to do"? 
Not to be snide, but there's more than enough in just the three core books for multiple long-term campaigns before one has even begun to exhaust the possibilities. Support materials would be welcome, but the idea that they're necessary to play the game--especially when it hasn't been out that long--strikes me as a bit silly.
Not to be snide, but there's more than enough in just the three core books for multiple long-term campaigns before one has even begun to exhaust the possibilities. Support materials would be welcome, but the idea that they're necessary to play the game--especially when it hasn't been out that long--strikes me as a bit silly.
