D&D (2024) Uncommon items - actually common?

[Micah Sweet]

Only in the 3.x era. In the AD&D era almost everyone was an 0th level character - which wasn't something that was PC facing. 2000-2007 is the aberration. And the NPC classes made a complete mockery of the meaning of "level".

D&D Rules are not a physics engine, they are a User Interface. And the 2024 DMG is explicit on this. The game is one called Dungeons & Dragons, not Craftsmen & Farmers. The mechanics of the game focus strictly on adventurers and the exploits of adventurers. A game of Crofters & Craftsmen would have rules for agriculture and bartering that took as much space as D&D combat. But that's at best tangentally relevant to most characters rather than being a focus. And the world expert in portals is unlikely to have the same array of spell slots and the same hit dice as an adventuring wizard even if they can cast spells in their speciality that are beyond that wizard.

The rules aren't meant to make the whole world make sense. They are meant to make the underlying world that exists largely independently of the mechanics accessible to players of adventurers.

As I said, I'm aware that 5.5 has been clear about this (for the first time really). I'm unhappy about it. I'm pretty sure I've been clear about that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As I said, I'm aware that 5.5 has been clear about this (for the first time really). I'm unhappy about it. I'm pretty sure I've been clear about that.

And I'm pointing out that 5.24 is just being 100% unambiguous about something that has been true for 42 years of D&D's 50 year history (50 years really because 3.0 and 3.5 did a wonderful job of proving why the approach simply doesn't work). And that this is very much the game D&D has almost always been.

When 4e fans point out the loss of something unique to 4e they don't pretend that that's the way D&D always was. Why pretend this in the case of 3.X?

 

[kigmatzomat]

And I'm pointing out that 5.24 is just being 100% unambiguous about something that has been true for 42 years of D&D's 50 year history (50 years really because 3.0 and 3.5 did a wonderful job of proving why the approach simply doesn't work). And that this is very much the game D&D has almost always been.

When 4e fans point out the loss of something unique to 4e they don't pretend that that's the way D&D always was. Why pretend this in the case of 3.X?

In 1e and 2e adventures there were a massive number of classed NPCs. Every adventure seemed to be full of npc fighters, wizards, thieves and clerics. So they were using PC rules....a lot. Only background peasants who didn't even get names were 0-level.

3e made a tier of non-hero grade classes so that most named NPCs weren't actually as special as PCs but could still provide a level of competence required to create dramatic tension.

If anything, 3e created an actual mechanical separation between NPCs and PCs that prior editions had merely aluded to but never actually followed.

 

[pemerton]

There was, however, an assumption that a PC human and an NPC human (for example) had the same potential range of capabilities and were the same kind of being in the fiction, even if the mechanical representation of those abilities was necessary reached the same way.

If you look at the rules for NPCs in Gygax's DMG, p 100, you'll see that stat generation and stat requirements for NPCs are different from those for PCs of the same class.

That's before one tries to integrate the different rules for generating NPC stats on p 11 of the DMG.

And all that's before one considers that MEN in the Monster Manual work differently from PCs, in the way they are built and the final stats.

EDIT:

In 1e and 2e adventures there were a massive number of classed NPCs. Every adventure seemed to be full of npc fighters, wizards, thieves and clerics. So they were using PC rules....a lot. Only background peasants who didn't even get names were 0-level.

The AD&D DMG doesn't present NPCs and PCs as equivalent in mechanical build.

 

[Horwath]

common; levels: 1-4
uncommon: levels: 5+(mostly 5-10)

 

[Ancalagon]

First, it depends on how much you think a gold piece is worth.

NO. We don't need to do that. The "expense per day" gives us a preeety dang good idea of the value of a gold piece in a generic D&D world.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: D&D is not an economic stimulator. The price list doesn't really withstand close scrutiny. BUT, sometimes the price does become important, and then it's nice to have a number you, the GM, have decided is solid, and you can use it to evaluate whatever the pricing/economic issue is at the moment. A "yardstick", if you will.

Personally I found that using the "daily expense" as my baseline to be extremely useful, and quite solid.

Your economic yardstick - the laborer

I once read this story about a tailor who had a client who was in a great hurry. The tailor measured the man's thumb circumference, and tol...

slugsandsilver.blogspot.com

I hope I'm not being too snippy with you btw - my spouse commented on how loudly I was typing. But the "well, how much is money worth?" argument comes up again and again, and it's a solved problem, IMO.

 

[Ancalagon]

But the other option is to just do what I do and say that just because it's on the list of uncommon items doesn't mean it exists. If it does exist then I think about how it impacts the world.

For example I assume that many people have continual light in their homes. Not cheap but constant bright light that won't burn your house down and never, ever needs to be replaced? Worth the investment. Then again, I also assume that magical poultices actually work and specialists do small magics that wouldn't even qualify as a magic spell. It's just that the gnomish baker makes cookies that really are magically delicious.

And now we are much more in agreement

I actually did crunch the numbers, and over time the amount of continual lights would become quite high: Continual light/flame - how common are they?

Then I look at something like a +1 shield versus a bag of holding and if I allow bags of holding I assume there's many, many more bags of holding out there than +1 shields because of the utility. But there could also be much higher demand for a bag of holding than a shield which is ever so slightly higher defense which for the vast majority of people will only come into play on rare occasions unless your a soldier during time of war.

We are again in agreement.

I also think you're overestimating how many goods can be shipped in a 2x2x4 foot area. For very high value goods? It's worth it. Very few goods would justify that cost, especially since an item needs to fit.

Perhaps it is time I write a post crunching some numbers?

But very quickly. We know historically that some areas exported a lot of swords blades - Toledo and Solingen for example (Damascus may also belong on this list, but I'm not sure). These blades are less than 4 feet long, and a lot of them could fit in a bag of holding. (and let's have something so they don't pierce the bag, not hard).

Let us assume:
1: the naked blade is "worth" 10 gp (meaning the portion of the retail price of the sword that comes from the blade is 10 gp, the rest of the retail price is made of the hilt, finaly sharpening, scabbard etc). But the merchant is selling them for 5 gp, he's just part of the supply chain. Let us also assume that the merchant bought the blade for 2.5 gp. Thus the merchant makes a raw profit of 2.5 gp per blade
2: Let us assume this naked blade weights 2 pounds (a bit high but easy math - also the "slack" is taken by some packing material)
3: 250 blades and some packaging material = 500 pounds = 625 gp raw profit.

Sure, if you're shipping grain, use a boat! But you don't need to be trading rare spices for the bag of holding to be very valuable

 

[Oofta]

NO. We don't need to do that. The "expense per day" gives us a preeety dang good idea of the value of a gold piece in a generic D&D world.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record: D&D is not an economic stimulator. The price list doesn't really withstand close scrutiny. BUT, sometimes the price does become important, and then it's nice to have a number you, the GM, have decided is solid, and you can use it to evaluate whatever the pricing/economic issue is at the moment. A "yardstick", if you will.

Personally I found that using the "daily expense" as my baseline to be extremely useful, and quite solid.

Your economic yardstick - the laborer

I once read this story about a tailor who had a client who was in a great hurry. The tailor measured the man's thumb circumference, and tol...

slugsandsilver.blogspot.com

I hope I'm not being too snippy with you btw - my spouse commented on how loudly I was typing. But the "well, how much is money worth?" argument comes up again and again, and it's a solved problem, IMO.

The issue with any analysis is it's just based on too many assumptions. For many cultures during much of human history the coin people earned was only part of their compensation. Most of it was in room and board or trade in kind. Money, especially higher amounts, was reserved for trade and business interactions. Most people relied on barter. You didn't hire someone to build your house, you built it yourself. When you needed help you got help from your neighbor down the street because last year you helped them with a different project. Everyone pitched in for the harvest.

Of course that assumption varies dramatically based on time, location, culture. There can't be a single system that covers all options.

But I never claimed the price list was accurate and honestly I don't care. We still have to estimate the relative value of a GP if you're going to state that a bag of holding is going to be valuable to merchants. A modest life style requires 1 GP per day, so I guesstimated $50, which is probably on the low side. You may come to a different number than I did but it doesn't really change much. A bag of holding is 2x2x4 feet space. It won't hold large goods, it's the size of a big rucksack.

EDIT: see response to the other response that I hadn't seen when I posted this.

 

[Oofta]

And now we are much more in agreement

I actually did crunch the numbers, and over time the amount of continual lights would become quite high: Continual light/flame - how common are they?



We are again in agreement.


Perhaps it is time I write a post crunching some numbers?

But very quickly. We know historically that some areas exported a lot of swords blades - Toledo and Solingen for example (Damascus may also belong on this list, but I'm not sure). These blades are less than 4 feet long, and a lot of them could fit in a bag of holding. (and let's have something so they don't pierce the bag, not hard).

Let us assume:
1: the naked blade is "worth" 10 gp (meaning the portion of the retail price of the sword that comes from the blade is 10 gp, the rest of the retail price is made of the hilt, finaly sharpening, scabbard etc). But the merchant is selling them for 5 gp, he's just part of the supply chain. Let us also assume that the merchant bought the blade for 2.5 gp. Thus the merchant makes a raw profit of 2.5 gp per blade
2: Let us assume this naked blade weights 2 pounds (a bit high but easy math - also the "slack" is taken by some packing material)
3: 250 blades and some packaging material = 500 pounds = 625 gp raw profit.

Sure, if you're shipping grain, use a boat! But you don't need to be trading rare spices for the bag of holding to be very valuable

Assuming that blade is less than 4 feet long, sure. Longsword blades would work, just be sure to package them carefully so you don't spill all your good onto the astral plane as you said. But if we assume each blade is in a 3 inch square sheath (it's actually wider than deep, but I don't want to do that math), you get 64 blades in a bag. You don't get anywhere near 250 blades because of the bulk that you're ignoring. Not that most people pay attention to the details, mind you. Of course you could put them all into a single container for shipping ... hmm.

Let's just say I'm not convinced you could get 250 blades in there but I'm too lazy and not good enough at the math off the top of my head to figure out the actual number. More importantly how often are you you would regularly shipping that many blades to one destination for direct sale? These are naked blades, not the finished product, no crosspiece because that would increase the bulk dramatically so they still need that work done before sale to the final customer. Sending to a retailer to split up and redistribute? Sure. But then you're not getting anything near retail price for a sword because they have to finish assembly, store the goods, then ship off to multiple locations where using a bag of holding becomes less worthwhile.

On the other hand, using a completely random object, a real world longbow wouldn't fit. So how many valuable trade goods would fit? But yes, for certain goods it may be worthwhile. What percentage of goods is that? It may worth it to a merchant trading in other high quality goods where you can fit multiple into the bag. The majority of goods that would fit in a bag of holding are not that expensive per pound or are too large to fit in the bag.

All of which doesn't account for supply, demand and the impact of lower shipping costs. Spice prices were inflated because of shipping costs, but if it's as easy as stuffing a bag of holding full then the supply increases dramatically which deflates the cost which drops the profit margin. Since I don't have a masters degree in economics I'll just say that it would be complicated.

 

[Kurotowa]

The issue with any analysis is it's just based on too many assumptions. For many cultures during much of human history the coin people earned was only part of their compensation. Most of it was in room and board or trade in kind. Money, especially higher amounts, was reserved for trade and business interactions. Most people relied on barter. You didn't hire someone to build your house, you built it yourself. When you needed help you got help from your neighbor down the street because last year you helped them with a different project. Everyone pitched in for the harvest.

To my knowledge, there are two main drivers for using money: trust level and fungibility. Not a value threshold.

When you're dealing with other people from your one little village that you've known all your life, you have a personal and long term relationship with them. The trust level is high, and you don't have to worry as much about defective goods or skipping out on a debt. But when you're dealing with a traveling merchant, or living in a larger urban center where you don't have that personal relationship with everyone, you need a way to secure the transaction. And the best security is cash up front.

Fungibility, though, is what drives the use of money even in familiar circumstances. The farmer only needs the farrier to shoe his horse once a year, but the farrier needs bread from the baker every day, and the baker doesn't need any horses shod but does need a steady supply of firewood for the ovens, and so on. Money is a method for keeping an abstract score of labor done and owed that can be traded about to the persons and proportions needed. Trying to barter everything is hugely inefficient and often entirely impractical, and the past definitely wasn't some idyllic commune where everyone pitched it for everything.

So yes, compensation was often in non-monetary forms. That doesn't mean it wasn't carefully enumerated, or that barter was anything but a fallback when everything else had failed.