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

[Ancalagon]

And that's just the baron.

The Duke who is 3-5 ranks higher than the baron would have knights in +2 plate armor +1 shields, with +1 lances and +2 swords, a ranger or druid with +1 staff and +1 bow guarding the ducal woods, a church appointed priest who can cast cleric spells and has a common relic, and a personal academic who might be pulled into employment via access to a common arcane item if they aren't a caster themselves.

The way I see it, a knight or baron could have a +1 sword, a count or marquis a +2 one, a duke, prince or minor king +3, and then a king of a substantial kingdom problably has a legendary sword, that is considered part of the "regalia" of the king and is transmitted from generation to generation. A powerful sword owned by a powerful king, one that his great great great grandfather used to slay a dragon? Yeah, that's legendary all right

This is one of my big issues with the Monster Manual.

Some entries in the Monster Manual should have options for Magically equipped versions of themselves.

One thing that can be a problem is that if the PCs fight a lot of foes that would "make sense" to have magical items, they soon would have a lot of magical loot. I believe this is why most monsters do not have "grab-able" magical items.

 

[pemerton]

The way I see it, a knight or baron could have a +1 sword, a count or marquis a +2 one, a duke, prince or minor king +3, and then a king of a substantial kingdom problably has a legendary sword, that is considered part of the "regalia" of the king and is transmitted from generation to generation. A powerful sword owned by a powerful king, one that his great great great grandfather used to slay a dragon? Yeah, that's legendary all right

So, here we assume typical conventions around nobility, inheritance, rulership, legendary-ness etc.

We think of King Arthur and Excalibur, or Aragorn and Anduril, or Boromir and his Horn, etc.

One thing that can be a problem is that if the PCs fight a lot of foes that would "make sense" to have magical items, they soon would have a lot of magical loot. I believe this is why most monsters do not have "grab-able" magical items.

But this problem arises because - by convention - D&D PCs do not conform to conventions of respect, honour, etc. They are brigands who take all valuables they come across. When a friend and ally dies, they do not send them over the waterfall with all their gear (as Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas did for Boromir) - rather, they redistribute that dead person's gear among themselves!

So it's no wonder that a tension emerges in D&D play, if the setting is established following one set of assumptions/conventions, but the players of the game play under a completely different set of assumptions/conventions.

In this post I don't propose any solution. Nor am I criticising your post. But it crisply sets out the two limbs of the problem!

 

[Minigiant]

One thing that can be a problem is that if the PCs fight a lot of foes that would "make sense" to have magical items, they soon would have a lot of magical loot. I believe this is why most monsters do not have "grab-able" magical items.

It's not a problem.

That's how the many barons get their +1 swords.

They are the extras of former, current, and dead adventurers and nobles.

D&D already started with the assumption that many high level fighters retire, build strongholds on purchased, granted, or unclaimed land, and sell, to tithe, or pass down extra redundant magical gear to squires, their church, and local nobles.

A retiring fighter whose wizard ally crafted him a Trident of Fish Command might sell it to a coastal Marquess and pass down their smoking handax to his squire

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

but we have a spell that regrows lost body parts already - this strongly implies that other spells don't.

Isn't this just a left-over? I can't think of a rule in the game for losing limbs, and I don't think there are rules for being penalized for having lost a limb. [Thinking of the Dark Knight in Holy Grail... "this is just a flesh wound!"]. So, a dialogue would be:

Healer: I can regrow both of your arms for 50 gp.
PC: well, no, sorry, I won't spend a single copper on it, as it serves no purpose.
Healer: but, Sir, your arms can be useful...
PC (using his foot to slice a loaf of bread): We PCs are extraordinary.

 

[Ancalagon]

So, here we assume typical conventions around nobility, inheritance, rulership, legendary-ness etc.

We think of King Arthur and Excalibur, or Aragorn and Anduril, or Boromir and his Horn, etc.

But this problem arises because - by convention - D&D PCs do not conform to conventions of respect, honour, etc. They are brigands who take all valuables they come across. When a friend and ally dies, they do not send them over the waterfall with all their gear (as Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas did for Boromir) - rather, they redistribute that dead person's gear among themselves!

So it's no wonder that a tension emerges in D&D play, if the setting is established following one set of assumptions/conventions, but the players of the game play under a completely different set of assumptions/conventions.

In this post I don't propose any solution. Nor am I criticising your post. But it crisply sets out the two limbs of the problem!

I don't really have a reply here, except to note that this is thought provoking. Thanks for your insight!

 

[Ancalagon]

It's not a problem.

That's how the many barons get their +1 swords.

They are the extras of former, current, and dead adventurers and nobles.

D&D already started with the assumption that many high level fighters retire, build strongholds on purchased, granted, or unclaimed land, and sell, to tithe, or pass down extra redundant magical gear to squires, their church, and local nobles.

A retiring fighter whose wizard ally crafted him a Trident of Fish Command might sell it to a coastal Marquess and pass down their smoking handax to his squire

This is also a good post, but I realized that it does raise a problem. Nobility has often been made of conquerors, warriors etc. But this process is only possible at a specific stage of development - meaning that unless we are playing in a world where society is recovering from a great calamity that "emptied" a lot of the countryside... all the nobles are established and all the land is already grabbed.

There should be a great tension between the nobility and adventurers. Because they are reaaaaaly useful, but eventually they become powerful enough to overthrown their noble patron....

 

[ezo]

I've done such analysis Continual light/flame - how common are they? - but now I'm wondering if I already posted that link in this thread

Interesting take, but some things (in glancing) you might not consider:

The material cost isn't just 50 gp... it is 50 gp of RUBY DUST. Unless your world as an abudance of rubies... and the means to crush them into dust easily, that seems a larger obstacle than just the 50 gp would suggest.

Also, the torchmakers' guild might have issue with this, as would anyone who makes their living with oil for lamps, etc.

Just some more food for thought.

 

[Minigiant]

This is also a good post, but I realized that it does raise a problem. Nobility has often been made of conquerors, warriors etc. But this process is only possible at a specific stage of development - meaning that unless we are playing in a world where society is recovering from a great calamity that "emptied" a lot of the countryside... all the nobles are established and all the land is already grabbed.

There should be a great tension between the nobility and adventurers. Because they are reaaaaaly useful, but eventually they become powerful enough to overthrown their noble patron....

I believe D&D heavily goes with the assumption that the nobility are strong but don't have full control of their lands. Many lesser Nobles like Barron's accounts are dead. The wars at killed them are over or brewing for the claiming the empty spaces they left behind. And in the meantime monsters are hold up in the places that are no longer patrolled by any nobles nights and minute arms.

And the adventurers are who the local mayors or higher nobles sent to deal with issues.

Basically there's nothing between the non nobility mayor level and the middle rank noble level of administration.

Adventurers are the ones who take up the empty slabs of Land the higher nobles cannot manage and the lowest mayors have no strength over.

EDIT: This is also why D&D is heavy on city-states and naval travel. The head of a city state or controlling group over a naval route can be extremely rich but have a low area of influence and a wide area of danger around them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I believe D&D heavily goes with the assumption that the nobility are strong but don't have full control of their lands. Many lesser Nobles like Barron's accounts are dead. The wars at killed them are over or brewing for the claiming the empty spaces they left behind. And in the meantime monsters are hold up in the places that are no longer patrolled by any nobles nights and minute arms.

And the adventurers are who the local mayors or higher nobles sent to deal with issues.

Basically there's nothing between the non nobility mayor level and the middle rank noble level of administration.

Adventurers are the ones who take up the empty slabs of Land the higher nobles cannot manage and the lowest mayors have no strength over.

EDIT: This is also why D&D is heavy on city-states and naval travel. The head of a city state or controlling group over a naval route can be extremely rich but have a low area of influence and a wide area of danger around them.

Where are those assumptions indicated, if I may ask? That seems like a very setting-soecific claim to me, and I don't recall any of that marked out.

 

[Minigiant]

Where are those assumptions indicated, if I may ask? That seems like a very setting-soecific claim to me, and I don't recall any of that marked out.

The design of the early edition high level fighter and ranger assumed that there was always unclaimed land outside of civilization that rich nobles with armies and magic items would not challenge high level adventurers for if they build strongholds and castles there.

The return of bastions bring this back to 5th edition