Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6558197" data-attributes="member: 12731">Are you truly sincere? Are you prepared to drop your quick solutions and proclamations that there is no problem? If you really ask because you wish me to explain, then I will gladly do so.This thread is, essentially, asking what you can spend lots and lots of gold on. Right?The assumption is that adventure after adventure hand out a lot of gold (tens and hundreds of thousands of gold pieces if you believe the DMG). Certainly lots of home games exists where the heroes always feel poor, but this thread isn't relevant there.Now, there exists a share of D&D players playing the game in a certain way. This way involves playing published module after published module. There is little interest in detailing what the heroes do between adventures, and indeed, there often isn't any excess time to spend either. Thus any suggestion to spend gold on downtime activities are perhaps well-meant, but not applicable for this share of the customer base. What this particular playing style needs and wants is ways to quickly spend your gold on things that actually make your adventuring life easier. For the sake of argument, let's say this involves magic items only.This edition already contains the magic items and hands out the gold, so all that's needed is a way to price these items in some way that makes useful items cost more than less useful items. But we want more, we don't just want a price list, we want to know why and how a certain item was given a certain price.What we want and need is a pricing mechanism.This set of guidelines can't be based on rarity or collector value. All those factors can be used to MODIFY prices, but step one will always be to calculate an "objective" price for a certain item. (Objective being an ideal rather than an attainable goal, as I am sure you understand).In short, we need a set of formulas much like the ones in 3e. HOWEVER, the items themselves have changed. The GAME has changed. You can't simply use the 3e mechanisms to calculate price and then use that in 5e. I want a completely updated set of guidelines relevant to how magic items work in 5e. THEN individual DMs can modify those prices. In fact they can completely ignore the set of guidelines completely, especially since they won't be found in the DMG.One trivial example of differences between editions: plusses go only from +1 to +3 and not up to +5. But even this trivial example betrays hidden complexities. A lot of the power of a +1 Longsword in 5e is because it is magical, and ignores non-magical resistance. The 3e formula was created under different assumptions, since every 3.0 critter said something like +3/30. Which means that the critter resists 30 points of damage of every hit from a weapon that is less than +3.Not only is "half damage" different from "resist N damage". But ALL of the resistance is frontloaded right away on ANY magical weapon (with few exceptions). And the utility of the plusses themselves have changed in intricate ways. On one hand, a +1 is still a +1; the basic d20 die roll haven't changed. On the other hand, advantage wasn't a thing in 3e. On the third hand, this socalled "bounded accuracy" means every +1 is more valuable than before.All this adds up to one thing:Making a set of utility-based price formulas for 5e is not trivial. In fact, I bet it's a huge challenge even to get to the debated level of fairness 3e got to.It is probably within my ability to create this list. But I certainly wish I don't have to. I would far prefer someone to do the work for me, for several reasons. The obvious one is spelled "laziness"... But seriously: I want an OFFICIAL solution that is shared by everyone. I want a COMMERCIAL solution so there's somebody to hold accountable for any errors.Hopefully this answers your questions.</blockquote>

Verification