D&D 5E (2024) WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting

[Maxperson]

for one, that assumes magic item creation produced the same results in every edition. for another, that assumes interpreting the same results in a different way means you're not interpreting the results at all. the latter is obviously false on its face. the former, from everything i've heard about 3e crafting as well as how other editions handle crafting, also sounds pretty false to me.

It assumes no such thing. What it does assume is that NPCs make lots of magic items and cast lots of spells, backed up by literally every edition ever. PCs don't make enough magic items, even in 3e, to have any affect at all on Eberron or any other official setting. Not even a drop in the bucket. Therefore, no PC facing mechanics count for Eberron's theme.

The only thing that does matter is that 1) lots of magic items are made, and 2) there are lots of spellcasters, which again is every edition ever, plus BECMI.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

It assumes no such thing. What it does assume is that NPCs make lots of magic items and cast lots of spells, backed up by literally every edition ever.

don't becmi through 2e generally assume that the knowledge to make most magic items have been broadly lost, which is why they have to be found by adventurers? even if not (or even if later editions assume the same), that still negates nothing - it'd just mean other editions have toyed with the idea of "what if we follow the logical consequences of how magic and crafting work in this system?" that doesn't mean eberron DIDN'T do that.

PCs don't make enough magic items, even in 3e, to have any affect at all on Eberron or any other official setting. Not even a drop in the bucket. Therefore, no PC facing mechanics count for Eberron's theme.

that is a bizarre rationalization for your point. yeah, any individual person can only make so many things. but if crafting is accessible enough for a lot of individuals to do consistently, it's going to happen more often and more things will get made. to my knowledge, crafting magic items was a particularly common activity compared to earlier editions (to the point 3e's crafting system has been considered a major issue by many people). maybe i'm wrong about that, but i'm going off what i've heard. if that's true, and you're comparing 3e to earlier editions, yeah, 3e's magic and crafting is going to seem a lot easier to industrialize.

The only thing that does matter is that 1) lots of magic items are made, and 2) there are lots of spellcasters, which again is every edition ever, plus BECMI.

isn't the assumption pre-wotc that characters with class levels are like...one 10,000th of the population or something?

 

[Maxperson]

don't becmi through 2e generally assume that the knowledge to make most magic items have been broadly lost, which is why they have to be found by adventurers? even if not (or even if later editions assume the same), that still negates nothing - it'd just mean other editions have toyed with the idea of "what if we follow the logical consequences of how magic and crafting work in this system?" that doesn't mean eberron DIDN'T do that.

No. 1e and 2e have spells in the PHB explicitly so that PCs can make magic items. PCs making magic items and spells was a staple of TSR. The knowledge to make artifacts and relics has been lost I believe, but by no means is the knowledge to make magic items anything but common in those editions.

For BECMI I don't know, but I strongly doubt it since Glantri is from BECMI and it is Eberron on steroids when it comes to being a magical society.

that is a bizarre rationalization for your point. yeah, any individual person can only make so many things. but if crafting is accessible enough for a lot of individuals to do consistently, it's going to happen more often and more things will get made. to my knowledge, crafting magic items was a particularly common activity compared to earlier editions (to the point 3e's crafting system has been considered a major issue by many people). maybe i'm wrong about that, but i'm going off what i've heard. if that's true, and you're comparing 3e to earlier editions, yeah, 3e's magic and crafting is going to seem a lot easier to industrialize.

But it is consistently available to quite literally everyone in 1e-4e, and to NPCs in 5e. It's only PCs that have any kinds of limits, and then only in 5e.

isn't the assumption pre-wotc that characters with class levels are like...one 10,000th of the population or something?

I don't know about 4e, but 1e-3e didn't assume any such thing. 5e has class levels as a default option, but 5.5e does not. That's not at all relevant, though, since NPCs don't need class levels to make magic items or cast spells.

 

[Yaarel]

isn't the assumption pre-wotc that characters with class levels are like...one 10,000th of the population or something?

For my settings:

The highest level character that a community produces is:

Population = 10 ^ ( Level / 2 )

So, a nation of about a million (10 ^ 6 ) will produce one national hero of about level 12.

Note, that national hero might come from an obscure village with a population of only 300, within the nation.

Player characters are special and ignore this formula. But for worldbuilding the formula is useful for a consistent feel for how powerful "normal" peopleshould be.

The formula also relates to fame: how many NPCs should be affected by the fame of a player character at a given level. A level 12 adventurer should be impacting the lives of about a million people. There is an escalating magnitude that scales upward as players level up.

 

[Stormonu]

don't becmi through 2e generally assume that the knowledge to make most magic items have been broadly lost, which is why they have to be found by adventurers? even if not (or even if later editions assume the same), that still negates nothing - it'd just mean other editions have toyed with the idea of "what if we follow the logical consequences of how magic and crafting work in this system?" that doesn't mean eberron DIDN'T do that.

Nah, though that's a bit of "lost knowledge" in Greyhawk lore with the fall of the Suelese empire (and FR with Netheril?). Old D&D just had a requirement you had to be 9th level or better (name level) to start creating magical items - starting with potions and getting access to creating more types of items at higher levels (with guidance to make the process as >ahem< arcane, costly and convoluted as possible for players). It was Gygax being stingy and not wanting players to "ruin" the game by building wishlisted gear - the random must flow!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No. 1e and 2e have spells in the PHB explicitly so that PCs can make magic items. PCs making magic items and spells was a staple of TSR. The knowledge to make artifacts and relics has been lost I believe, but by no means is the knowledge to make magic items anything but common in those editions.

For BECMI I don't know, but I strongly doubt it since Glantri is from BECMI and it is Eberron on steroids when it comes to being a magical society.

But it is consistently available to quite literally everyone in 1e-4e, and to NPCs in 5e. It's only PCs that have any kinds of limits, and then only in 5e.

I don't know about 4e, but 1e-3e didn't assume any such thing. 5e has class levels as a default option, but 5.5e does not. That's not at all relevant, though, since NPCs don't need class levels to make magic items or cast spells.

I seem to remember 3E had some rules on demographics that included estimates on classes and levels that might exist in a settlement depending on its size. It included numbers for player and NPC classes.*
I don't know if such a thing existed in earlier editions, it didn't exist in 4E.


*) There is even a calculator on the d20 SRD site: d20 Demographics Calculator

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Nah, though that's a bit of "lost knowledge" in Greyhawk lore with the fall of the Suelese empire (and FR with Netheril?). Old D&D just had a requirement you had to be 9th level or better (name level) to start creating magical items - starting with potions and getting access to creating more types of items at higher levels (with guidance to make the process as >ahem< arcane, costly and convoluted as possible for players). It was Gygax being stingy and not wanting players to "ruin" the game by building wishlisted gear - the random must flow!

that...still achieves the result of characters capable of making magic items being extremely limited.

No. 1e and 2e have spells in the PHB explicitly so that PCs can make magic items.

ah, yes, like permanency, which...is an 8th level spell. that reduces your constitution by 1 per use.

yeah. very conducive to an industrialized magic society there. right.

For BECMI I don't know, but I strongly doubt it since Glantri is from BECMI and it is Eberron on steroids when it comes to being a magical society.

becmi's item crafting rules read as so dm and adventure dependent that im starting to think glantri doesn't follow from its rules as much as you seem to think it does.

But it is consistently available to quite literally everyone in 1e-4e, and to NPCs in 5e. It's only PCs that have any kinds of limits, and then only in 5e.

4e and 5e aren't really relevant to the question since neither existed when eberron was being made. but moreover, out of all the editions from becmi to 3e, 3e's seems the most reliable and repeatable to me.

[...]1e-3e didn't assume any such thing.

huh. maybe im misremembering. i could've sworn that was a thing pre-3e.

[...] That's not at all relevant, though, since NPCs don't need class levels to make magic items or cast spells.

first off, doesn't at least 3e assume npcs and pcs use the same rules? second, i mean, okay, but then a setting based on npcs making tons of magic items and spells in a manner totally divorced from the rules isn't exactly...being built around the rules, now is it?

 

[Minigiant]

V

It assumes no such thing. What it does assume is that NPCs make lots of magic items and cast lots of spells, backed up by literally every edition ever. PCs don't make enough magic items, even in 3e, to have any affect at all on Eberron or any other official setting. Not even a drop in the bucket. Therefore, no PC facing mechanics count for Eberron's theme.

The only thing that does matter is that 1) lots of magic items are made, and 2) there are lots of spellcasters, which again is every edition ever, plus BECMI.

No nonMTG setting assumes the number of casters as Eberron as as it assumes society pumps out enough minor spellcasters to industrialize magic item creation.

But, yes, the PC rules aren't assume to work the same as the NPC rules.

 

[Zardnaar]

Um, the game goes out of its way to say that magic item sales are very rare and that few can afford them. The vast majority of those few would be nobles.

I don't think you appreciate or understand the noble mindset. Magic items = works of art, not tanks. Billionaires will buy and collect several multi-million dollar paintings to keep at their house for their own personal viewing.

Nobles would view magic items, even war items, the same way. The king would have a dozen powerful swords in his vaults, even if he never picks one up. He wouldn't sell all but one.

Some rich people do collect tanks. Or jet fighter or WW2 planes etc.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, it is strange to see so many people taking a purist approach that tries to freeze these old kitchen sink settings in amber.

In the very early years of D&D it was assumed that any DM worth their salt would homebrew everything. Even after TSR started to publish official settings and modules, it was still understood that DMs would customize things so that no two Greyhawks would ever be exactly alike. I had both the gold GH box set and the grey FR box set, and I never got the impression that anything in them was set in stone. They were clearly sandboxes or tool kits that the DM could use as a starting point for their own campaign, and eventually high level PCs might change things even more. There were also huge blank areas on the map marked “here be dragons”. The DM could always introduce new elements as something that just arrived from the other side of the world, or emerged from an obscure dungeon.

Real old school campaigns often included all kinds of wild gonzo stuff drawn from everywhere, so I don’t see why new classes or races from later editions present such a problem. As early as 1976, EGG himself crashed a spaceship full of robots and laser guns into Greyhawk! Tieflings in particular seem like they already belong there anyway. Gygax clearly loved infernal intrigues (a taste I never shared), as can be seen in all those entries for archdevils and demon lords in the monster books, in the modules he wrote, and in those terrible Gord novels. There is even a whole country named after the half-demon who tries to rule it. Just rename them “alu-demons” or “cambions” and there you go.

I think things began to go awry as FR introduced ever more convoluted lore in an avalanche of products that fans were expected to keep up with, and got much worse when they decided to use metaplot to introduce rule changes for new editions. I did not play during the 3E and 4E eras, but I would occasionally flip through D&D books in stores or browse the wikis, and stuff like the Spellplague or the Blood War did not impress me at all or make me want to start playing or buying again.

So many fandoms and franchises these days seem to be consumed by an obsession with canon consistency: superhero comics & movies, Dr. Who, Trek, Wars, etc. It can become suffocating and prevent anyone from doing anything new. D&D in particular does not need this as DM and player creativity is supposed to be the whole point of the game.

The gonzo stuff was optional. Dont run barrier peaks if you dont like robots.

It was also self contained.