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

[Zardnaar]

I am glad. I dont play the card game but I enjoy these Magic The Gathering settings for D&D.

I did but not anymore.

I liked Ravnica and Theros. Quality products.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Looking at the FR Campaign Setting for 3e, it seems to be higher than that. Under Mage Fairs it says,

"Any town or city with a population of more than a dozen wizards and sorcerers is likely to host an annual mage fair."

Without even looking at every other class, there are towns(not even cities) with a dozen or more wizards and sorcerers.

Looking at the Unapproachable East Emmech, a small city with a population of 7,620 lists 1,183 1st level Warriors, 223 2nd level Warriors, 50 3rd level Warriors, 9 4th level Warriors, 4 5th level Warriors, 1 8th level Warrior, 1 9th level Warrior, 1 10th level Warrior, 38 1st level Fighters, 22 2nd level Fighters, 4 3rd level Fighters, 3 4th level Fighters, 1 8th level Fighter, 1 9th level Fighter, 3 1st level Wizards, 2 2nd level Wizards, 2 3rd level Wizards, 2 4th level Wizards, 4 5th level Wizards, 1 7th level Wizard, 1 8th level Wizard, and 2 9th level Sorcerers. That's just in the town army. I'll get to the militia and other NPCs in a minute. That's 1,553 with PC and NPC classes.

For the militia It's. 241 1st level Warriors. There are some 1st level Commoners, but I'm not counting those.

For other characters we have.....a Fighter 14, an Aristocrat 7/Sorcerer 8, a Wizard 10, a Rogue 9, a Fighter 2/Rogue 5/Aglarondan Griffon Rider 6...just giving class totals now, but they range up to double digit levels...22 Barbarians, 30 Bards, 39 Clerics, 12 Druids, 29 Fighters, 22 Monks, 30 Paladins, 24 Rangers, 22 Rogues, 24 Sorcerers, 30 Wizards, 39 Adepts, 43 Aristocrats, and 183 Experts. Again, skipping Commoners.

All told there are 2,280 with class and NPC levels, with more than a dozen in double digit levels. And that's with a population of 7,620. The rest of FR towns and cities are similar. I've also noticed that in other products where they spell out population class levels, there are similar numbers.

With the Demographics calculator you posted, a population of 7,720 includes 6,703 commoners. That leaves 1,017 with PC and NPC class levels, so a little under half number of the city above.

 

[Stormonu]

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

Yes, that's true - but it's not because of the rarity of knowledge, but by the rarity of the power needed by the individual to accomplish the task.

It leans into the idea of a pre-industrial Master Craftsman laboring over a masterpiece versus someone going on an archeology hunt for old magic item formulas, books and scrolls.

Conversely, Eberron has Forges of Creation that are used for "mass" low-level magic item creation that gets far away from the "individually hand-crafted" ideal of older editions.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

That's a pretty common mistake you are making there. That automatic loss of con pertains to the spells made permanent in the spell description, not all castings of permanency. The spell does not talk about magic item creation.

"The magic-user casts the desired spell and then follows with the permanency spell. Each permanency spell lowers the magic-user's constitution by 1 point. The magic-user cannot cast these spells upon other creatures. In addition to personal use, the permanency spell can be used to make the following object/creature or area effect spells lasting:"

Making magic items does not involve making spells cast on yourself or others permanent. Under Enchant an Item it says that there is a risk of con loss if Permanency is used. Con loss isn't guaranteed the way it is with spells cast under the Permanency spell itself. And of course, you can always use Wish to get the con points back if you're high enough to be enchanting items.

From Enchant an Item

"No magic placed on or into an item is permanent unless a permanency spell is used as a finishing touch, and this always runs a risk of draining a point of constitution from the magic-user casting the spell."

Interestingly, I can't recall ever seeing the odds of losing or not losing that con point printed anywhere.

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.

As I said, I really don't know what the rules were. However, the existence of Glantri means that NPCs can and do make lots of magic items and cast lots of spells.

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.

They are relevant, because it shows that D&D continues to feature magic item creation in numbers sufficient to generate a setting such as Eberron.

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?

3e only assumes the same rules to an extent. Magic Item creation in 3e cost XP. NPCs have it in infinite supply since the DM isn't running millions of NPCs through adventures to gain that XP. PCs will make fewer items as a result, and magic items will have been being made for thousands of years, generating a TON of magic items out there.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

That's a pretty common mistake you are making there. That automatic loss of con pertains to the spells made permanent in the spell description, not all castings of permanency. The spell does not talk about magic item creation.

"The magic-user casts the desired spell and then follows with the permanency spell. Each permanency spell lowers the magic-user's constitution by 1 point. The magic-user cannot cast these spells upon other creatures. In addition to personal use, the permanency spell can be used to make the following object/creature or area effect spells lasting:"

Making magic items does not involve making spells cast on yourself or others permanent. Under Enchant an Item it says that there is a risk of con loss if Permanency is used. Con loss isn't guaranteed the way it is with spells cast under the Permanency spell itself. And of course, you can always use Wish to get the con points back if you're high enough to be enchanting items.

From Enchant an Item

"No magic placed on or into an item is permanent unless a permanency spell is used as a finishing touch, and this always runs a risk of draining a point of constitution from the magic-user casting the spell."

Interestingly, I can't recall ever seeing the odds of losing or not losing that con point printed anywhere.

"Hey, it's fine, guys, there's only a CHANCE I develop permanent weakness from making this magic item, instead of it being guaranteed!" that's...not a lot better? unless it's like astronomical odds, in which case...why bother mentioning it at all?

As I said, I really don't know what the rules were. However, the existence of Glantri means that NPCs can and do make lots of magic items and cast lots of spells.

yeah, but that's pretty much entirely divorced from the actual rules at that point.

They are relevant, because it shows that D&D continues to feature magic item creation in numbers sufficient to generate a setting such as Eberron.

they're irrelevant because they had no hand in defining what eberron was because they didn't exist yet. that you can run eberron in them doesn't change whether or not eberron followed 3e's rules to their logical conclusion.

3e only assumes the same rules to an extent. Magic Item creation in 3e cost XP. NPCs have it in infinite supply since the DM isn't running millions of NPCs through adventures to gain that XP. PCs will make fewer items as a result, and magic items will have been being made for thousands of years, generating a TON of magic items out there.

at least there's a basis in the rules, then, even if the question of how they get more xp is ignored (and in eberron it actually isn't - eberron's answer is that they're artificers, they get an xp pool specifically for crafting that iirc they can refill by recycling other magic items).

 

[Maxperson]

"Hey, it's fine, guys, there's only a CHANCE I develop permanent weakness from making this magic item, instead of it being guaranteed!" that's...not a lot better? unless it's like astronomical odds, in which case...why bother mentioning it at all?

As I said, they can just Wish any losses back.

Yeah, but that's pretty much entirely divorced from the actual rules at that point.

they're irrelevant because they had no hand in defining what eberron was because they didn't exist yet. that you can run eberron in them doesn't change whether or not eberron followed 3e's rules to their logical conclusion.

at least there's a basis in the rules, then, even if the question of how they get more xp is ignored (and in eberron it actually isn't - eberron's answer is that they're artificers, they get an xp pool specifically for crafting that iirc they can refill by recycling other magic items).

There's a basis in the rules prior to 3e as well, making 3e's rules not really relevant. It doesn't really matter if the designers were inspired by the 3e rules, those rules are not a part of Eberron's theme. Quite literally every other edition of the game also meets that theme.

 

[Hussar]

No, but they are explicitly uncommon: but they are present.

Again, one out of a hundred NPC's isn't just uncommon. Good grief, there are more named Lizardfolk in Ghosts of Saltmarsh than there are dragonborn.

My point being, as it always has been, that dragonborn and tieflings are barely present in the game. There are no dragonborn towns. No dragonborn organization. No tiefling cabals or families. A 2024 D&D setting would make tieflings and dragonborn just as common as elves or dwarves.

 

[Hussar]

I am a little surprised at how new-setting averse folks here are. No wonder WotC won't ever do anything new.

Really? Why are you surprised by this. The fandom has spoken very loudly and very clearly that they do not want anything new. They are perfectly happy with WotC retreading the tried and true. Good grief, the fandom is all abuzz about the return of Dark Sun? A setting that had it's glory days thirty years ago? A setting that virtually none of the fandom has even played or seen? And that's what's got everyone excited?

WotC is producing EXACTLY what their fans want. Nothing new. Nothing original. Keep recycling the same things over and over again.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

As I said, they can just Wish any losses back.

yeah, JUST use the apex of mortal magic to undo it. that's a widespread enough commodity to support a setting with.

can we just agree that tsr era crafting has a much steeper cost then 3e crafting?

There's a basis in the rules prior to 3e as well

not if you actually look at those rules, it seems.

It doesn't really matter if the designers were inspired by the 3e rules, those rules are not a part of Eberron's theme. Quite literally every other edition of the game also meets that theme.

so if we're trying to determine whether or not a setting is built with a system in mind, whether or not the designers built the setting with the system in mind isn't relevant...but systems that literally didn't exist at the time are?

im very lost.

 

[Hussar]

LOL.

3e - my 1st level wizard, with 12.5 gp (I.e. starting gold) can make a scroll.

AD&D - my 7th level wizard requires unknown amounts of gold to make a scroll.

3e - my 5th level wizard can make any miscellaneous magic item with a negligible cost.

AD&D - My 11th level MU can maybe make a magic item, possibly at a cost of point of Constitution. The gp cost of making the item is unknown. I can get the Con back if I'm an 18th level wizard.

Yes, these things are the same.