The Magic Economy

[MukkTB]

There isn't one according to the rules that are out do far. And no magic item creation. But that is a fairly unsatisfying place for me. Its not that I don't like magic items having an unspecified price. Many rare commodities experience extreme price fluctuations. My problem is that I'm left with a number of questions.
#1 Do characters need magic items to be appropriately powerful for their level?
For example monsters with resistance to mundane attacks have effectively double the hitpoints against mundanes without magic weapons.
#2 If they need magic items whats the wealth by level equivalent for this? At what level should a fighter get a magic weapon. How often should the wizard find scrolls of arcane magic.
This is stuff the DM book needs to explain. But the DM book isn't going to be out for a while and the basic rules don't answer the question at all.

Also there is a big difference between magic items not having a set price, and not being purchasable by cash. Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of mundane non magical things worth more than a +1 sword.
A Kingdom
A large Metropolis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-z9qWIKmiQ)
The Black Pearl (Pre Aztec Zombie Edition - Not Magical)
A small army + operation funds
Your own life
The employment of a group of master artisans for a year
ONE MILLION DOLLARS! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJR1H5tf5wE)
The services of a skilled assassin rogue (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGjMjFNhFrg) (WARNING THOSE SERVICES ARE UNPLEASANT)
A bucket of water in the right place at the right time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7GJcKuVGm8)

My point is that it would be possible to trade magic items even if prices aren't set in stone.


On another note I can understand why players can't make magic items anymore. My general plan for dealing with it as a DM is allowing characters with the requisite knowledge and crafting skills to do little side quests for macguffins required to make things.

[Occasional Sage]

There isn't one according to the rules that are out do far. And no magic item creation. But that is a fairly unsatisfying place for me. Its not that I don't like magic items having an unspecified price. Many rare commodities experience extreme price fluctuations. My problem is that I'm left with a number of questions.
#1 Do characters need magic items to be appropriately powerful for their level?
For example monsters with resistance to mundane attacks have effectively double the hitpoints against mundanes without magic weapons.


In theory, no they do not. I plan to test this over a couple days next week running sample encounters at various levels with other players. Also to nitpick: spells wouldn't be resisted, so the HP multiplier would be less than two.



#2 If they need magic items whats the wealth by level equivalent for this? At what level should a fighter get a magic weapon. How often should the wizard find scrolls of arcane magic.
This is stuff the DM book needs to explain. But the DM book isn't going to be out for a while and the basic rules don't answer the question at all.


Your results from my #1 should help in assessing this.



Also there is a big difference between magic items not having a set price, and not being purchasable by cash. Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of mundane non magical things worth more than a +1 sword.
A Kingdom
A large Metropolis (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-z9qWIKmiQ)
The Black Pearl (Pre Aztec Zombie Edition - Not Magical)
A small army + operation funds
Your own life
The employment of a group of master artisans for a year
ONE MILLION DOLLARS! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJR1H5tf5wE)
The services of a skilled assassin rogue (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGjMjFNhFrg) (WARNING THOSE SERVICES ARE UNPLEASANT)
A bucket of water in the right place at the right time (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7GJcKuVGm8)

My point is that it would be possible to trade magic items even if prices aren't set in stone.


Sure, there's always an offer you can't refuse. But that's REALLY circumstantial, and if the price of items is intended to float by your desired levels of lethality, epic, and Monty Haul there's just no way Mearls et al could possibly write comprehensive guidelines without using (at best) a 3D graph.



On another note I can understand why players can't make magic items anymore. My general plan for dealing with it as a DM is allowing characters with the requisite knowledge and crafting skills to do little side quests for macguffins required to make things.

With the scarcity of items in the default rules, all I'd say is MAKE THEM BLEED BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

<ahem>

I mean, let us know how that works!

[Sidmen]

This all depends on your setting and how much magical gear you want lying about the place. But I'll share with you the guidelines given in the last playtest packet.

Common Magic items should start appearing at a minimum level of 2 (i.e. not at level 1, possibly later) and cost 50-100gp

Uncommon magic items should start appearing at level 3 and later, with a value between 100-500gp

Rare magic items shouldn't appear until at least level 5 and have a value between 500 and 5,000gp

Using this information you should be able to decide how much you want to charge for specific magic items if your players decide to sell them, or if they find someone willing to sell one to them. You can also use it to calibrate how much magical stuff to give to your various players - if the fighter got a Rare sword, you'll want to give the other players an opportunity for 1-3 uncommon items (or a rare) before giving treasure to him again.

[Occasional Sage]

This all depends on your setting and how much magical gear you want lying about the place. But I'll share with you the guidelines given in the last playtest packet.

Common Magic items should start appearing at a minimum level of 2 (i.e. not at level 1, possibly later) and cost 50-100gp

Uncommon magic items should start appearing at level 3 and later, with a value between 100-500gp

Rare magic items shouldn't appear until at least level 5 and have a value between 500 and 5,000gp

Using this information you should be able to decide how much you want to charge for specific magic items if your players decide to sell them, or if they find someone willing to sell one to them. You can also use it to calibrate how much magical stuff to give to your various players - if the fighter got a Rare sword, you'll want to give the other players an opportunity for 1-3 uncommon items (or a rare) before giving treasure to him again.

And what makes an item Common, Uncommon, or Rare, apart from the color of the expansion seal?

[Sidmen]

And what makes an item Common, Uncommon, or Rare, apart from the color of the expansion seal?

No idea what you're on about with the expansion seal bit, I'm presuming it's some joke that flew way over my head.

But I've been going by the logic that the rarer a magic item is, the more potent it is and the more magic it takes to create it.

Also, all the magic items in the DM Basic Rules document are labeled as Common, Uncommon, Rare (and beyond). In the playtest +1 gear was uncommon/rare (weapon/armor).

Oh, and the minimum level increased by 2 for each tier above Rare - and the price continued to explode upward.

[Occasional Sage]

No idea what you're on about with the expansion seal bit, I'm presuming it's some joke that flew way over my head.


Magic: the Gathering prints the logo of each set on the face of the card, color-coded by rarity. Being from the same company, the comparison was unavoidable.

Now that you mention it, I remember seeing rarities marked on items. Now they make sense!

[Sidmen]

Magic: the Gathering prints the logo of each set on the face of the card, color-coded by rarity. Being from the same company, the comparison was unavoidable.

Now that you mention it, I remember seeing rarities marked on items. Now they make sense!
Ah, that would do it. I never got into Magic. My card playing/collecting days ended in High School with Yu-Gi-Oh! and Poke'mon.

[rlc]

#1 Do characters need magic items to be appropriately powerful for their level?
For example monsters with resistance to mundane attacks have effectively double the hitpoints against mundanes without magic weapons.
As with most things, the answer to this question is "it depends." Magic items aren't necessarily needed, but we already know about a few monsters that you will pretty much need magic items to kill effectively.

#2 If they need magic items whats the wealth by level equivalent for this? At what level should a fighter get a magic weapon. How often should the wizard find scrolls of arcane magic.
This is stuff the DM book needs to explain. But the DM book isn't going to be out for a while and the basic rules don't answer the question at all. There isn't a wealth by level system, but I believe the current lowest level at which you get a magic item in any of the currently published adventures is either 3 or 4.


Also there is a big difference between magic items not having a set price, and not being purchasable by cash. Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of mundane non magical things worth more than a +1 sword.
You always have the option of making them purchaseable.

Also to nitpick: spells wouldn't be resisted, so the HP multiplier would be less than two.

To nitpick your nitpick: he specifically said "mundanes."
Then again, there's also the tarrasque.

[Yorrin]

I'd just like to contribute the fact that many classes have ways for their attacks to be treated as magical, so those non-magical-resistant monsters are even less of a problem. (e.g. Warlock's Pact Blade, Shillelagh, Paladin with Sacred Weapon, etc)

[Logosloki]

The only common magic item I know of is in the horde of the dragon queen supplement and that is the potion of healing (2d4+2 hp). I think that is budgeted at 50gp.

[Fwiffo86]

All the requirements are already in the game. You do not need magic items to tangle with any creature presently listed.

ex) The game assumes 4 players, not 1. It is logical that if the melee need a magic weapon, a caster can cast "Magic Weapon" on them for that purpose, or other spells of this nature.

[Theodoxus]

Regarding #2 - I can state explicitly that no, characters do not need magical items to remain competitive. Between Bounded Accuracy and creatures designed with it in mind, adding magic items actually tends to break things in favor of the players.

Last night, I ran through a labrynth as a level 3 battle master in +1 plate with a shield and Defensive fighting style. A 22 AC. Going against orcs and ogres. I got hit once. I used Second Wind and came out unscathed. Our rogue has a +2 short bow and never missed a shot.


Fortunately, we're all just playing around with character concepts and how the game plays as the GM is relearning as well. His comment after the session was 'wow, I think I broke it with the magic toys. We'll do a hard reset in a few weeks and I'll tone it down.'

TBH, I'm appreciative of his stance. We rolled stats, have all options open and high wealth/magic... it's actually a bit boring. Hoping to convince him to use PB or at least roll but cap at 15 at creation.

[Snails]

5e is more flexible in terms of wealth than previous editions. 5e damage resistance allows the PCs to hurt monsters consistently, even if more slowly; therefore, the DM can fudge the encounter design more easily.

Bounded accuracy also helps.

[LtDarien]

The only common magic item I know of is in the horde of the dragon queen supplement and that is the potion of healing (2d4+2 hp). I think that is budgeted at 50gp.

Which is listed in the PHB equipment chapter, as well. Making it the only readily purchasable magic item.

[INDYSTAR188]

Regarding #2 - I can state explicitly that no, characters do not need magical items to remain competitive. Between Bounded Accuracy and creatures designed with it in mind, adding magic items actually tends to break things in favor of the players.

Last night, I ran through a labrynth as a level 3 battle master in +1 plate with a shield and Defensive fighting style. A 22 AC. Going against orcs and ogres. I got hit once. I used Second Wind and came out unscathed. Our rogue has a +2 short bow and never missed a shot.


Fortunately, we're all just playing around with character concepts and how the game plays as the GM is relearning as well. His comment after the session was 'wow, I think I broke it with the magic toys. We'll do a hard reset in a few weeks and I'll tone it down.'

TBH, I'm appreciative of his stance. We rolled stats, have all options open and high wealth/magic... it's actually a bit boring. Hoping to convince him to use PB or at least roll but cap at 15 at creation.

I ran a session with the basic rule's and gave the players a 4d6, reroll 1's and 2's, three times and pick the best array. It was a terrible idea very similar to what you're describing. I also started them at level 3 because they're seasoned gamers. I'm planning on running the HotDQ module and will let them roll 4d6, reroll 1's or taking an array of 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10.

I'm kind of worried about magic items in general because my players will want them but some seem very strong. Does anyone else think the 'Wand of Winter' from HotDQ looks powerful and awesome?

[Madfellow]

As others have stated, Next is balanced under the assumption that the party will not have any magic items at all. Any magic items given to the players will give them a permanent bump up in terms of power. Against monsters that are resistant to non-magical weapons, the players have a number of ways of getting magical attacks without needing a +1 sword; the Magic Weapon spell, the Shillelagh spell, the druid's Wild Shape, the monk's magical fists, the paladin's Magic Weapon, and the warlock's Pact Blade all provide this.

In the later playtest packets, they provided some guidelines for magic items. They're divided into six levels of rarity:
Common (potions and scrolls); the party starts finding these at level 2, and they go for 50-100gp.
Uncommon (+1 weapons and armor); start finding them at level 3, go for 100-500gp.
Rare (staves, wands, rings, wonders); start finding them at level 5, go for 500-5,000gp.
Very Rare (+2 weapons and armor); start finding them at level 7, go for 5,000-10,000gp.
Legendary (more powerful staves, wands, rings, wonders); start finding them at level 9, go for 10,000-50,000gp.
Artifacts (+3 weapons and armor, and basically anything that warps the fabric of reality); start finding them at level 11, go for 50,000+gp.

If it were me, though, I'd make the level progression slower, so they don't start finding artifacts until really high level. Hope this helps.

[Theodoxus]

Wand of Winter is pretty sweet. I like the wand and staff recharge mechanics. If the character isn't conservative, it will eventually disappear.

Personally, I think consumables (even cautionary ones, like a wand) are the way to go. Oils for magic weapons and armor instead of a constant bonus - you slap it on before the big fight, but it's not gonna help you mow down mooks. Limiting bonuses to a max of +1 per 'tier', starting at 5th (so 1st - 4th, you don't need to have all the players decked in +1 weapons and armor - maybe 1 or 2 items at most).

The thing I really look forward to is introducing magic items as the rarity they are - hunting dungeons for an elusive +2 weapon that has history behind it, guarded by some ancient automaton or undead ghoulie. Lore rolls to even start tracking down the rumors of it. The players really working on getting it. Not something they'll simply toss aside when something better comes along. And until then, using relatively cheap consumables... do you hold on to them, in dire hope you'll really need them, or do you blow through them to help speed up the dungeoncrawling... fun decisions.

[INDYSTAR188]

As others have stated, Next is balanced under the assumption that the party will not have any magic items at all. Any magic items given to the players will give them a permanent bump up in terms of power. Against monsters that are resistant to non-magical weapons, the players have a number of ways of getting magical attacks without needing a +1 sword; the Magic Weapon spell, the Shillelagh spell, the druid's Wild Shape, the monk's magical fists, the paladin's Magic Weapon, and the warlock's Pact Blade all provide this.

In the later playtest packets, they provided some guidelines for magic items. They're divided into six levels of rarity:
Common (potions and scrolls); the party starts finding these at level 2, and they go for 50-100gp.
Uncommon (+1 weapons and armor); start finding them at level 3, go for 100-500gp.
Rare (staves, wands, rings, wonders); start finding them at level 5, go for 500-5,000gp.
Very Rare (+2 weapons and armor); start finding them at level 7, go for 5,000-10,000gp.
Legendary (more powerful staves, wands, rings, wonders); start finding them at level 9, go for 10,000-50,000gp.
Artifacts (+3 weapons and armor, and basically anything that warps the fabric of reality); start finding them at level 11, go for 50,000+gp.

If it were me, though, I'd make the level progression slower, so they don't start finding artifacts until really high level. Hope this helps.

This is actually very helpful! I am seriously considering eliminating Uncommon and Very Rare items and using them as a chassis to make Rare and Legendary ones. For instance I might take a +1 sword and make it something with a backstory and other properties. I think this could help the game keep the 'special' feel to magic items (hopefully).


Wand of Winter is pretty sweet. I like the wand and staff recharge mechanics. If the character isn't conservative, it will eventually disappear.

Personally, I think consumables (even cautionary ones, like a wand) are the way to go. Oils for magic weapons and armor instead of a constant bonus - you slap it on before the big fight, but it's not gonna help you mow down mooks. Limiting bonuses to a max of +1 per 'tier', starting at 5th (so 1st - 4th, you don't need to have all the players decked in +1 weapons and armor - maybe 1 or 2 items at most).

I agree. I really like the 'recharge' mechanic and think that might be a good basis for lots of magic weapons. I hadn't considered oils and other consumables to coat weapons. That seems like a fun, good idea that can be utilized early to assist players.

[Daishain]

what I have seen of the crafting system worries me greatly, and suspect that the magic item portion will be even worse.

Crafters are still limited to a GP per day production rate, which was unrealistic to begin with. But it has been cranked WAYYY down to 5 GP per day.

Because of it, a single suit of platemail, with no ornamentation or bonuses whatsoever, would take 300 days to complete. Bloody ridiculous. A year's worth of even a novice blacksmith's time is simultaneously far more valuable and far more productive.

[Fwiffo86]

what I have seen of the crafting system worries me greatly, and suspect that the magic item portion will be even worse.

Crafters are still limited to a GP per day production rate, which was unrealistic to begin with. But it has been cranked WAYYY down to 5 GP per day.

Because of it, a single suit of platemail, with no ornamentation or bonuses whatsoever, would take 300 days to complete. Bloody ridiculous. A year's worth of even a novice blacksmith's time is simultaneously far more valuable and far more productive.

Here is a quote from the article linked below.

From what I have seen of high level modern armorers who specialize in medieval armor, it takes approximately 1100 man hours to create a quality suit of armor. This is an extremely large amount of time and equates to one skilled worker spending 50 hours per week for about five months. This means a workshop of four could conceivably push out a finished suit of custom armor in little over a month assuming their techniques and time constraints were similar to today's master craftsmen.

I am not saying this is accurate, but I have been to Ren Fairs and seen and spoken with armorers that say they have been working on one suit of full plate for well over a year. 1100/8 hrs per day = 137.5 days. But then I have to remember this is time for modern armorers to create one. I would double or triple the craft time for medieval armorers. With that in mind, 300 per day is a bargain. And that's the armorer doing nothing but making your armor.

Here is the site with the full article:
http://arthursarmory.com/medieval-blog/medieval-armor-making/

[Theodoxus]

what I have seen of the crafting system worries me greatly, and suspect that the magic item portion will be even worse.

Crafters are still limited to a GP per day production rate, which was unrealistic to begin with. But it has been cranked WAYYY down to 5 GP per day.

Because of it, a single suit of platemail, with no ornamentation or bonuses whatsoever, would take 300 days to complete. Bloody ridiculous. A year's worth of even a novice blacksmith's time is simultaneously far more valuable and far more productive.

If the prices Madfellow quoted from the playtest are remotely close to what they'll be in the DMG, then it's not so bad. If you're thinking 3.x pricing, then yeah, 2000gp enchantment for a +1 sword would take 400 days. But if instead, the enchantment is 50gp, then you're looking at 10 days to enchant... and that's IF magic crafting follows mundane... and it's reasonable to expect that it won't.

[Pex]

I do want PCs to be able to create magic items. It doesn't have to be so easily done as in 3E but neither should it be punishing don't even bother we're not outright forbidding it but you will wish you were never born for trying as in 2E.

Need to be at least a certain level - ok so long as it's in the realm of way before the campaign ends presuming full campaign of levels 1 to 20.

Need to have particular components, i.e. dragon horn, beholder eyeball stalk, vampire dust - ok if as above PCs can expect to be able to get the items in the realm of way before the campaign ends.

Lose a level - No way

Lose an ability score point - No way

Lose max hit points - No way

Limited number of items you can create, such as utilizing the idea of attunement that was discussed during playtest - ok.

Non-spellcasters can create items related to their field, such as fighters creating a magic sword or armor - Way ok.

Needing to take a feat - ok, but option is needed for campaigns that don't use feats.

Need a 20 in an ability score - ok, also ok alternative for campaigns that don't use feats.

[Daishain]

If the prices Madfellow quoted from the playtest are remotely close to what they'll be in the DMG, then it's not so bad. If you're thinking 3.x pricing, then yeah, 2000gp enchantment for a +1 sword would take 400 days. But if instead, the enchantment is 50gp, then you're looking at 10 days to enchant... and that's IF magic crafting follows mundane... and it's reasonable to expect that it won't.

That seems unlikely, given that the designers are deliberately going out of their way to make this edition (relatively) low on magic and magic items in general.

If that is the goal, I would approach it by making mundane items easy to make, but even the simplest enchantments quite expensive and time consuming.

Instead, they've started out by making the mundane items, the things they presumably want you to be relying on even more than in previous editions, far more difficult to make than in previous versions. (I checked, the mundane equipment still costs about the same as 3.x) Turning around and then making the enchantments really easy would make no sense at all.

[Snails]

If it is harder to acquire mundane full plate than +1 leather, that really skews the AC curve in a bad way. Level 1 tanks presumably do not have the best armor, but it should not be difficult to acquire by level 3 sometime.

So a +1 should have a cost equivalent to 1000 gp or more. By equivalent, I mean similar in difficulty overall, in terms of time invested and effort, not necessarily including only lucre.

[Theodoxus]

Eh, it's all just talking out our butts until the DMG comes out - or something is leaked or released early.

I wouldn't worry about it too terribly - figure out what works for your games in the interim (using the various things discussed here as a starting point) and if it ruins the economy or empowers the players too much - rein it back.

[Forum Explorer]

what I have seen of the crafting system worries me greatly, and suspect that the magic item portion will be even worse.

Crafters are still limited to a GP per day production rate, which was unrealistic to begin with. But it has been cranked WAYYY down to 5 GP per day.

Because of it, a single suit of platemail, with no ornamentation or bonuses whatsoever, would take 300 days to complete. Bloody ridiculous. A year's worth of even a novice blacksmith's time is simultaneously far more valuable and far more productive.

That's realistic, not unrealistic. Quality takes a lot of time. It's like the saying goes. You can have it cheap, fast, or good. Pick two.

Anyways, I'm expecting magic items to have a hard limit to how many you can actually make. Perhaps something like 1 every 5 levels. Or will just take a really long time to do. Or both.

[Slipperychicken]

I still think magic item crafting, prices, and WBL are going to be included as "variant rules" in the DMG. That way, if a DM doesn't want magic marts, he can just disallow the "Magic Mart" variant rules. Or if he doesn't like WBL, he can disallow that too.

[Sidmen]

If it is harder to acquire mundane full plate than +1 leather, that really skews the AC curve in a bad way. Level 1 tanks presumably do not have the best armor, but it should not be difficult to acquire by level 3 sometime.

So a +1 should have a cost equivalent to 1000 gp or more. By equivalent, I mean similar in difficulty overall, in terms of time invested and effort, not necessarily including only lucre.
+1 leather is a Rare magic item, with a cost ranging somewhere in the 500-5,000 gp range (using the above posted guides from the playtest). At the same time, +1 Full Plate also costs 500-5,000 gp.

Neither should be expected to be for sale very often - if ever. Its a bit like finding a Van Gogh on sale - sure it might happen, but when it does it's a special event. And even then, you'll only start seeing them after you hit level 5.

[Slipperychicken]

+1 leather is a Rare magic item, with a cost ranging somewhere in the 500-5,000 gp range (using the above posted guides from the playtest). At the same time, +1 Full Plate also costs 500-5,000 gp.

No, it would be "Uncommon", with a value of 100-500gp, and you get them around level 3.



Uncommon (+1 weapons and armor); start finding them at level 3, go for 100-500gp.

[VoxRationis]

I for one am glad that the PHB had a line about not being able to just buy magical items in a store somewhere. I was tired of magical wands being no harder to acquire than a pack of batteries.

[Eslin]

I for one am glad that the PHB had a line about not being able to just buy magical items in a store somewhere. I was tired of magical wands being no harder to acquire than a pack of batteries.

But they should be easy to acquire. Wands and scrolls are limited use tools, their proliferation makes a lot of sense.

[Envyus]

No, it would be "Uncommon", with a value of 100-500gp, and you get them around level 3.

Nope. Take a look at the part from the Hotdq supplement.


+1 Armor
Armor (any), rare
While you wear this armor, you have a +1 bonus to AC.

+1 Weapon
Weapon (any), uncommon
You have a +1 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls for
attacks you make with this magic weapon.

Armor is rare.

[Steel Mirror]

But they should be easy to acquire. Wands and scrolls are limited use tools, their proliferation makes a lot of sense.For some campaigns, perhaps. I for one noticed a marked increase in the availability of wands and other expendable once 4E came out, even in a 3.P game that started before the release and continued well after. It was, IMO a shift in how people viewed such items in the community, brought about by the edition change. I'm curious to see how 5E will affect those same assumptions.

I'm also interested to see that they seem to have brought down the price of spellcasting services in 5E, and made finding them easier (PHB 159). I sort of like that finding a wand or a magical sword might be rarer, but going out and hiring low level magical services in town is much easier to make up for it. It hopefully leads to a bit more baked-in world building and RP, and a bit less christmas list magic hoarding, but we'll see how it goes.

[pwykersotz]

But they should be easy to acquire. Wands and scrolls are limited use tools, their proliferation makes a lot of sense.

Wands aren't limited use anymore. They recharge. Unless you overtax them.

[Cambrian]

It appears to be expected that PCs should have some access to magical weapons to handle resistance at higher levels. When exactly they should get such items is very much debatable-- if I was playing a weapon dependent character I'd most likely be upset if I didn't have one by level 8-10 (as it would by then often start to cap my character's ability to contribute meaningfully).

While they might be desirable to include, it appeared that magical armors or other items are not necessary for the edition to function (like cloaks of resistance, and progressively better armor was in 3rd/4th).

I am considering designing magical charms that grant advantage on a single saving throw each day and handing them out relatively early. Bad saves don't really improve in this edition and these seem to be good options to helping PCs survive.

---

As far as DMs looking at the item creation rules, and the time to craft them: consider allowing PCs to craft them in less time by:

1) Requiring elaborate rituals.
2) Requiring exotic materials.
3) Requiring the item to be crafted in remote locations.
4) Requiring special tools to complete the process.

Also consider that these might make the process more (or less) expensive as the situation demands. For the players it's an accomplishment and gives such items a weight of importance (assuming it's not an easy process) while still allowing easier item creation limitations.

[Beleriphon]

1) Requiring elaborate rituals.
2) Requiring exotic materials.
3) Requiring the item to be crafted in remote locations.
4) Requiring special tools to complete the process.

Also consider that these might make the process more (or less) expensive as the situation demands. For the players it's an accomplishment and gives such items a weight of importance (assuming it's not an easy process) while still allowing easier item creation limitations.

So that ring of invisibility requires you to invest part of your soul in the thing with fancy hammers while doing some wacky voodoo over a volcano. Awesome. :smallbiggrin:

[VoxRationis]

I've only seen the PHB for Fifth edition, so please go easy on me:
Why is a +3 weapon considered an artifact, or on par with "anything which warps the fabric of reality"?

[Hytheter]

Wands aren't limited use anymore. They recharge. Unless you overtax them.

Where are the rules for wands? I can't find it in the PHB.

[pwykersotz]

Where are the rules for wands? I can't find it in the PHB.

In the Lost Mines of Phandelver Starter Set.

[Cambrian]

I've only seen the PHB for Fifth edition, so please go easy on me:
Why is a +3 weapon considered an artifact, or on par with "anything which warps the fabric of reality"?With bounded accuracy the +3 bonus on a weapon is equivalent to 12 levels of advancement. Roughly comparing 3.5 the to hit portion would be more like a +10 modifier.

Keep in mind an Ancient Red Dragon, an encounter dangerous for a party of level 20 adventurers, has an AC of only 22. So the scaling in 5th is very much reduced on all axes (saves/skills vs DCs, to hit vs AC, etc...) with the exception of damage and hp.

[VoxRationis]

At the expense of showcasing my ignorance, what's Bounded Accuracy? I haven't had time to closely examine the whole PHB, as it was only accessible to me for a week.

[Cambrian]

At the expense of showcasing my ignorance, what's Bounded Accuracy? I haven't had time to closely examine the whole PHB, as it was only accessible to me for a week.Bounded accuracy is the removal (or for many values a reduction) in the scaling of values by level.

For example in 3.5 a creatures AC increased by ~1 with every increase in CR. This means to hit a creature of an appropriate level your to hit bonus has to increase by a proportional amount (~1). If your to hit scales too fast the creatures become more easy to hit, too slow and they become progressively harder to hit.

In 5th Edition the "to hit" bonus does not increase (drastically) with character level, nor AC with monster CR. This means any magical bonus on a weapon will have a major impact on a character's accuracy. It also means that although a low CR enemy remains easy to handle, in large enough of groups they can still threaten PCs of a higher level significantly longer than in previous editions.

Damage in 5th remains more or less the same, climbing with level/CR.

[pwykersotz]

At the expense of showcasing my ignorance, what's Bounded Accuracy? I haven't had time to closely examine the whole PHB, as it was only accessible to me for a week.

And in addition to Cambrian's info, here's (http://archive.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604) the original Legends and Lore post on Bounded Accuracy.

[VoxRationis]

So it's a metagame thing, not an actual class feature. I feel as though my ignorance is more acceptable now. Okay. Thank you for explaining that to me.

[Cambrian]

So it's a metagame thing, not an actual class feature. I feel as though my ignorance is more acceptable now. Okay. Thank you for explaining that to me.Not sure metagame is the right term; but, yes it is not referenced in the game mechanics and knowing the terminology, or even why it was implemented, is completely unnecessary to play the game.

It is a philosophy/approach to designing the system. Essentially when designing the rules they made sure to restrict growth. The alternate model to bounded accuracy is what should be familiar in the previous two editions and in MMO style games-- essentially number creep. As you level, you get more powerful-- but then your enemies too grow in strength. For any given check as you level there are three ways for such a system to function:


1) On the given roll your modifier does not keep pace with the rising target number (DC or AC) and you become increasingly incompetent on such rolls.

2) On the given roll your modifier out-paces the rising target number (DC or AC) and such rolls become increasingly trivial.

3) On the given roll your modifier keeps pace with the target number (DC or AC) and you do a lot of book keeping for no net improvement.

Number 3 is generally what is seen in evolutionary arms races- as a cheetah develops better physical traits and instincts for catching gazelles the gazelles develop better physical traits and instincts for avoiding cheetahs. Carol Lewis in his Wonderland sequel best summarizes such a situation:
"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!".

Bounded accuracy comes from looking at the possibilities above, identifies all three options as problematic, and replaces the scaling values (to hit/save/skill bonus vs AC/DC) with a(n almost) flat progression in all areas except with damage/HP. As a player or DM all that needs to be known is to avoid flat (and especially stacking) modifiers when creating new abilities and to keep numerical bonuses on magic items small.

[VoxRationis]

I must admit, I've never been very fond of the number arms race in certain RPGs, but ironically, the two places they kept them for 5e were the two I had the biggest problem with! I'm personally of the mind that a lucky hit from a low-level opponent should make a difference on its own, rather than be appreciable only in conjunction with dozens of similar strikes.

[Theodoxus]

I tend to agree - that Bounded Accuracy shouldn't have stopped before tackling Hit Points (and damage, as a corollary). The question then becomes, how to do keep the game from being rocket tag? First one to shoot wins - every time? That's not fun either.

At least with the way the games set up now, while your peasant isn't doing a lot of damage, they're probably hitting more often than not and contributing... death by a thousand cuts - it's not romantic, but far better than 100 peasants doing no damage because they never hit.

[Xetheral]

With bounded accuracy the +3 bonus on a weapon is equivalent to 12 levels of advancement. Roughly comparing 3.5 the to hit portion would be more like a +10 modifier.

I disagree. Bounded accuracy simply means that more monsters are in reach of the d20 Random Number Generator at the same time. Against "suitable" opponents (i.e. those with AC the players can reasonably hit), a +3 weapon provides the same 15-percentage-point increase (absent adv/disadv) in chance to hit in any edition.

The only place where a +3 weapon in 5e might be similar to a +10 weapon in 3.5e is the number of new monsters brought into range of the d20, but this is a tool for the DM (allowing more monster choice at a given level) rather than a mechanical benefit to the character.

The "worth" of a +1 bonus may be higher in 5e because such bonuses are rarer, but the mechanical benefit of a +1 bonus is identical in all editions against suitable opponents.


Why is a +3 weapon considered an artifact, or on par with "anything which warps the fabric of reality"?

Personally, I think reality-warping is never going to plausibly be on-par with a 15-percentage-point increase to hit chance for a single character, no matter how rare such bonuses are.

[TheOOB]

Just a side note, in Hoard of the Dragon Queen the characters are lucky to all have one good relevant non consumable magic item a piece by the end, as most of the items are missable. Magic items are a nice boost, but should never be a majority of a characters power.

[Cambrian]

I must admit, I've never been very fond of the number arms race in certain RPGs, but ironically, the two places they kept them for 5e were the two I had the biggest problem with! I'm personally of the mind that a lucky hit from a low-level opponent should make a difference on its own, rather than be appreciable only in conjunction with dozens of similar strikes.I don't believe the intent was to ever remove the growth of power. Instead they just reevaluated the model of multiple scaling systems and drastically reduced all but one scale.

It has the great advantage of giving players the feeling of growth as the slower rate at which they outgrow enemies allows them to feel the change. They can watch as a couple orcs, becomes a few, and then eventually a dozen (not to mention mixed encounters). Every step of the way the encounters have to be taken seriously. But still the orcs individually are out grown.

If you wanted you could always just play a low level campaign. By awarding levels more slowly (I don't bother with experience) you could draw it out as long as you needed to, and could just have the campaign conclude before it approached high level.


The only place where a +3 weapon in 5e might be similar to a +10 weapon in 3.5e is the number of new monsters brought into range of the d20, but this is a tool for the DM (allowing more monster choice at a given level) rather than a mechanical benefit to the character.

The "worth" of a +1 bonus may be higher in 5e because such bonuses are rarer, but the mechanical benefit of a +1 bonus is identical in all editions against suitable opponents.As you mentioned the relative bonus of a +3 (or greater since additional effects appear to be encouraged) item is significantly greater in this edition. If a character received an appropriate +3 weapon at the same level in 5th as they would in 3rd it would have a noticeable game warping effect. It would not necessarily be terrible, and there might be a legitimate plot reason to do so. But there would be a more significant change because of how rare such bonuses are and how significant such a bonus would be based on how creatures are designed. The bonus has the same mathematical effect, but the creatures for this edition are balanced so differently that the significance of a +3 modifier is large.

While less significant, damage has also scaled down (compared to 3rd at least). So even though damage Scales, even a small damage increase adds up for greater than expected output. If you do chose to hand out powerful items early (not necessarily bad) then also expect encounters to be less challenging than the XP budget would suggest. And if you're using XP as listed, expect characters to level quickly.


Personally, I think reality-warping is never going to plausibly be on-par with a 15-percentage-point increase to hit chance for a single character, no matter how rare such bonuses are.A +3 item alone is very boring; powerful, but very boring... I don't expect any +3 items to not also include other abilities and traits that help it feel like an artifact. These things should have a history and be part of the world's story.

[Snails]

I must admit, I've never been very fond of the number arms race in certain RPGs, but ironically, the two places they kept them for 5e were the two I had the biggest problem with! I'm personally of the mind that a lucky hit from a low-level opponent should make a difference on its own, rather than be appreciable only in conjunction with dozens of similar strikes.

Well, you have to answer the question of what kinds of scaling up is the natural result of progress. D&D has always clearly chosen a model where heroes were expected to eventually be able to stomp 20 or 100 normal soldier singlehandedly. If you do not like that, you need to keep the PC hit dice down to 2 or 3 at the most.

[Snails]

It has the great advantage of giving players the feeling of growth as the slower rate at which they outgrow enemies allows them to feel the change. They can watch as a couple orcs, becomes a few, and then eventually a dozen (not to mention mixed encounters). Every step of the way the encounters have to be taken seriously. But still the orcs individually are out grown.

The main advantage is it is easier on the DM.

As monsters scale up, certain dials get tweaked (HP, AC, To Hit, Damage, Saves, Special Attacks, Special Defenses). In pre-5e, all the dials get tweaked a lot. Since the effect of upward shifts were often multiplicative, it proved difficult on the DM to make changes on the fly, because tweaking just one dial was often not enough. In 5e, the DM can more easily just increase the number of monsters or fudge one dial.

[Madfellow]

A +3 item alone is very boring; powerful, but very boring... I don't expect any +3 items to not also include other abilities and traits that help it feel like an artifact. These things should have a history and be part of the world's story.

Yeah, I probably should have clarified that in my post. In the playtest packets, a +3 sword is never JUST a +3 sword. The two examples that spring to my mind are the Holy Avenger, which causes Archdemons to cower in terror, and the Vorpal Sword, which has a chance to instantly kill any foe regardless of hit points if you score a critical hit.

There are countless possibilities besides these.

[SiuiS]

I ran a session with the basic rule's and gave the players a 4d6, reroll 1's and 2's, three times and pick the best array. It was a terrible idea very similar to what you're describing. I also started them at level 3 because they're seasoned gamers. I'm planning on running the HotDQ module and will let them roll 4d6, reroll 1's or taking an array of 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 10.

I'm kind of worried about magic items in general because my players will want them but some seem very strong. Does anyone else think the 'Wand of Winter' from HotDQ looks powerful and awesome?

I did a breakdown once, of one of our DM's favorite rolling methods – 4d6k3, reroll 1s & 2s, roll seven stats keep six – and found that we actually came out weaker but with a lot more flavor by giving everyone a free +4 level adjustment and 75 points to split amongst attributes.

We had a half dragon draconic half dragon barbarian, a chaosite draconic fey-touched Lillend bard, a celestial saint, a winged phrenic something something monk, a Lloth touched magebres etc. Duskblade and a psychic warrior/fighter phrenic amberite and they were easier for the DM to handle than our usual tricked out wizards and clerics and stuff.

[Farner]

Personally I could never figure out why WotC (or other game companies) don't just expand the "Masterwork" item concept. :smallconfused:

Just because something is made out of "mithril" doesn't make it magic (having an aura, etc) but being able to forge such a substance would end up giving a bonus to hit an opponent and/or a bonus on damage against DR only, or otherwise defeat a particular type of resistance (e.g. Lycanthropes and silver).

Wands (or rings or staves, etc) could be "common" among magic users but tied to a particular wizard (e.g.) through the wizard's Wizard Mark on the item. As a wizard would I invest 15k gp and 10 weeks of my life making a Ring of Invisibility only to have some bully rob or thief yoink it from me and be able to use it? No!

There are a thousand and one ways to have magic be common yet not in the least mundane.

I think 5E has some approaches to this that are worth keeping but at the same time I think they are being too timid in their approach.

[Slipperychicken]

Personally I could never figure out why WotC (or other game companies) don't just expand the "Masterwork" item concept. :smallconfused:

Because muggles can't have nice things, that's why.

[Demonic Spoon]

Personally I could never figure out why WotC (or other game companies) don't just expand the "Masterwork" item concept

There are 2 possible explanations.

1. They explicitly tried to stay away from radical changes from earlier editions. There are a lot of sacred cows that they didn't want to step on - 5e was already going to cause lots of controversy due to the 4e and 3.x divide, they didn't want to go changing old paradigms too much

2. If you can get +attack or damage from commonly-available well-crafted weapons, then presumably you could have a magically-enchanted well-crafted weapon. It would be difficult to fit both magic and non-magic bonuses together on the same weapon without breaking bounded accuracy - note that the most powerful + you can get on a weapon currently is +3.


Furthermore, the DMG isn't out yet. I'm sure Mithril and other special materials will make a comeback in some way. They probably wont just be +attack and damage, though.


Wands (or rings or staves, etc) could be "common" among magic users but tied to a particular wizard (e.g.) through the wizard's Wizard Mark on the item. As a wizard would I invest 15k gp and 10 weeks of my life making a Ring of Invisibility only to have some bully rob or thief yoink it from me and be able to use it? No!


That's a terrible mechanic. Wizards are good enough without exclusive magic items. If this were to be a common thing, wizards would need to be balanced around having exclusive access to certain magic items and it most certainly is not.

[Fwiffo86]

There are a thousand and one ways to have magic be common yet not in the least mundane.



I like to think if its "magic" it by definition is not mundane. It is rare, special, and dangerous. But that is just my opinion.

"Hunny, where did you put my +5 Holy Avenger?"

"I threw it out, you have that +3 Mithril Demon Bane blade."

"But... nevermind, I'll just go buy a new one."

[Slipperychicken]

I like to think if its "magic" it by definition is not mundane. It is rare, special, and dangerous. But that is just my opinion.


"Beware my Dancing Lights cantrip! It is magic and therefore dangerous!"

[Fwiffo86]

"Beware my Dancing Lights cantrip! It is magic and therefore dangerous!"

Darn tootin it is. Summoning up arcane energies willy nilly. You'll likely call a demon, or the wrath of uninformed commoners who tie you to a post and light you on fire.

[Snails]

How special magic should be in your campaign is an unanswerable question. D&D was originally built on a body of tales/myths where heroes do gain magical stuff, but it was very very rare for "normal" folk. The designers are never going to tick off fans of this style in Core rules -- it is definitely sacred bovine territory.

Having wizards habitually make their items outright unusable by the PCs would feel like DM cheating to most players. Wizards who feel the need to plan for their defeat/demise should just stay out of the BBEG business in the first place.

[Farner]

How special magic should be in your campaign is an unanswerable question. D&D was originally built on a body of tales/myths where heroes do gain magical stuff, but it was very very rare for "normal" folk. The designers are never going to tick off fans of this style in Core rules -- it is definitely sacred bovine territory.

Having wizards habitually make their items outright unusable by the PCs would feel like DM cheating to most players. Wizards who feel the need to plan for their defeat/demise should just stay out of the BBEG business in the first place.

<sarcasm>Yeah, because there aren't any items only usable by certain classes in 1E. Oh wait, there were loads of them. LOL

But there weren't in 3.x. No, actually I can think of some there too as well as being restricted by Alignment. Hmm... LOL

And cursed items. PCs never ran into those while counting their loot after a dungeon haul. Oh wait, there was that too. Especially in 1E. LOL

Oh, and wizards never needed to plan for their defeat/demise with spells like Contingency or Expeditious Retreat. Oh wait again... LOL </sarcasm>

[MaxWilson]

ex) The game assumes 4 players, not 1. It is logical that if the melee need a magic weapon, a caster can cast "Magic Weapon" on them for that purpose, or other spells of this nature.

Another option is to have the mundane characters tank with Dodge actions in order to give the spellcasters more time to cast attack spells/cantrips at the werewolf/whatever. Doubling longevity is just as good as doubling damage normally, and if the mundanes are reduced to adding 50% to damage, then doubling longevity becomes superior.

I would suggest that creating a "magical economy" is lower priority than creating an ACTUAL economy. If you have a good sense for how much it costs to run a mansion/guild/town/kingdom and how much it costs to train/equip/feed a squad/company/battalion/army, you will have an easy time eyeballing appropriate costs for magic items because you'll intuitively understand the opportunity cost.

Maybe Duke Whatsisname covets the the Duskblade of Seantum (+2 dagger that gained its magic through being used by Seantum to treacherously assassinate his brother, the Chief Judge Seezoram) as a status symbol to make him look bad and cool--like a Ferrari. He may not have any particular skill at using it, and he might be better off with a regiment of foot-soldiers, but if you've got it he might be willing to pay you the equivalent of that regiment of foot-soldiers in cash (100,000 gp or so), although of course backstabbing you and just taking it is probably something that would tempt him too if he thought he could get away with it. Or maybe he can't afford a regiment of foot-soldiers but he could afford a squad (1000 gp), or he thinks he doesn't need to offer you the full value because you're just a commoner anyway and 1000 gp is a fortune to the likes of you and you should be grateful for the offer.

The upshot is that you have to define an economy in terms of things that are commonly traded. The foundation for many medieval economies was "price of a load of bread," which in 5E is 5cp. (The resistance to changing prices was so great that that in times of grain shortages, bakers would manipulate the size of a loaf instead of the price of a loaf.) People who can afford magic items probably don't think in terms of loaves of bread but there is probably some equivalent that you could use and should use, and I suggest armies and mansions.

[MaxWilson]

The main advantage is it is easier on the DM.

As monsters scale up, certain dials get tweaked (HP, AC, To Hit, Damage, Saves, Special Attacks, Special Defenses). In pre-5e, all the dials get tweaked a lot. Since the effect of upward shifts were often multiplicative, it proved difficult on the DM to make changes on the fly, because tweaking just one dial was often not enough. In 5e, the DM can more easily just increase the number of monsters or fudge one dial.

Pardon the curmudgeonliness, but when you say "pre-5e", do you just mean 4E and 3E? Because your generalization doesn't hold for 2nd edition, and may or may not hold for 1st (I wouldn't know). In particular, AC didn't necessarily change much as monster HD scaled up; and sometimes damage did not scale up either. Special attacks/defenses scaled up erratically; the best special abilities were not usually on the highest-HD chassis.