5e D&D economics = people must have been beaten stupid into a dark age

[darkrose50]

5e D&D economics = people must have been beaten stupid into a post-apocalyptic dark age

[1.0] It would seem that the default 5e D&D rules (especially the lack of economic rules) suggest a setting that is relatively primitive and post-apocalyptic compared to how it once was. Society must be crumbling, and people must be beaten stupid into a post-apocalyptic dark age. Trade routes are likely primitive, dangerous, filled with monsters, and filled with bandits of various races. People likely do not trade much. Education, economics, technology, and society have regressed.
[1.1] There is a lack of infrastructure to create, distribute, trade, buy or sell magical treasure. No agents, no collectors, no auction houses, and no shops. There are no individuals, or groups of wizards creating magical items for profit. There are no groups of people recovering old magical items to sell. No one is offering bounties on magical treasure.
[1.2] Magical treasure screams valuable and wanted. An economy not involving magic treasure where there exists such a thing as magical treasure is quite mindboggling. For magical items not to have an economic impact, at all, is quite telling. Either (a) the economic concepts are lacking or (b) the trade infrastructure to make a profitable magical item trade must be lacking. The economy must either be so primitive that people cannot figure a way to profit from magical treasure, or historic trade routes are crawling with apex predators making trade nigh impossible.
[1.3] Magical items are an advanced concept requiring a great deal of magical education, study, and practice. Society was once able to produce magical items, and was more advanced than it is now.
[1.4] Coins are used in the economy. This seems as if would be a somewhat advanced economic concept, and it is likely a holdover from an earlier pre-apocalypse age, and many are likely from bygone civilizations.

[2.0] Ruins are sporadically scattered in the wild that contain riches of old lost civilizations.
[2.1] Apex predators roam ruins, and are not kept in check by civilization.
[2.2] Coins made of precious metals may be recovered in the ruins. Coins can be used for trade.
[2.3] Magical items may be recovered in the ruins. However due to being beaten stupid into a post-apocalyptic dark age no one has figured out how to profit from the magical item trade.

[3.0] I am simulationist. It is my goal to have rules that are internally consistent with the setting. It would seem that the rules would not fit the Forgotten Realms setting.
[3.1] In reality players do not care that there are not people in a setting acting like people via buying and trading magic items. Somehow, for reasons that seem exceedingly paradoxical, people want D&D magical treasure not to be valued as treasure. This seems beyond odd to me.
[3.2] A retiring adventurer should have people constantly begging him to sell his magic sword to them. People should be envious and jealous over his magical sword. Nobles would be offering to trade the privilege to marry one of their daughters in exchange for a magic sword. People not caring about the magical sword makes them non-treasure, and causes the mystery of magic to evaporate.
[3.3] In effect magical swords are like pennies. They are fun to play with (causing them to spin about on a table or whatnot), but if you saw one on the street you would keep walking.
[3.3] No one wanting magical treasure causes magical treasure to cease being treasure.

[Zman]

There are a myriad of issues with your premises, and ultimately a much larger problem being that almost every fantasy setting has such problems when willing suspension of disbelief is abandoned and the simulationist setting you desire is imcompatible with a fantasy settings in general.

What we really need to know is what you hope to get out of his thread, or if it is just an exercise in rhetoric.

[darkrose50]

There are a myriad of issues with your premises, and ultimately a much larger problem being that almost every fantasy setting has such problems when willing suspension of disbelief is abandoned and the simulationist setting you desire is imcompatible with a fantasy settings in general.

What we really need to know is what you hope to get out of his thread, or if it is just an exercise in rhetoric.

I am board at work. Also it is a topic I find interesting.

[darkrose50]

I am board at work. Also it is a topic I find interesting.

I also think I may make this the premise of a campaign.

[darkrose50]

There are a myriad of issues with your premises, and ultimately a much larger problem being that almost every fantasy setting has such problems when willing suspension of disbelief is abandoned and the simulationist setting you desire is imcompatible with a fantasy settings in general.

What we really need to know is what you hope to get out of his thread, or if it is just an exercise in rhetoric.

One must admit that no one wanting magical treasure is paradoxical. Magical is normally seen as being something desirable. Treasure is normally seen as something that is desirable.

I find that the rules presenting the formula: magical + treasure = unwanted . . . debase the ideas of magic and treasure.

Hence either I will create (a) a world where such things are possible, and/or (b) rules for a magic item economy.

[Mr.Moron]

[1.0] It would seem that the default 5e D&D rules (especially the lack of economic rules) suggest a setting that is relatively primitive and post-apocalyptic compared to how it once was. Society must be crumbling, and people must be beaten stupid into a post-apocalyptic dark age. Trade routes are likely primitive, dangerous, filled with monsters, and filled with bandits of various races. People likely do not trade much. Education, economics, technology, and society have regressed.

We do not know this. The game is Dungeons & Dragons not Trade Routes & Time Tables. The game is about bands of heroes saving the day. Any view we get of prices, the economy, production & farming are by design loose and abstract at the most. They are only meant to facilitate telling stories about the adventures of heroes and shouldn't be taken as realistic view "RAW as physics" view of the games actual world



[1.1] There is a lack of infrastructure to create, distribute, trade, buy or sell magical treasure. No agents, no collectors, no auction houses, and no shops. There are no individuals, or groups of wizards creating magical items for profit.


Creation of magical items is by default a lost art, something no one can do any longer in a meaningful sense. Doesn't mean people out there aren't "Working on it" but for now it magic item creation just isn't a thing by default. There is no meaningful infrastructure to buy, trade or sell them because they're so rare. They can figure centerally in a game because by default D&D is about extraordinarily individuals doing extraordinary things. There's literally no stock out there to trade. Your average kingdom probably has 1-3 magic item locked in the national treasurey/used exclusively by the monarch. A large multi-continent empire might have a dozen magic items in the hands of it's most powerful individuals.




[1.2] Magical treasure screams valuable and wanted. An economy not involving magic treasure where there exists such a thing as magical treasure is quite mindboggling. For magical items not to have an economic impact, at all, is quite telling. Either (a) the economic concepts are lacking or (b) the trade infrastructure to make a profitable magical item trade must be lacking. The economy must either be so primitive that people cannot figure a way to profit from magical treasure, or historic trade routes are crawling with apex predators making trade nigh impossible.

See above. Magical items must be wanted, but there just aren't any to trade. Assuming of course NPCs can even use/attune to them. Something which the rules provide no insight on one way or another.


[1.3] Magical items are an advanced concept requiring a great deal of magical education, study, and practice. Society was once able to produce magical items, and was more advanced than it is now.

We don't know this. The game does not tell us the means by which magic items were produced, simply that we don't have it anymore. It's possible that socieity was more advanced and some kind of "Technology" was lost. However it's equally possible the mortal races once lived in harmony with magical spirits that gave them ability put magic into physical form and that 900 years the immensely powerful evil being (about to return ofc), destroyed almost all of them.



[1.4] Coins are used in the economy. This seems as if would be a somewhat advanced economic concept, and it is likely a holdover from an earlier pre-apocalypse age, and many are likely from bygone civilizations.
[2.0] Ruins are sporadically scattered in the wild that contain riches of old lost civilizations.
[2.1] Apex predators roam ruins, and are not kept in check by civilization.
[2.2] Coins made of precious metals may be recovered in the ruins. Coins can be used for trade.
[2.3] Magical items may be recovered in the ruins. However due to being beaten stupid into a post-apocalyptic dark age no one has figured out how to profit from the magical item trade.


These all might be interesting angles to take if we make take all your assumptions from above as true. Might make for a good setting but shouldn't be held up as default.


[3.0] I am simulationist. It is my goal to have rules that are internally consistent with the setting. It would seem that the rules would not fit the Forgotten Realms setting.


If you're a simulationist with an eye for encomics that wants the rules to be interally consistent under scrunity, with regards to economics stop playing D&D. Or at the very least head over to the homebrew forum and start working on the 100+ pages of material it would take to provide something like that adequetly.

Right now this is a bit like saying "I'm simulationist I want all the rules to be internally consistent. I really care about military logistics, here's my issues with Starcraft"

[Madeiner]

5e was created with the idea the the players cannot buy magic items like they could before.
This is an entirely game-based idea and the world tries to reflect that.

You can sell every magic item you want, probably for a lot of gold (or other things).
However, you cannot buy magic items: maybe they are so rare nobody wants to part with them, they are generally unavailable, etc.

With this system, magic items for players have value, but they can only be sold.
Even if you DO sell them for a million gp, not being able to buy more magic items with that gold makes for a more mechanically balanced game.
You still get to RP being rich, you just cannot influence the mechanical game much with gold anymore.
Which is really really good.

In 3.5, if the PCs raided the kingdom's treasury and got a million GP, they would buy a lot of magic items (note that the economy still didn't make any sense) and the mechanical balance would get destroyed. In order to provide a meaningful challenge, the GM would need to change every encounter.
In 5e, if you raid the same treasury and get a million GP, you can roleplay being rich and buying castles. Way, way easier for the DM and better from a mechanical balance standpoint.

[DanyBallon]

It's not that magical treasure are unwanted, it's just that they are so rare for the common folks (adventurer are not common folks), that people that get their hand on one don't want to sell it, nor they want everyone to know that they own one so they are not target of robbery.

Their would still be some person that would want to get their hand on particular magic items, and this could lead to an adventure (players are hired to find a mcguffin in a dungeon, or a rich merchant heard that the party have a magic item he wants and hire mercenary to rob the players...)

[Zman]

I suggest you rely on the baseline assumption that magic items are relics of bygone eras, are gifts from gods, extraordinarily difficult to create bordering on nigh impossible, or are created under very specific circumstances I plunging it through the heart of a greater demon. Also, assume magic items are so desired, and are highly coveted. They are dangerous and no one openly deals in magic items as that is a crazy, it risks their life. Letting someone know about a magic items you possess invites danger into your life, they are so covereted no magic item economy can exist and every such attempt is rife with danger.

Magic = Desired
Treasure = Desired

Magic x Treasure = Power

And we can make a correlated graph with Power vs Desire where Desire as correlates exponentially with danger.

[darkrose50]

Thank you for your replys. They were expecting a great deal more work tonight, but there is none, zip, zero, zilch

[1] Heroes can exist in worlds that are internally economically consistant. It does not need to be a central theme, just consitered.

[1.1] Having magical treasure not be valuable enough to warrant a bounty by a noble or the royal family is a paradox.

[1.2] There may not be any on the market at a given time. However someone finding magical treasure should be able to sell it. Event the king only having 1-3 items would be open to buying or trading one.

[3.0] One can want an internally consistant setting, enjoy economics, and play D&D.
One can muse about anything. It just so happens that people not acting like people destroy the internal consistancy of a setting. Either magical treasure is valued, or it is not. If it is valued, then people would buy, trade, steal, and sell it.

Treasure should be valuable and wanted. This should be an accepted concept.

[darkrose50]

5e was created with the idea the the players cannot buy magic items like they could before.
This is an entirely game-based idea and the world tries to reflect that.

You can sell every magic item you want, probably for a lot of gold (or other things).
However, you cannot buy magic items: maybe they are so rare nobody wants to part with them, they are generally unavailable, etc.

With this system, magic items for players have value, but they can only be sold.
Even if you DO sell them for a million gp, not being able to buy more magic items with that gold makes for a more mechanically balanced game.
You still get to RP being rich, you just cannot influence the mechanical game much with gold anymore.
Which is really really good.

In 3.5, if the PCs raided the kingdom's treasury and got a million GP, they would buy a lot of magic items (note that the economy still didn't make any sense) and the mechanical balance would get destroyed. In order to provide a meaningful challenge, the GM would need to change every encounter.
In 5e, if you raid the same treasury and get a million GP, you can roleplay being rich and buying castles. Way, way easier for the DM and better from a mechanical balance standpoint.

I did not enjoy 3.0, 3.5, or Pathfinders amount of magical items. I enjoy games with less magical items than those rules require. However removing rules for economics interacting with magical items is going to the extreme opposite end.

[Mr.Moron]

Thank you for your replys. They were expecting a great deal more work tonight, but there is none, zip, zero, zilch

[1] Heroes can exist in worlds that are internally economically consistant. It does not need to be a central theme, just consitered.

[1.1] Having magical treasure not be valuable enough to warrant a bounty by a noble or the royal family is a paradox.

[1.2] There may not be any on the market at a given time. However someone finding magical treasure should be able to sell it. Event the king only having 1-3 items would be open to buying or trading one.

[3.0] One can want an internally consistant setting, enjoy economics, and play D&D.
One can muse about anything. It just so happens that people not acting like people destroy the internal consistancy of a setting. Either magical treasure is valued, or it is not. If it is valued, then people would buy, trade, steal, and sell it.

Treasure should be valuable and wanted. This should be an accepted concept.

Exactly how much of market can spring up around a class of good for which:

A) Only 50 exist in the entire world.
B) 25 are currently held by the most powerful governments, with no intent of giving them up.
C) 10 of which are going to be found in the course of the games by the PCs, that hopefully better things to do.
D) The rest of will be discovered by NPCs at a maximum rate of about 1 every 250 years.


It's like complaining that RPG set in modern times doesn't have rules for the buying & selling of Hydrogen Bombs or Space Shuttles.

[Finieous]

Magic items, being magic, induce hoarding behavior. Dragons are most notorious for this behavior, and dwarves perhaps more prone to it than others, but no race is immune. A hobbit, for instance, his adventures long behind him, would never even think about selling his magic sword or ring of invisibility. Where magical treasure is concerned, even the strength of Men has been known to fail.

[darkrose50]

I suggest you rely on the baseline assumption that magic items are relics of bygone eras, are gifts from gods, extraordinarily difficult to create bordering on nigh impossible, or are created under very specific circumstances I plunging it through the heart of a greater demon. Also, assume magic items are so desired, and are highly coveted. They are dangerous and no one openly deals in magic items as that is a crazy, it risks their life. Letting someone know about a magic items you possess invites danger into your life, they are so covereted no magic item economy can exist and every such attempt is rife with danger.

Magic = Desired
Treasure = Desired

Magic x Treasure = Power

And we can make a correlated graph with Power vs Desire where Desire as correlates exponentially with danger.

In a feudalistic society the gentry, nobles, royals (depending on rarity in your world) would be buyers. As would merchant princes, powerful churches, and such. People engage in dangerous work for money all the time. There would be thrill seekers, and treasure hunters searching for such treasure.

[DanyBallon]

Why would a king or a noble want to buy your magic items, when they can either arrest you and take your items for free, or pay someone to steal them, or have you die in a helpless mission, they pick the magic items from your dead body?

This would lead the players to hide that they own a magic item

[darkrose50]

Exactly how much of market can spring up around a class of good for which:

A) Only 50 exist in the entire world.
B) 25 are currently held by the most powerful governments, with no intent of giving them up.
C) 10 of which are going to be found in the course of the games by the PCs, that hopefully better things to do.
D) The rest of will be discovered by NPCs at a maximum rate of about 1 every 250 years.


It's like complaining that RPG set in modern times doesn't have rules for the buying & selling of Hydrogen Bombs or Space Shuttles.

The random treasure generator disagrees. We are using a random treasure generator, and at third level a group of four have three magical items. I recall seeing a study on how likely magical items were to drop, and they are likely.

[Tanarii]

5e D&D economics = people must have been beaten stupid into a post-apocalyptic dark age

[1.0] It would seem that the default 5e D&D rules (especially the lack of economic rules) suggest a setting that is relatively primitive and post-apocalyptic compared to how it once was. Society must be crumbling, and people must be beaten stupid into a post-apocalyptic dark age. Trade routes are likely primitive, dangerous, filled with monsters, and filled with bandits of various races. People likely do not trade much. Education, economics, technology, and society have regressed.

[1.3] Magical items are an advanced concept requiring a great deal of magical education, study, and practice. Society was once able to produce magical items, and was more advanced than it is now.

[1.4] Coins are used in the economy. This seems as if would be a somewhat advanced economic concept, and it is likely a holdover from an earlier pre-apocalypse age, and many are likely from bygone civilizations.

[2.0] Ruins are sporadically scattered in the wild that contain riches of old lost civilizations.
[2.1] Apex predators roam ruins, and are not kept in check by civilization.This sounds almost exactly like pretty much ever D&D game I played in when I first started playing. Until I got into BECMI Gazateer & 1e OA, my D&D experience was all about ruin-filled, crumbling, ancient empires. Not that I'm complaining or anything. I loved it.

[darkrose50]

Why would a king or a noble want to buy your magic items, when they can either arrest you and take your items for free, or pay someone to steal them, or have you die in a helpless mission, they pick the magic items from your dead body?

This would lead the players to hide that they own a magic item

When one has power, one can use it. Money is a form of power that can be used. Also in a feudalistic society having a knight around that slew a dragon pledging fertility to you may just be the thing one needs not be murdered by some upstart.

[Kane0]

It doesn't stop at magic items either. Look at the cost of most things, then look at wages and expenditure, then look at the carousing downtime activity.

I've recently started a game where the DM wants to keep a close eye on our gold and even at level 3 we could comfortable retire and never have to worry about gold again (unless we want to be opulent).

[SharkForce]

Why would a king or a noble want to buy your magic items, when they can either arrest you and take your items for free, or pay someone to steal them, or have you die in a helpless mission, they pick the magic items from your dead body?

This would lead the players to hide that they own a magic item

because they just survived something that you couldn't have survived to get that magic item out of a monster-infested dungeon, and signs point to the fact that making an enemy for them is bad for your health. i mean, if it doesn't take someone exceptional to get the magic item in the first place, then why wouldn't those people be sending their minions to go get the magic item?

[joaber]

The problem that you can't buy or trade magic itens is when your PC want to use a uncommon weapon or something like that. I would like to use a whip in my character, I never saw someone dropping a magic whip. There only longswords, shortswords, axes, hammers, bows. Someone wizard could at least transfer the magic property to one item to another for a good price?

[DanyBallon]

When one has power, one can use it. Money is a form of power that can be used. Also in a feudalistic society having a knight around that slew a dragon pledging fertility to you may just be the thing one needs not be murdered by some upstart.

If there's one thine that history shown us, is that one with power, wants to keep it whatever the price. And as you said money is pawer as well, so why would a regent give a large lump of gold for a magic item, when this money could be used to raise an army that will challenge its authority? History shown us that when a person rise above its status, the power in place make sure to send him back wher he belongs, or six feet under.

[Mr.Moron]

The random treasure generator disagrees. We are using a random treasure generator, and at third level a group of four have three magical items. I recall seeing a study on how likely magical items were to drop, and they are likely.

The random treasure generator is not "What is likely contained in any given ruin". The random treasure generator is "What's likely contained in a ruin that's the focal point of an exciting heroic adventure".

When Bob the Farmer stumbles into a magic ruin he will usually just finds pottery and maybe a few rusted out old coins. This is because bob is a typical person, who typical things happen to and who isn't a PC that we follow around because his life is normal and boring.
When Bob the 11th level Paladin stumbles into a magic ruin, he has a decent chance of finding magic times. This is because bob is an extraordinary person, who extraordinary things happen to and who is PC that we follow around because his life is extraordinary an interesting.


Which is not to say that magic items pop into existence where PCs go. Rather if we sit at the end of all time with an omniscient view and look back across history:


Some people will have fought demons and found magic items in the ruins they visited
Some people never fought demons and spent their life as a peasant farmer.
Some people fought demons, but not to any extent that would be meaningful on the PC XP chart.
Some people found magic items, but not at rate consistent with what the rules imply.


Only people of category of "1" are those are classified as PCs and would have be controlled as players. The world doesn't change or act special in response to PCs, rather our view of the world is by genre convention strictly confined to those that have extraordinary experiences.

[weaseldust]

I don't understand where the idea that magic items can't be bought and sold came from. All we know is that they are not common enough to have a stable market price or to be reliably available from any particular agent or location. The same goes for, say, da Vinci's artwork - its existence and value is recognised and there is demand for it, but whether or not you can get any when you want it, and the price you'll have to pay if you can, are both up to chance.

EDIT: On the subject of magic items coming from ancient ruins, I tend to hold that it's being ensconced in ancient ruins for a thousand years that helps make them magical.

[darkrose50]

This sounds almost exactly like pretty much ever D&D game I played in when I first started playing. Until I got into BECMI Gazateer & 1e OA, my D&D experience was all about ruin-filled, crumbling, ancient empires. Not that I'm complaining or anything. I loved it.

I am working on a setting where there was an undead plague 101-years ago on humanities home island (basically England) that caused the survivors to flee to the coast for safety and seafood. The internal island has been reclaimed by nature, and apex predictors. Those undead that have remained intact tend to be either clever or powerful. The queen has ordered her lords to reclaim lands, seek treasure to fuel the reclamation, and offer bounties on magical items. The descendants of the survivors of the plague have a resistance to lycanthropy, and are much less likely to die from the transformation (home-brew rules with options for PC werewolves). The queen orders the unwanted dregs of society to be transformed into werewolves and flung at the dangers of the interior. This terrifies the other races.

[darkrose50]

The random treasure generator is not "What is likely contained in any given ruin". The random treasure generator is "What's likely contained in a ruin that's the focal point of an exciting heroic adventure".

When Bob the Farmer stumbles into a magic ruin he will usually just finds pottery and maybe a few rusted out old coins. This is because bob is a typical person, who typical things happen to and who isn't a PC that we follow around because his life is normal and boring.
When Bob the 11th level Paladin stumbles into a magic ruin, he has a decent chance of finding magic times. This is because bob is an extraordinary person, who extraordinary things happen to and who is PC that we follow around because his life is extraordinary an interesting.


Which is not to say that magic items pop into existence where PCs go. Rather if we sit at the end of all time with an omniscient view and look back across history:


Some people will have fought demons and found magic items in the ruins they visited
Some people never fought demons and spent their life as a peasant farmer.
Some people fought demons, but not to any extent that would be meaningful on the PC XP chart.
Some people found magic items, but not at rate consistent with what the rules imply.


Only people of category of "1" are those are classified as PCs and would have be controlled as players. The world doesn't change or act special in response to PCs, rather our view of the world is by genre convention strictly confined to those that have extraordinary experiences.

This could be the way things work, or not and should depend on the setting. Even if only heroes find magical items, then people would still want them.

[Steampunkette]

It's dungeons and dragons.

Not spreadsheets and software.

If you want to redesign the economics of the game world to fit your personal simulationist ideal of what the world would be like when magic items exist and can be sold: Be my guest. I'm sure there will be at least some people who take your rules and run with them.

If you're -really- that interested in magic item economy, and fantasy economy in general, throw these monkey wrenches into your idea.

1) Racism/Nationalism/Classism. If Elves are the world's foremost magic item creators (Or dwarves or orcs or whoever) what sort of socio-economic implications would that have on international trade and/or social strata? Would it create a strong class system independent of nationality which places elves above everyone else? If so, wouldn't elf-involved or elf-centric media be the primary form of entertainment with class and power minorities struggling to find social acceptance?

2) Regional Issues. If Magicite or some other Phlebotinum is more prominent in specific parts of the world, see 1 and apply to regional identities. Sprinkle warfare as needed.

3) WAR. If Elves follow the idea of 1 are they holding the equivalent of the world's nuclear stockpile? Is this a situation where all other national powers are at the mercy of the Elves or is it likely to result in an exterminationist policy on the elves?

4) In the event that 2 is accurate and a non-magically inclined species controls Magicite Region what are the political implications? Do we wind up with a sovereign state of non-magic individuals controlling the flow of magic or are we more inclined to see the exterminationist or conquering policies rise? In the event of conquering policy, see 1.

I'm sure I could continue on and on and on about the economics, social issues, and other political angles, but I'll stop, here. The deeper down that rabbit hole you go, the less numbers make any sense at all. (Coincidentally: That was the whole point of Alice.)

The reasons most games don't go into this level of detail is simple: It's dull. Kingdoms of Kalamar designed a world with geologists, geographers, meteorologists, and social scientists trying to create the most "Realistic" world possible based on parameters given to them by Kenzer Co. It was pretty neat. I enjoyed playing Half-Hobgoblins. But the work they did became completely irrelevant background noise to what was actually happening.

[Zman]

In a feudalistic society the gentry, nobles, royals (depending on rarity in your world) would be buyers. As would merchant princes, powerful churches, and such. People engage in dangerous work for money all the time. There would be thrill seekers, and treasure hunters searching for such treasure.

Erroneous assumptions based on nonmagical feudal societies. You made another erroneous assumption that wealth equals power, not true in society's with inequitable access to magic and magic items. In a world where powerful magics exist those assumptions no longer apply.

Also, he high risk buying and selling and possibly we are talking about is outlined in the DMG with risks etc.

[Mr.Moron]

This could be the way things work, or not and should depend on the setting. Even if only heroes find magical items, then people would still want them.

Which is fine but that doesn't mean that a market and trade infrastructure exists around the items. Outside the PCs an entire setting might have 20 or 30 total, worldwide that are already in the hands of mortal people. Those 20 or 30 are already held by the most powerful churches, heads of state and secretive orders. Outside the PCs there will be no new magic item discoveries, because as outlined the PCs are by definition the only ones really finding them.

[darkrose50]

I don't understand where the idea that magic items can't be bought and sold came from. All we know is that they are not common enough to have a stable market price or to be reliably available from any particular agent or location. The same goes for, say, da Vinci's artwork - its existence and value is recognised and there is demand for it, but whether or not you can get any when you want it, and the price you'll have to pay if you can, are both up to chance.

EDIT: On the subject of magic items coming from ancient ruins, I tend to hold that it's being ensconced in ancient ruins for a thousand years that helps make them magical.

I have the idea for a setting where magical items need a powerful soul to remain magical. Nature spirits seek to reclaim magic locked into magical items and release it back into the world. The wealthy hire powerful sous to keep there magical items safe. Mages create wards that anger and cause these spirits to go mad. Some wizards placate these spirits with unwanted magical items in order to keep them away from the wanted magical items, and this would be why non-combat magical items tend to be rare.

[Mara]

It helps to remember that magic is not a rational process.

[darkrose50]

Erroneous assumptions based on nonmagical feudal societies. You made another erroneous assumption that wealth equals power, not true in society's with inequitable access to magic and magic items. In a world where powerful magics exist those assumptions no longer apply.

Also, he high risk buying and selling and possibly we are talking about is outlined in the DMG with risks etc.

Wealth in the form of gold is desired and is quite evident in the rules. We have knights and nobles in the rules.

It is often said that the poor value food, the middle class value money, and the wealthy value influence. All the same priceless items of art history are bought and sold with money.

Those capable of wielding powerful magics would be desired commodities. They would be knighted, and courted by those in power. Especially if they had healing magics, or magics that would prolong life.

[darkrose50]

It's dungeons and dragons.

Not spreadsheets and software.



Having a setting where a large metropolis has an auction house that seasonally sells off magical items would not be spreadsheets and software . . . it would be people acting like people. It is one thing to say economics exists, and another to make it the primary goal of a game.

I would like the option of having treasure hunters be adventurers. Indiana Jones is a treasure hunter who sells some artifacts. The central point of his stories are not about economics. I think hunting for magical treasure should be a valid reason to go adventuring. Not having rules for this is lacking. Having rules that are more or less against it is quite extreme.

I hope that Eberron has a passing attempt at including this option via magical item economic rules. I am not holding my breath.

[Mith]

The idea I had is that a person's arms and armor grows with them. So instead of finding a +1 long sword in a cave, your normal sword becomes a +1 long sword because of your deeds. Also, unless you will it to someone, the sword's power fades upon your death. Basically most magic items are personal possessions, that are not bought because it requres someone giving up something they have invested in. So the players can sell, but they will be a very, very small market of people who will buy.

[Mr.Moron]

Having a setting where a large metropolis has an auction house that seasonally sells off magical items would not be spreadsheets and software . . . it would be people acting like people. It is one thing to say economics exists, and another to make it the primary goal of a game.

I would like the option of having treasure hunters be adventurers. Indiana Jones is a treasure hunter who sells some artifacts. The central point of his stories are not about economics. I think hunting for magical treasure should be a valid reason to go adventuring. Not having rules for this is lacking. Having rules that are more or less against it is quite extreme.

I hope that Eberron has a passing attempt at including this option via magical item economic rules. I am not holding my breath.

It's one thing to go "I want a world where magic items are common enough to have trade infascture and rules built up around them. I want PCs to be able to indiana jones and treasure magical hunting to be a regular part of the world"

It's another one to go "There isn't a magic item market, the game world is broken people don't act like people and the world must have been beaten into stupid".

What what out of the game is valid, viable and probably easy to implement as you describe it in this post. It just isn't the default. That doesn't make the default broken, just very different sort of flavor than you're looking for.

[Tanarii]

Only people of category of "1" are those are classified as PCs and would have be controlled as players. The world doesn't change or act special in response to PCs, rather our view of the world is by genre convention strictly confined to those that have extraordinary experiences.I like your explanation, and certainly it makes sense in a narrative game.

But it does make my brain twist a bit. It feels kinda like Schrödinger's PC, so to speak. Clear I've spent too much time in a simulation (or semi-simulation) sandbox mindset recently. :)

[Mr.Moron]

I like your explanation, and certainly it makes sense in a narrative game.

But it does make my brain twist a bit. It feels kinda like Schrödinger's PC, so to speak. Clear I've spent too much time in a simulation (or semi-simulation) sandbox mindset recently. :)

Another way of looking at it that might help with the brain twist.

Imagine the game world is just that: A fair simulation. Each entity in the world lives and dies and the simulation treats none of them specially, the dice fall as they do with no imperative to create narrative. However this simulation is a black box and you can't look in however you want.

So we write rules to facilitate looking into the box. How we write the rules determines what view we can get of simulation. We can write rules such that we're only allowed to look at frogs, or rules that only allows us to look at guys named "Bubba Stevens".

In our case the default D&D 5e rules are written in such of a way that we can only look at the folks described as "PCs" in that previous post. At least that's what the rules feel like they are intended to do to me. Being clever monkeys we might want to use these rules to try and look the world's trade, or folks who aren't "PCs". We can sort of pull it off but because the rules aren't meant to give us that view everything comes out blurry, distorted and sometimes self-contradictory. This is not a problem with the simulation but the lens we're using to view it.

Now, let's change the terminology of what I previous defined as "PCs" to instead be "True Heroes". In this model what you're calling the "Sandbox Simulation" might be an approach or set of rules designed to let you look at random sample of people in the simulation that may or may not be "True Heroes". However you need to watch them (play the game, use the rules) for a certain amount of time before you find out which is the case. The probability of them being "True Heroes" depends on how unforgiving and lethal your Sandbox Simulation rules are.

In this way we can see that neither the "Sandbox Simulation" or "Narrative" change the rules of the simulation or how the world runs, but instead only determine how we're allowed to look at it.

[EscherEnigma]

[1] Heroes can exist in worlds that are internally economically consistant. It does not need to be a central theme, just consitered.
Theoretically? Sure.

I've never seen one, but I'll accept it might be possible. However, I'd like to point out that a person can get a four-year degree in economics. In that time they'll aquire a shelf full of textbooks explaining how everything works together and is internally consistent. And then they still get baffled by the actual economy. So trying to fit an internally consistent economy into a game book might not leave much room for anything else.

[Gurka]

[1.1] There is a lack of infrastructure to create, distribute, trade, buy or sell magical treasure. No agents, no collectors, no auction houses, and no shops. There are no individuals, or groups of wizards creating magical items for profit. There are no groups of people recovering old magical items to sell. No one is offering bounties on magical treasure.


A lot of your premise seems to stem from this particular assertion. One alternative option is that magical items are so rare, that they are not valuable, but rather priceless. How much is the Mona Lisa worth? It can be bought and sold, but you can't exactly look up the price in a catalog, and you certainly can't buy it at the corner store.

Perhaps rather than art, a more apt comparison would be a modern weapon. Guns are the modern equivalent to conventional weapons in a medieval setting, so a magic sword would be analogous to something akin to a tank or a jet. An Abrams tank costs roughly 5 million USD to manufacture, while an F22 costs around 140 million. Each has a price tag, but again, you can't simply go buy one, because those who have them are not selling, as a rule.

In medieval setting, the occasion that a magical artifact is sold for mere coin, I would think that it would be done in a highly secretive, invitation only auction setting. Thus it sells for as much as somebody very wealthy and presumably powerful is willing to pay for it, not a set price.

If you view it through this prism, it doesn't reflect on the economy as a whole in nearly the same way, nor with the same simulationist repercussions.

[bid]

In this way we can see that neither the "Sandbox Simulation" or "Narrative" change the rules of the simulation or how the world runs, but instead only determine how we're allowed to look at it.
I will go one step further: you aren't playing the here-now of a band of hero saving the world, you are playing the legend as told a 100 years later.

Your game is a myth, generations of storytellers made you greater than life. You will never hear that Gilgamesh went to the market to buy a bag of apples unless that's the hook that brought the story.

[Hairfish]

Fantasy gaming glosses over a ton of realism to keep things playable and avoid some of the grimmer things that occurred before humanity hit certain scientific and societal milestones. You really don't want what you think you want.

[AbyssStalker]

Remember that magic items often come loaded with a nasty curse, and removing said curse would be a daunting task to a non PC.

If there are magic item hunters in your world than that can make sense, although it might be good to follow that path to it's logical conclusion and include magic item thieves and the other less than reputable characters that might require use of said item, dictator's with a penchant for sicking an army (or assassins) on any man in his kingdom holding "his" magic item, spell-happy mad wizard's, and marauding gangs of murder-hobos and wannabe murder-hobos going town to town searching for who might have magic items.

[LordVonDerp]

It helps to remember that magic is not a rational process.

Until someone studies it.

[Tanarii]

Until someone studies it.
Yeah, the typical assumption for arcane magic in D&D has typically been that it follows very rational and strict rules. Within the context of the settings. Certainly mechanically it's generally very rational. Use spell X according to spellcasting rules Y, and get out result Z. Although magic item creation mechanics have been more or less rational in different editions.

Flavor-wise, there's no reason it needs to be that rational in-game of course.

It's certainly not rational by the definitions of OUR world. ;)

[Areinu]

Having a setting where a large metropolis has an auction house that seasonally sells off magical items would not be spreadsheets and software . . . it would be people acting like people. It is one thing to say economics exists, and another to make it the primary goal of a game.

I would like the option of having treasure hunters be adventurers. Indiana Jones is a treasure hunter who sells some artifacts. The central point of his stories are not about economics. I think hunting for magical treasure should be a valid reason to go adventuring. Not having rules for this is lacking. Having rules that are more or less against it is quite extreme.

I hope that Eberron has a passing attempt at including this option via magical item economic rules. I am not holding my breath.

Indiana Jones does not sell artifacts. He brings them to museum. For free. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-abUtRbUS_U

***

Actually there are rules for selling magic items.
Page 135 od Dungeon Master's Guide:

In a large city with an academy of magic or a major
temple, buying and selling magic items might be
possible, at your discretion. If your world includes a
large number of adventurers engaged in retrieving
ancient magic items, trade in these items might be more
common. Even so, it's likely to remain similar to the
market for fine art in the real world, with invitation-only
auctions and a tendency to attract thieves
So, it seems as it's everything you want. There can be auctions, in big cities you might be able to purchase them.

Furthermore:

Selling magic items is difficult in most D&D worlds
primarily because of the challenge of finding a buyer.
Plenty of people might like to have a magic sword, but
few of them can afford it. Those who can afford such an
item usually have more practical things to spend on.
As people mentioned to you - there ARE more practical ways to spend millions of gold then to buy single Flame Tongue. Would you prefer to have an army with good armor and weapons or single sword? Even if you give magic swords to some guys they can go down just like Jedi Order did in Star Wars.


In your campaign, magic items might be prevalent
enough that adventurers can buy and sell them with
some effort. Magic items might be for sale in bazaars or
auction houses in fantastical locations, such as the City
of Brass, the planar metropolis of Sigil, or even in more
ordinary cities. Sale of magic items might be highly
regulated, accompanied by a thriving black market.
Artificers might craft items for use by military forces
or adventurers, as they do in the world of Eberron. You
might also allow characters to craft their own magic
items, as discussed in chapters 6.
No one in D&D 5e stops you from creating magic items, selling them, buying them and so on. The only thing you have to keep in mind is that rules don't give you an economy for that, because each world is different. While economy for basic things like food will usually be similar economy on magic items can vary drastically depending on a setting. If your world has 10 magic items in total, which were made by gods upon creation then having price of 100,000 on them in source book is stupid. Meanwhile if you have the same magic items in a world filled with magic items of that power the price of 100,000 might be just right.

Random Treasure tables and so on are just suggestions and ways to quickly get some loot. If you are actually thinking about your world, it's economics and have set idea how magic items should be rare you shouldn't use those tables or alter them greatly. For example I often roll on those tables, then usually change about 30% of the results because they are not coherent with the world, dungeon, and so on. Furthermore I usually roll for 1 hoard per quest, then distribute results of that hoard along the way. But that's my personal way to deal with it.

And even then on page 129 you have cost of creation for magic items of differing rarity, which you can use as a guide when assigning prices to magic items. Page 130 has a variant on how to find a seller for magic item, and what price you might fetch. This can obviously be adjusted depending on your world.

Even different areas in one world can have different economics(obviously), and why in Arealand magic items might be dirt cheap, because there are many powerful magic users the Backwatercountry might have pretty much no economy for those items.

5E rules are not tied to single world, which is good. How you use them is up to you, as a DM. For example my world doesn't have much of item economy, but once PCs got enough contacts they could fetch an item or two... With prices much above those shown in Dungeon Masters guide. One of the sellers was, for example, a noble who had that magic item in their heirloom for generations... but now the family was falling apart and only money could save them. This is how dire the situation was for the person to give away that item. And even then you can never know if they won't try to get the item back.

[tsotate]

Which is fine but that doesn't mean that a market and trade infrastructure exists around the items. Outside the PCs an entire setting might have 20 or 30 total, worldwide that are already in the hands of mortal people. Those 20 or 30 are already held by the most powerful churches, heads of state and secretive orders. Outside the PCs there will be no new magic item discoveries, because as outlined the PCs are by definition the only ones really finding them.

This explanation would be fine if the only published setting weren't the Forgotten Realms. We already have a tremendous amount of setting information and history from the time when magic items were common as dirt in the Realms (i.e. from the beginning of Greenwood's campaign until the release of 5e). Where did they all go?

[Mr.Moron]

This explanation would be fine if the only published setting weren't the Forgotten Realms. We already have a tremendous amount of setting information and history from the time when magic items were common as dirt in the Realms (i.e. from the beginning of Greenwood's campaign until the release of 5e). Where did they all go?

I'm assuming banished to the external plane of Retcon, the void from which things never return unless they're popular enough.

Barring an official setting guide that comes out and contradicts the assumptions put forward in the DMG. Clearly the D&D 5e FR must be a different place than the "Here's dozens of item crafting feats" 3.X FR, or the "Every travelling merchant is brimming with magic items" FR of the licensed computer products (NWN, etc..).

Until we get a broader and more detailed of this new FR than what gets outlined in specific adventure books, it's hard to say for sure. However WotC has hardly been adverse to throwing the lore baby out with the edition bathwater.

[SharkForce]

I'm assuming banished to the external plane of Retcon, the void from which things never return unless they're popular enough.

Barring an official setting guide that comes out and contradicts the assumptions put forward in the DMG. Clearly the D&D 5e FR must be a different place than the "Here's dozens of item crafting feats" 3.X FR, or the "Every travelling merchant is brimming with magic items" FR of the licensed computer products (NWN, etc..).

Until we get a broader and more detailed of this new FR than what gets outlined in specific adventure books, it's hard to say for sure. However WotC has hardly been adverse to throwing the lore baby out with the edition bathwater.

FR was full of magic items long before 3rd edition came along. so was pretty much every campaign setting really. the original temple of elemental evil adventure had the tiny little town you started in with a few magic shops and several NPCs including the town drunk that all had fairly powerful magic items, as i recall.

most published adventures i've ever read from AD&D or earlier seems to include another magic store, NPCs that all have 1-2 magic items, and magical treasures in every dungeon. every official setting was pretty much crawling with magical items from what i can tell. you can't blame 3rd edition or video games for that.

[Tanarii]

I'm assuming banished to the external plane of Retcon, the void from which things never return unless they're popular enough.Or Event of Retcon, in the case of FR. The Spellplague coming was the first Event. And the Spellplague going was the second.

[Mr.Moron]

FR was full of magic items long before 3rd edition came along. so was pretty much every campaign setting really. the original temple of elemental evil adventure had the tiny little town you started in with a few magic shops and several NPCs including the town drunk that all had fairly powerful magic items, as i recall.

most published adventures i've ever read from AD&D or earlier seems to include another magic store, NPCs that all have 1-2 magic items, and magical treasures in every dungeon. every official setting was pretty much crawling with magical items from what i can tell. you can't blame 3rd edition or video games for that.

I'm not really "blaming" 3.X or video games for anything. Those are just the particular reference points I have for FR, only having played it in 3.X and through video games. Even if FR was brimming back to edition -47, it doesn't change the fact we've got D&D 5e saying magic items are super special, and that creating them is a lost art.

Unless the D&D5e FR guide comes out and says "Yeah, that stuff in the DMG doesn't apply here. This setting has magic item creating up the wazoo, here are the rules for it - any caster can take these" it's safe to assume the canon has changed.

There's nothing wrong with high magic settings and I've got not against FR as it was. Just if it's the default setting, and the default rules and flavour in the DMG apply to it, FR and it's relationship with magic items must clearly be very different than those I mentioned.

[Rhaegar]

Ultimately any DM you can set up what ever magic item economy they want. Magic items need only be as rare as you want them to be.

[Grytorm]

To buy a magic item you don't just go to a store. You talk to merchants and here the self declared warrior king of Ghurs has explored one of the tombs of the Old Kings. You gather your closest companions and sail off to Ghurs on a ship loaded with a fair amount of gold yes, but also furs, fine weapons and finer wine. You spend a week feasting with the man as he regales you with tales as your bookworm sorcerers talk about whatever they talk about. Then he in return for your generous gifts gives the spear of his father. A mighty weapon which barks like lightning and you promise that if his kingdom is ever truly under siege you will raise a band of warrior and return to save him from such dire threats.

[darkrose50]

The idea I had is that a person's arms and armor grows with them. So instead of finding a +1 long sword in a cave, your normal sword becomes a +1 long sword because of your deeds. Also, unless you will it to someone, the sword's power fades upon your death. Basically most magic items are personal possessions, that are not bought because it requres someone giving up something they have invested in. So the players can sell, but they will be a very, very small market of people who will buy.

I had a similar idea that either a magical item needed to be attuned to a soul that was strong enough (level) or magical spirits will seek to undue the magic in order to return the magic back into the ecosystem. The exception would be items that are in stories and legends.

Additionally I sometimes give out points that may be traded in to create a magical item that befits the character . . . essentially something personal becomes magical due to heroic proximity, and these items are given more respect from the manna spirits. Wizards can also create magical items.

[LordVonDerp]

Flavor-wise, there's no reason it needs to be that rational in-game of course.

It's certainly not rational by the definitions of OUR world. ;)

Here's a good reason:

Yeah, the typical assumption for arcane magic in D&D has typically been that it follows very rational and strict rules. Within the context of the settings. Certainly mechanically it's generally very rational. Use spell X according to spellcasting rules Y, and get out result Z.

[georgie_leech]

Here's a good reason:

In context though, without understanding the underlying principle of why saying a some funny words and mixing some bat guano and sulfur in your hand makes a Fireball, it's difficult to apply that knowledge to make a Flaming Sword of Explosions or whatever. To compare with video games, say Baldur's Gate, I know exactly which buttons to push in which order to get any spell effect in the game. That doesn't mean I understand spells well enough to be able to mod new ones into the game.

[Forum Explorer]

The random treasure generator disagrees. We are using a random treasure generator, and at third level a group of four have three magical items. I recall seeing a study on how likely magical items were to drop, and they are likely.

I hate the random treasure generator. It does not mesh at all with the sort of game I want to play. Also I've never seen a post saying that the treasure generator worked really well and lead to a balanced and realistic game. (Usually the complaint is having too much money and nothing to spend it on)


Anyways, how I handle most magic items, is that their creation requires sacrifice from the maker, and that they can only ever make one. So most people capable of making them don't bother. (There are evil ways around this but those are really evil. There are also dangerous and complicated ways, but those are beyond most NPCs).

The net result is that there really isn't a market for magic items, despite how wanted they are. Because very few people are selling in the first place.

[JeenLeen]

I'd agree with most others that, to have a simulationist view of the world (which I also like), buying, selling, and trading magic items are possible, but the default setting of 5e seems to be that magic items are so rare that no real market has developed.

I can definitely see adventurers potentially trading/selling a magic item for a ton of gold, a castle, a landed title, or something like that. I could also see adventurers buying a magic item for something similar, or in exchange for a task. Most magic items that people know about are the guarded treasures of royals, nobles, and churches, and such would only rarely be sold or traded due to sentimental value added on top of the power of the item.

A magic metropolis could have an auction house that sells items on occasion, but I find that hard to believe because it would be such a target for theft that it would either need an extra set of magic items itself and/or a lot of high-level casters/fighters to guard the treasure, which seems... well, contrived. The risk of theft or making oneself a target makes something like an auction or store too public. Buying or selling would be done through contacts.

I played a Mage: The Ascension game a fair while ago. In it, magic items are relatively rare. We had some we didn't particularly want, but it was hard to find a buyer who was willing to give us something we did want that seemed fair. Those who would be interested in buying it couldn't afford it, and those with the extra money didn't see a value in the item worth depleting their fortune. Those willing to trade for it offered us stuff we thought was a rip-off, and we couldn't convince anyone with stuff we wanted that what we had was valuable enough. I can see something similar in 5e. You might want to sell a +2 Sword for an offensive wand, but you either can't find such a wand or the owner has no interest in a sword.

[georgie_leech]

Incidentally, it's worth pointing out that being beaten into a dark age is more or less what happened. The default settings tend to be riddled with ancient of ruins of long dead empires filled with the riches and wonders of civilisations long gone.

[darkrose50]

Indiana Jones does not sell artifacts. He brings them to museum. For free. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-abUtRbUS_U
Random Treasure tables and so on are just suggestions and ways to quickly get some loot.


The rules should be internally consistent with the following base assumption.

[1] If I use the base rules, and use random magical generation
[2] Then the tables should reflect the suggested rate at which magical appear in 5e D&D.
[3] Else this is a flaw in the design.

[Mr.Moron]

The rules should be internally consistent with the following base assumption.

[1] If I use the base rules, and use random magical generation
[2] Then the tables should reflect the suggested rate at which magical appear in 5e D&D.
[3] Else this is a flaw in the design.

The rate with magical items appear in 5e D&D cannot be equated with the rate at which magic items appear in the settings the games of D&D 5e take place in. At least not by default. It's certainly a fine assumption to implement in your own campaigns & settings but does not indicate some kind objective flaw with the rules.

[darkrose50]

I hate the random treasure generator. It does not mesh at all with the sort of game I want to play. Also I've never seen a post saying that the treasure generator worked really well and lead to a balanced and realistic game. (Usually the complaint is having too much money and nothing to spend it on)


Anyways, how I handle most magic items, is that their creation requires sacrifice from the maker, and that they can only ever make one. So most people capable of making them don't bother. (There are evil ways around this but those are really evil. There are also dangerous and complicated ways, but those are beyond most NPCs).

The net result is that there really isn't a market for magic items, despite how wanted they are. Because very few people are selling in the first place.

The random magical item tables should reflect the baseline rarity of magical items in 5e D&D. Sometimes random rolls are fun, and result in items that one would normally not place.

[BootStrapTommy]

It's like complaining that RPG set in modern times doesn't have rules for the buying & selling of Hydrogen Bombs or Space Shuttles.This.

When was the last time someone tried to buy or sell the Hope Diamond? The Crown Jewels?

There are somethings which are so valuable that they cannot be easily priced. Magic items are intended to be that way. Priceless artifacts.

Sure, a player can sell them. But most people think the players are absolutely crazy to have done so.

[Tanarii]

Here's a good reason:Not really no. Not unless you assume the mathematical model that are the rules are no longer a modeling construct, but instead a simulation, meant to represent an in-game reality. Or vice-versa, depending on which way you look at it.

Hell, even in that doesn't even hold true in our reality. The mathematical models used in physics are just that. Mathematical constructs that model reality. They are not simulations of reality. Something often overlooked by my fellow scientists.


The rules should be internally consistent with the following base assumption.

[1] If I use the base rules, and use random magical generation
[2] Then the tables should reflect the suggested rate at which magical appear in 5e D&D.
[3] Else this is a flaw in the design.As Mr.Moron already pointed out, the tables can just as easily reflect the rates at which PCs, and only PCs, find magical items. That's not necessarily a design flaw. It all depends on how you interpret the model.

Edit: it kinda pains me to say that. I too think in terms of the rules as a model for the game world. Not a model for the PC experience. But generally speaking D&D is closer to the latter. Especially in more recent editions.

[Warpiglet]

For the love of Pete. Our characters are HEROES. Legen wait for it-dery. Did Hercules buy a Golden Fleece?

Deep breaths...I HATED magic items as a commodity like a bushel of corn. Mystery gets lost man....I like rare wondrous and character defining Excalibur. In 5e, bards would write about a plus 2 sword. Excalibur is not. For. Sale.

See what 5e encourages? Yes, some guy might offer to buy it 500000k gold...but who is he? (Plot hook). It is isn't Sam Walton at Walmart bucko. I gotta get another brew! Good day sir/ma'am!

[SharkForce]

magic items as worthless pieces of junk is not exactly great either. neither is gold being useless heavy trash, or gems being less heavy but still-useless trash.

if i cannot sell items, then a sizeable portion of anything i find will be garbage. a +1 dagger is no more valuable than a regular dagger if nobody wants to use a dagger. 5,000 gold is no more valuable than 50 gp if i can't buy anything more useful with the 5,000 gp than i could buy with the 50 gp.

[Tanarii]

if i cannot sell items, then a sizeable portion of anything i find will be garbage. a +1 dagger is no more valuable than a regular dagger if nobody wants to use a dagger.Get some henchmen. That way there's always someone that can find a use for anything.

Hell, give it as a gift to someone you want to be in good graces with. Even dungeon crawling murderhobos need friends in high places.

[SharkForce]

see, here's where we get back into the problem that i supposedly have a priceless artifact worth a kingdom, and yet somehow, in spite of it being supposedly worth a kingdom, i can't buy a kingdom with it. i can instead buy some slight amount of loyalty... provided i have a henchman who can actually use that item... or a small favour. because, turns out "worth a kingdom" does not remotely describe a +1 dagger. it is, in fact, quite blatantly obvious that magic items are not actually that valuable in many cases (you can tell because if they were worth that much, you'd be able to buy that sort of thing with them, and any lord would have to be suffering from brain damage to think that your +1 sword is worth as much as their kingdom). now, if every single magic item was, say, the equivalent of a sphere of annihilation in terms of what it can do, then sure, i could see how there wouldn't be a market.

but please, seriously, lets not fool ourselves. a +1 dagger is not that big of a deal. in fact, almost no magic weapon is, not even the ones that are supposed to be a big deal, like +3 weapons or a holy avenger. heck, let's be *really* honest with ourselves: a belt of storm giant strength is pretty nice, and far more impactful than a +1 dagger in most cases, and one of the most desirable items for an adventurer... and yet, in a contest between a single champion with the belt (call it the gladiator NPC from the monster manual) and a dozen knights with no magic items, the knights are going to be both less expensive and more effective.

even the most powerful magic items tend to not be as significant as the ability to hire a group of competent mercenaries.

magic items are very obviously not worth nearly as much as people claim, even if they're super rare. they are very explicitly not worth that much if you cannot sell or trade them for that much. a legendary item is not worth 50,000 gold unless i can sell it for 50,000 gold or exchange it for favours worth that much. a +1 dagger? heck, WotC themselves have built a (terrible) system that tells us that dagger isn't even worth 1/3 of a suit of platemail practically speaking.

the reason nobody is trying to murder you the second they hear you have a +1 dagger (or even a +1 greatsword) is that the damn thing is absolutely not as valuable as it is being made out to be. it is marginally better than a regular weapon of the same type. it isn't going to be the difference between you being undisputed lord of a territory or being just another soldier. it might take someone who is powerful enough to be undisputed lord of a territory and make them somewhat stronger against certain specific enemies (most of which can be defeated without magic weapons), but ultimately, it really doesn't do that much.

it isn't worth a henchman's loyalty for life, and it is probably only barely worth it for a henchman to stop using a proper sword and use a magical dagger instead, if at all. the typical D&D magic item is just not that amazing in what it can actually do, with few exceptions. they are not, generally speaking, world-altering artifacts. the thieve's guild would much rather steal equally expensive art objects, jewelry, or especially money, from merchants that generally speaking are not highly trained combatants of some form. local lords stand more to gain by increasing the tax rate a couple percent and training up a few extra soldiers than they stand to gain by picking a fight over some silly extra-sharp dagger. treating your henchman decently is a much better way to assure their loyalty than giving them a slightly better weapon.

if these things existed in real life, then yeah they'd be expensive, but they'd be more along the lines of a fancy sports car or a big house, not comparable to a nuke or a fighter jet, with only a handful of exceptions. because +1 to hit and damage, or even the ability to burst into flames or make you fly, is ultimately just not nearly valuable enough to be worth more than having an actual army (though items that can make you fly, particularly without atunement, would almost definitely be on the high end of the value scale). you'd need to be a wealthy individual to own them, or a reasonably well-off organization, but you wouldn't need to be a superpower to own them, and you definitely wouldn't need to be a superpower to keep the ones you have, because ultimately, they just aren't that good.

certainly, there are exceptions. items that allow the use of high level spells, or that allow setting-altering effects like weather control in a large area, those should be something people aren't willing to part with. likewise for stuff that has great cultural significance; you can probably buy a +3 sword with no significance attached, but you're not going to buy the royal family's sacred blade of kings whether it is a lowly +0 magic sword, a vorpal sword, or even just a fancy decorated regular sword, and the actual mace used by st cuthbert wouldn't be up for sale by the church of st cuthbert whether it was a regular mace or a powerful mace of disruption that also banishes demons and destroys constructs.

but for the most part, a magic item is not worth that much on the basis of being a magic item. as such, a magic item that you just dig out of some nameless ruins is not worth a kingdom, practically speaking. you can tell because no sane individual would exchange a kingdom for the magic item. an item is worth what it is worth, and not a penny more; if it can't buy something, it isn't worth that something.

[Tanarii]

Not sure why you're assuming a slight amount of loyalty or a small favor. I sure as hell wasn't meaning that.

In 1e the loyalty bonus for giving a henchmen a magic item was fairly small (+10%). In a magic scarce 5e campaign, it should be significantly more. You may buy life-long loyalty with that one gift. You just gave them something worth a kingdom. I think that'll buy a lot of loyalty. Regardless of its capabilities.

Similarly, a dagger +1 is worth a kingdom, then giving it to some noble is a kingdom-sized favor.

If it's not worth a kingdom, then yes, of course it's a smaller favor, commiserate with its actual worth. Whatever that might be. Choose how to dispose of your excess wealth accordingly.

If your objection is that magic items aren't worth their listed prices, that's a totally different thing from 'why can't I sell them at all' or 'there is nothing worth buying with the gold I sell them for' If that's the argument you want to make, then make that argument. (Technically you just did. I'm just griping that you didn't in the first place. ;) )

[Steampunkette]

The rules should be internally consistent with the following base assumption.

[1] If I use the base rules, and use random magical generation
[2] Then the tables should reflect the suggested rate at which magical appear in 5e D&D.
[3] Else this is a flaw in the design.

Dang it, I can't remember the name of this logical fallacy. Someone with experience formally debating call it?

Essentially: You can't point out something is randomized while holding it to a linear standard "Else it is broken". Whether that linear standard is at the low end, high end, or mean of the spread of possible options.

As pointed out, upthread, it's randomized within a certain margin of error and placed at the rate a given DM wants to place it. If your DM wants every Rat and Goblin the PCs kill to drop type E treasure on death it's gonna do it. And if all of his Wyrm Red Dragons drop one item of type C with no gold or artwork then that's what is going to drop. It's meant to be flexible to represent different settings. And yeah, sometimes it's not going to make sense.

However, rolling for items is also an OPTION rather than the mandated default.

"The following pages contain tables that you can use
to randomly generate treasures carried by monsters,
stashed in their lairs, or otherwise hidden away. The
placement of treasure is left to your discretion. The key
is to make sure the players feel rewarded for playing,
and that their characters are rewarded for overcoming
dangerous challenges."

Heck, even when it gets to the sections where it's explaining how to use the tables and assumes you're reading those sections because you intend to use them, it flatly states that you can give out as much or as little treasure as you like, and gives you guidelines for expected averages.

"Over the course of a typical campaign, a party
finds treasure hoards amounting to seven rolls on the
Challenge 0- 4 table, eighteen rolls on the Challenge
5- 10 table, twelve rolls on the Challenge 11- 16 table,
and eight rolls on the Challenge 17+ table."

TLDR: You can put whatever treasure you want wherever you want it by the base rules. The tables are just there as shorthand to make everything easier and do not represent some form of mandated linear power gain. Expecting randomization to follow a specific value is just bad, regardless of whether you want it to hold to the absolute mean or not. The game isn't broken because it uses narrative devices to manage metagame power levels rather than following a given person's idea of economics.

If Economists could actually predict human behavior beyond very broad assumptions that often don't accurately reflect reality because of a lack of understanding of social forces rather than just market forces we'd have a very different world!

[LordVonDerp]

Not really no. Not unless you assume the mathematical model that are the rules are no longer a modeling construct, but instead a simulation, meant to represent an in-game reality. Or vice-versa, depending on which way you look at it.

Hell, even in that doesn't even hold true in our reality. The mathematical models used in physics are just that. Mathematical constructs that model reality. They are not simulations of reality. Something often overlooked by my fellow scientists.

Irrelevant. If magic were chaotic it irrational the game mechanics would reflect that, like in Warhammer.

[darkrose50]

For the love of Pete. Our characters are HEROES. Legen wait for it-dery. Did Hercules buy a Golden Fleece?

Deep breaths...I HATED magic items as a commodity like a bushel of corn. Mystery gets lost man....I like rare wondrous and character defining Excalibur. In 5e, bards would write about a plus 2 sword. Excalibur is not. For. Sale.

See what 5e encourages? Yes, some guy might offer to buy it 500000k gold...but who is he? (Plot hook). It is isn't Sam Walton at Walmart bucko. I gotta get another brew! Good day sir/ma'am!

If Arthur wanted to, then he could sell Excalibur, and people would want to buy it. It would be desired, and there would most definitely be buyers. Not having people want to buy such things removes the magic of the item. Magical treasure should be desired. Desired things can be sold.

In D&D for every Excalibur, there would be more swords that were less impressive. That is unless one would rate Excalibur as a +1 sword. I would think that most people would rate Excalibur as a +3 sword, and perhaps even toss in a power or two.

Something like . . . Excalibur +3 long-sword; 1/generation summon a watery tart that passes the sword to the next would-be king.

Perhaps one would, mostly, not be able to purchase such a sword. But comparatively a +1 Sword would be much more likely.

[darkrose50]

Dang it, I can't remember the name of this logical fallacy. Someone with experience formally debating call it?

Essentially: You can't point out something is randomized while holding it to a linear standard "Else it is broken". Whether that linear standard is at the low end, high end, or mean of the spread of possible options.


Casinos know how much money they can make based on random games. It is the same concept. I will need to find the math, but someone ran the numbers.

I know an actuary that deals with numbers. One of the things they do is figure out how long a group of like people will live, and how much it would cost to provide them healthcare. You can do wonderful and profitable things with math. Yet how long someone lives is often quite random. As a large group average such things can be calculated.



As pointed out, upthread, it's randomized within a certain margin of error and placed at the rate a given DM wants to place it. If your DM wants every Rat and Goblin the PCs kill to drop type E treasure on death it's gonna do it. And if all of his Wyrm Red Dragons drop one item of type C with no gold or artwork then that's what is going to drop. It's meant to be flexible to represent different settings. And yeah, sometimes it's not going to make sense.


I will need to find the math that someone did. I was working on the assumption that this was known, and I apologize for that. I am not talking about a coin coming up heads four times, and declaring that tails cannot come up.



However, rolling for items is also an OPTION rather than the mandated default.

"The following pages contain tables that you can use
to randomly generate treasures carried by monsters,
stashed in their lairs, or otherwise hidden away. The
placement of treasure is left to your discretion. The key
is to make sure the players feel rewarded for playing,
and that their characters are rewarded for overcoming
dangerous challenges."


If there is a random option, then it should reflect the suggested rate at which magical items are expected to appear in 5e D&D. It does not match the suggested rate in the least.



Heck, even when it gets to the sections where it's explaining how to use the tables and assumes you're reading those sections because you intend to use them, it flatly states that you can give out as much or as little treasure as you like, and gives you guidelines for expected averages.

"Over the course of a typical campaign, a party
finds treasure hoards amounting to seven rolls on the
Challenge 0- 4 table, eighteen rolls on the Challenge
5- 10 table, twelve rolls on the Challenge 11- 16 table,
and eight rolls on the Challenge 17+ table."


I will need to find the work done.



TLDR: You can put whatever treasure you want wherever you want it by the base rules. The tables are just there as shorthand to make everything easier and do not represent some form of mandated linear power gain. Expecting randomization to follow a specific value is just bad, regardless of whether you want it to hold to the absolute mean or not. The game isn't broken because it uses narrative devices to manage metagame power levels rather than following a given person's idea of economics.




If Economists could actually predict human behavior beyond very broad assumptions that often don't accurately reflect reality because of a lack of understanding of social forces rather than just market forces we'd have a very different world!

This is not an on/off switch.

Propaganda and advertising are extremely and frighteningly effective. Companies spend dump trucks of money on Superbowl advertisements because it is effective, and profitable. Having a commercial on the Superbowl does not guarantee success, but the results overall are profitable.

There is the average guy/gal with a degree in economics, and then there is Warren Buffet. Warren buffet can predict economic social forces better than just about anyone, it would seem. The key word is better. If he could predict everything perfectly, then he would likely control the world.

Then we have psychics that can read people and make guesses on what to say. They can be quite convincing, but are not magical, just skilled.


magic items as worthless pieces of junk is not exactly great either. neither is gold being useless heavy trash, or gems being less heavy but still-useless trash.

if I cannot sell items, then a sizable portion of anything I find will be garbage. a +1 dagger is no more valuable than a regular dagger if nobody wants to use a dagger. 5,000 gold is no more valuable than 50 gp if i can't buy anything more useful with the 5,000 gp than i could buy with the 50 gp.

Exactly! The majority of D&D players like the idea that magical treasure is not valued (they want magic out of the economy, and for people not to act like people). The idea that no one would buy Excalibur makes that sword seem worth less than a MAGICAL SWORD would be! Who would not want something magic? The idea is insulting to the very idea of magical treasure.

One can sell a sword, but one cannot sell a +1 sword makes the sword treasure, and the +1 sword non-treasure (or magic worthless). This is a paradox. It is insulting that no one would want a MAGICAL TREASURE ITEM. This fact should make just about everyone everyone feel like this debases magic, and makes the treasure not literally non-valuable.

Some people say that someone cannot afford to buy magic. If no one can afford to buy something, then it is not worth the asking price. The whole supply and demand thing. A sane person cannot say a rock is priceless, worth $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 then declare that no one can afford to buy it, and simply not sell it because no one obviously can afford to buy such a wonderful rock. Then reside themselves to keeping a rock they do not want, even if someone offers them $100,000 for the rock, and they have some starving children to feed. But then again if the rock were magical, then no one would make it known that they were interested in a magical rock? If there were such magical items that would do something to protect a company, a house, or a nation . . . people would make it known that they wanted one.

People are young and/or stupid. There is a guy on that storage locker TV show who sold something like $1,000,000 in comics for $100,000 . . . now he is kicking himself.

[Zalabim]

Irrelevant. If magic were chaotic it irrational the game mechanics would reflect that, like in Warhammer.

So if magic were chaotic and irrational, fireball wouldn't deal between 4 and 48 damage, just for a 3rd level fireball. Magic Missile wouldn't deal between 6 and 15 damage. 6, 9, 12, or 15, but never 7 or 11 if there's only one damage roll. It's certainly uniform and rational that you can by chance take half as much damage as the guy behind you from being struck by a bolt of lightning, which is currently traveling horizontally through the air and parallel to the ground, whatever damage means.

D&D spellcasting mechanics are observable, repeatable, and generally safe, but also chaotic and if repeated will have irrational results. If you fireball a group of average goblins, then they will all be incinerated, except about 1 in 1250 times, 40% of the goblins will survive (assuming DC 15). This does not mean that 1 in 3125 goblins will survive a fireball. They'll all be in one group surviving the same fireball. The numbers are much closer if you're testing Burning Hands, but who wants to be that close to a group of burning goblins?

[mgshamster]

The rules should be internally consistent with the following base assumption.

[1] If I use the base rules, and use random magical generation
[2] Then the tables should reflect the suggested rate at which magical appear in 5e D&D.
[3] Else this is a flaw in the design.

Here's the flaw in your argument: Random Treasure Generators are optional.

You're choosing to use an optional rules system and then complaining that the rest of the books do not follow the optional rule you chose to use.

My own proof:

DMG, Page 133, under Random Treasure, reads, "The following pages contain tables that you can use to randomly generate treasures carried by monsters, tashed in their lairs, or otherwise hidden away. The placement of treasure is left to your discretion. The key is to make sure the players feel rewarded for playing, and that their characters are rewarded for overcoming dangerous challenges."

Not that is says you can use the tables, not that you have to. It says that treasure is left for your discretion, not that it automatically accompanies every monster and every liar. And it specifically says that the key is to reward your players for playing and overcoming challenges; it does not say that random treasure is how the world works.

Additionally: DMG, page 133, under Using Treasure Hoard Tables, it reads, "If the treasure hoard seems too small, you can roll multiple times..."

Here, it's showing that it truly is up to the GM to determine the treasure placement in the world and that the rules are not meant to be taken as a simulationist style.

DMG, page 135, under Magic Items: Rarity, it reads, "The game assumes that the secrets of creating the most powerful items arose centuries ago and were then gradually lost as a result of wars, cataclysms, and mishaps... Thus, many magic items are well preserved antiquities."

Here, it's flat out saying that the method of creating some of the most powerful magic items has been lost to time. But not some of the more common ones. In Chapter 6, there are rules for crafting magic items, so you can have magic item manufacturing plants if you want to - with a market for common and uncommon magic items throughout your game world. The system provides the options for doing so, if you want.

Further down in that same section, it reads, "Each rarity corresponds to a character level." This suggests that it truly is linked to the PC; Bob the commoner can't find a legendary item by happenstance; only a level 17 PC can (unless you as the GM decide otherwise). And again, this is optional. If your campaign is based on Bob the Commoner finding a legendary magic item and wrecking havoc across the countryside, then have at it!

Further down still, the DMG reads, "If your campaign allows for trade in magic items, rarity can also help you set prices for them." So the trade system of magic items is absolutely possible and is up to the GM.

And finally, there's an entire section entitled "Buying and Selling Magic Items." It even gives some options: you may think of selling magic items like fine art - getting a buyer and venue for selling can be an adventure on its own, or there may be a bazaar for magic item trade in a unique location like Sigil, or you could just go to the local apothecary to pick up some ready-made potions and other items. It's up to you as the GM!

5e is all about options that you can choose to use or not use. You are choosing to use certain optional rules, choosing to ignore other optional rules, calling these optional rules the "base rules" (which doesn't really exist in 5e) and then complaining that the optional rules you've chose to use and not use don't match up to the simulationist style of game you want to play.

The problem isn't the system. The problem is you. You're the one choosing to pick the options that don't match up to the game you want to play. Simply choose different options and you can have the economic simulation you want. It's as simple as that.

(And if you really want to complain about a lack of simulation with the so-called "base rules," check out encumbrance in the PHB. You can carry up to 15x your strength score and feel no effects of encombrance at all, because it doesn't exist without using a Variant rule. A strength 10 character can carry 150 lbs and not even notice it or be slowed down in the slightest.)

[SharkForce]

Not sure why you're assuming a slight amount of loyalty or a small favor. I sure as hell wasn't meaning that.

In 1e the loyalty bonus for giving a henchmen a magic item was fairly small (+10%). In a magic scarce 5e campaign, it should be significantly more. You may buy life-long loyalty with that one gift. You just gave them something worth a kingdom. I think that'll buy a lot of loyalty. Regardless of its capabilities.

Similarly, a dagger +1 is worth a kingdom, then giving it to some noble is a kingdom-sized favor.

If it's not worth a kingdom, then yes, of course it's a smaller favor, commiserate with its actual worth. Whatever that might be. Choose how to dispose of your excess wealth accordingly.

If your objection is that magic items aren't worth their listed prices, that's a totally different thing from 'why can't I sell them at all' or 'there is nothing worth buying with the gold I sell them for' If that's the argument you want to make, then make that argument. (Technically you just did. I'm just griping that you didn't in the first place. ;) )

the problem here is that the dagger isn't worth a kingdom no matter how rare magical items are. ultimately, it is less impressive than having a couple of extra goons a vast majority of the time. it is never worth a kingdom, it is never worth a kingdom-sized favour, and any lord who gave you a kingdom or equivalent in exchange for a +1 dagger (or any magical weapon, really) is an idiot.

now, a staff that lets you cast half a dozen fireballs a day while flying around, that is probably worth a kingdom, because it can allow you to annihilate small armies single-handedly. an orb that can let you control weather and send droughts upon your enemies while giving you year after year of perfect growing seasons is probably worth a kingdom. a scepter that allows you to command dragons is worth a kingdom. to the right person (probably a very wealthy and powerful archmage), a magical item that increases spellcasting DC significantly is probably worth a lot (they don't have kingdoms to give, of course, but they'd pay a buttload for it i would imagine). but the knife of being slightly more stabby than usual? nope. not even close. honestly, the DMG probably actually has the price fairly decently placed for this particular example; plate mail is much more valuable. and i don't imagine that if you offered a noble a suit of plate mail that they'd be falling all over themselves to give you a kingdom or equivalent favour. and frankly, if an NPC can use it, i would expect a gift of plate mail to also be much more highly valued than the magic item that everyone in the party can plainly see is not very valuable (and which they've probably already established that not one of them wants it) no matter how much some people might insist that it is a priceless magical artifact that nations would go to war over.

if you want magic items to be something that kingdoms would fight over, you're going to need to do better than +1 to hit and damage, or +1 to AC.

[mgshamster]

If there is a random option, then it should reflect the suggested rate at which magical items are expected to appear in 5e D&D. It does not match the suggested rate in the least.

Basically what you're saying here is that you want someone else to do the work of providing a simulationist rule set for every option and variant in the rulebooks.

How much are you willing to pay for that? How much is the rest of the gaming community? Is the additional work required to do so - for every single optional rule in the system - going to cost WotC? How big will the books be? Is it even feasible to provide such a system that is inherently designed to be flexible for as many different gaming styles as one can think of for D&D?

You want to talk about economics? Ok, let's talk about it in terms of material creation for a gaming company - a company with a relatively small market and a wide variance of gaming preferences within that market. You're just one person - why should they tailor their game to you when there is a different percent of customers who want the exact same product but do not want that simulationist style game? WotC went with a middle route and provided options. For each where you as the GM can design your own campaign to be as simulationist as you want. Likewise, those who don't care can ignore it. What provides WotC with more value: providing a detailed set of options that can take up pages if not chapters of space so that a portion of their customers will be happy (while the other portion ignores it), or to provide the base for the system that only takes up a few paragraphs, allowing for each portion to customize as they wish?

You're complaining about in-game economics while ignoring real word economics of creating such a game just to tailor your own preferences.

[darkrose50]

Here's the flaw in your argument: Random Treasure Generators are optional.


No flaw. I have a exceedingly rationally based assumption that rules I pay others to create are internally consistent. All rules are optional. Some are seen as more optional than others. I do not want to pay for something that is not well thought out. This is the very reason why we buy games . . . for the rules.

For example let us look at two rules:
[1] A new character starts with 10 GP, or optionally 2d4x10 GP
[2] A new character starts with 50 GP, or optionally 2d4x10 GP

Rule 1 would be a waist of space in the rule book. Rule 2 is internally consistent. Too many rules like rule 1, and I start to wounder why I bought this rule book.



You're choosing to use an optional rules system and then complaining that the rest of the books do not follow the optional rule you chose to use.


It is sloppy to say that on aveage a level x character should have y magical items, and then create a random method of magical item placement that does not even come close to approximating those numbers.

It would be much more acceptable if the level x character should have y magical items was, on average, what the charts produced.

Now it would not be as sloppy if they said “here is a random method of determining the number of magical items, but it has nothing to do with the assumptions presented.”



My own proof:


It is still sloppy. The random tables should conform to expectations presented. Being optional is not an excuse for bad game design.

Best case scenarios [1] they did not do the math, [2] they do not care, or [3] they wanted the random tables to not conform to the magical items per level suggestion.

All are bad game design. I pay them to present a product that is well thought out.

I want rules that say 50 GP or optionally 2d4x10 GP. I do not want to see rules that say 10 GP, or optionally 2d4x10 GP. Such rules are rather sloppy, and are nigh useless.


Basically what you're saying here is that you want someone else to do the work of providing a simulationist rule set for every option and variant in the rulebooks.

I prefer things leaning towards simulations. Mostly this means that I prefer things to be internally consistent, and I prefer people to act like people. People trade things for example. Saying they do not is rather quite silly. I prefer my rules to be well thought out. Saying a level x should have y magical items, and then presenting an optional system that is drastically different (without saying so, or trying to make it so) is bad game design.

It would be clearly useful to have the option to use the random tables, or not, or both and have them conform, on average, with the set assumptions. They do not. Hence this is clearly a flaw. It would be more useful if they matched. This it the sort of thing that I payed them to do for me.

I hope a balanced system is on the list of things that come up an Eberron book where the topic of magical items plays a more centralized role.

For the love of Gygax if there were two rules presented next to eachother like:
[1] Attribute/ability point-buy as is is in the PHB
[2] Or optionally roll 3d8 and arrange to taste . . . that would be bad game design as well, and nigh useless.

[mgshamster]

the problem here is that the dagger isn't worth a kingdom no matter how rare magical items are. ultimately, it is less impressive than having a couple of extra goons a vast majority of the time. it is never worth a kingdom, it is never worth a kingdom-sized favour, and any lord who gave you a kingdom or equivalent in exchange for a +1 dagger (or any magical weapon, really) is an idiot.

I absolutely agree with this. They're uncommon items, and those have a suggested value of 101-500 GP. Certainly not worth a kingdom. Even +3 items, put at "Very Rare" have a suggested value cap of 50,000 GP, and that's also likely not worth a kingdom.

How much is a kingdom worth? Likely a lot more than any given item, as a kingdom has wealth generation potential and magic items do not (unless we count something that can grant wishes). It really comes down to the economic state of the kingdom. Now that'd be an interesting campaign. "Ha! That stupid King traded his entire kingdom for this silly +1 dagger. What a fool!" "Uhh.. If he was that happy to make the trade, maybe you got the worse end of the deal." Turns out the kingdom has a curse or is maybe 100 billion GP in debt and the international council (or bank) has a price on the head of the King. "Even if you can't pay us back, we'll extract value from you in the form of pain, which we use to power our energy crystals. Don't worry, we have life-extending magics to ensure you won't die before your debt is paid."

[Steampunkette]

What I'm saying, Darkrose, is that you're looking at the average values of the tables and assuming everything must reflect those average values. They don't have to.

So let's take a look at the Out of the Abyss questline. In it there is pre-determined treasure with a little randomization here and there (1d4 gems instead of just getting 2 gems out of a pouch, for example). Does that adventure path's total reward metric line up with the average value you'd get with rolling on the tables for every encounter? No, actually. Out of the Abyss drops more rewards, total, than the presented number of rolls, on average.

This is what I assumed you were complaining about. That the other materials presented do not conform precisely to the tables. Which, y'know, they don't have to. Because the tables are optional, not set in stone must be used by the book rules items. They're guidelines and nothing more. Further, all the outcomes from the Out of the Abyss storyline might just represent the designer rolling high on those tables.

I sold Life Insurance for 3 years. I know the tables you're talking about and yeah: The numbers state that people are gonna die based on specific factors within a given time frame. But you can't look at a given individual and say "Wait! You don't fit the actuary tables! The system is broken!". Out of the Abyss, in this example, is a the given individual.

Does that make sense?

[Shining Wrath]

If you're a simulationist you know every game contains abstractions; places where the rules are simplified to achieve playability or other design goals.
For 5e, a design goal was to NOT require wealth by level, where players had to save every coin and turn it into magical geegaws with which they were bedecked like Christmas Trees.
Therefore, despite the logic of what you say about magical items being the sort of thing people would trade, a "magic mart" does not exist, and players cannot assume they can buy a +3 sword if they gain enough gold pieces. Not in Faerun, at least; perhaps such a thing will exist in Eberron.
You will note that prices are supplied for selling magical items. Just not buying them.

If you like, imagine that the supply of magical items is not large, and that nation-states have more wealth than anyone else; hence, given the utility of magic items in military combat, nation-states buy most of them and they are stored in the armory, awaiting war. Second assumption: nation-states can protect their armories from thieves at a "no, seriously, you're only a team of 50th level adventurers who have planned this raid for 250 years, you have no chance here" level.

[mgshamster]

No flaw. I have a exceedingly rationally based assumption that rules I pay others to create are internally consistent.

Bwahahahaha!

Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

You absolutely did not pay WotC to create this product. Unless you're claiming that you own Hasbro, and if you did you wouldn't be bitching about a product you bought off the shelf doesn't match the exact type of game you want to play.

No, what happened here is that you chose optional rules and expected those options to match up to the game you want, and when they didn't you complained about them to the net. You could have very easily chosen different options, but you didn't. Why? I don't really know. Whatever the reason, it very strongly betrays your claim of rationality.

5e is all about options that you can use or not use to create the game you want. If you choose not to pick the options that forms the game you want, that's on you.

And if you really don't like it, there are other games out there. You really don't have to pick 5e D&D for your gaming hobbies. There are extremely detailed simulationist games that exist that you could play. Or you could write your own game! Or you could write your own Houserules and offer them for sale in the GM's Guild for 5e!

But at no time, whatsoever, did you ever pay WotC to make a product for you. You purchased a pre-made product off the shelf, just like all the rest of us did.

[darkrose50]

What I'm saying, Darkrose, is that you're looking at the average values of the tables and assuming everything must reflect those average values. They don't have to.

So let's take a look at the Out of the Abyss questline. In it there is pre-determined treasure with a little randomization here and there (1d4 gems instead of just getting 2 gems out of a pouch, for example). Does that adventure path's total reward metric line up with the average value you'd get with rolling on the tables for every encounter? No, actually. Out of the Abyss drops more rewards, total, than the presented number of rolls, on average.

This is what I assumed you were complaining about. That the other materials presented do not conform precisely to the tables. Which, y'know, they don't have to. Because the tables are optional, not set in stone must be used by the book rules items. They're guidelines and nothing more. Further, all the outcomes from the Out of the Abyss storyline might just represent the designer rolling high on those tables.

I sold Life Insurance for 3 years. I know the tables you're talking about and yeah: The numbers state that people are gonna die based on specific factors within a given time frame. But you can't look at a given individual and say "Wait! You don't fit the actuary tables! The system is broken!". Out of the Abyss, in this example, is a the given individual.

Does that make sense?

I am not saying that 1d4 coming up a 4 is broken because it averages 2.5.

[shadow_archmagi]

The game is Dungeons & Dragons not Trade Routes & Time Tables.



It's dungeons and dragons.
Not spreadsheets and software.
If you want to redesign the economics of the game world to fit your personal simulationist ideal of what the world would be like when magic items exist and can be sold: Be my guest. I'm sure there will be at least some people who take your rules and run with them.



HELLO YES

I have been summoned by alliteration and fantastic economics! I just thought I'd pop in to let you know that this conversation has been had before, and indeed, attempts to create rationalized game worlds have been done before. I'm find of ACKS, and I'll link you to a relevant blog post by the designer. this one (http://www.autarch.co/blog/pricing-magic-items-acks)!

[darkrose50]

Bwahahahaha!
Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.


Now you are just being silly. I absolutely expect rules to be internally consistant. Because you are okay with them not being so is okay.



You absolutely did not pay WotC to create this product. Unless you're claiming that you own Hasbro, and if you did you wouldn't be bitching about a product you bought off the shelf doesn't match the exact type of game you want to play.


I paid money for rules with the expectation that they would be well thought out, and internally consistant.



No, what happened here is that you chose optional rules and expected those options to match up to the game you want, and when they didn't you complained about them to the net. You could have very easily chosen different options, but you didn't. Why? I don't really know. Whatever the reason, it very strongly betrays your claim of rationality.


Optional DOES NOT mean that they can be badly thought out or internally inconsistent.



5e is all about options that you can use or not use to create the game you want. If you choose not to pick the options that forms the game you want, that's on you.


I do not pay for D&D rules in order to just make them up myself. I expect them to be internally consistent, have the math checked, or have it mentioned that the optional rules do not conform in the least to the expectations stated. I must have higher rule standards than you, and that is okay for everyone involved.



And if you really don't like it, there are other games out there. You really don't have to pick 5e D&D for your gaming hobbies. There are extremely detailed simulationist games that exist that you could play. Or you could write your own game! Or you could write your own Houserules and offer them for sale in the GM's Guild for 5e!


This is really a simple statement. The optional rules for determining magical items should attempt to conform to the expectations. Being optional does not excuse bad game design.




But at no time, whatsoever, did you ever pay WotC to make a product for you. You purchased a pre-made product off the shelf, just like all the rest of us did.

I did indeed pay for my 5e D&D books, and I would be more inclined to buy more in the future if they were internally consistent. It was sloppy not to be.

[mgshamster]

Now you are just being silly. I absolutely expect rules to be internally consistant. Because you are okay with them not being so is another matter.



I paid money for rules with the expectation that they would be well thought out, and internally consistant.



Optional DOES NOT mean that they can be badly thought out or internally inconsistent.



I do not pay for D&D rules in order to just make them up myself. I expect them to be internally consistent, have the math checked, or have it mentioned that the optional rules do not conform in the least to the expected stated. I must have higher rule standards than you, and that is okay for everyone involved.



This is really a simple statement. The optional rules for determining magical items should attempt to conform the expectations. Being optional does not excuse bad game desighn.




I did indeed pay for my 5e D&D books, and I would be more inclined to buy more in the future if they were internally consistent. It was sloppy not to be.

The rules are internally consistent if you pick the options you want to make them consistent.

What you're asking for is to make these options all consistent with each other:

1) Magic items are so rare that there is no market.
2) Magic items exist in a market equivalent to readied art
3) Magic items are common enough to be bought and sold at specific locations, such as Sigil
4) Magic items are common enough that they can be bought and sold in major kingdoms
5) Magic items are so common that they can be bought and sold in most small towns
6) Any option you so desire between those or beyond

How do you make a rule set that is "internally consistent" when those are the options laid out in the DMG and you're specifically told that as the GM you have the power to shape your campaign world how you like?

You want option 5 or 6. Another person may want option 1 or 2. You want WotC to have premade an entire economic system that takes into account every little variant that every single one of their players want, and that's just not going to happen from a mart letting point of view. It's a waste of WotC's time and money when the entire game is designed around customization by the player. WotC made options, from simple to moderately complex. You want extreme complexity. That's perfectly fine, as a GM that's your perview to design if you so want; or you can pick up another product (again, off the shelf) and incorporate it into your game. Heck, it looks like someone has already done what you want, as another poster linked!

The issue is that you didn't get *exactly* what you want and you're claiming that the system isn't internally consistent. When you look at it from a design context with the variety of customers that WotC has, it's perfectly consistent. They're not here to provide a simulation, there here to provide options for you to make your own simulation - with whatever complexity you may want.

That's always been what D&D and other table top RPGs have been about. "Here are some rules we came up with, enjoy and modify as you will." Some systems are more complex, some are not, some provide more options and some less. 5e is all about providing options, and when some of those options are exact opposites of each other, then any claim of "internal consistency" between rules becomes irrelevant, as the rules aren't meant to simulate one campaign setting, but a large variety of campaign settings (some published, some expected to be made up by the customers).

Essentially, you're looking at the game from an entire wrong perspective and wondering why it doesn't match up to the expectations of that perspective. The reason it doesn't is because it was never meant to; it's designed from a different perspective where the rules are perfectly consistent.

You can't look at Forgotten Realms and complain that it doesn't have the same economics as Planescape or Ebberon or Greyhawk or Spelljammer or Darksun. The core rules are designed so you can play in any of those setting (and more!) and has to accommodate that.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Here's a simple explanation for why 5e explicitly disallows magic item trade, and then discusses a vague variant rule where you "could" allow for some sort of market: They never meant for there to be no trade of magic items.

That's how they always do it in this edition. Feats. Multiclassing. Pretty standard "non-standard" races. Even magic items themselves. All optional, and yet part of the feel of D&D (for me). Magic items especially stand out as "optional" rules that are begging to be included*.

In other words, the point is not to simulate a world with no trading of magical treasure. It's to create a strong bargaining position for a caricature of some poor GM brow-beaten by his terrible munchkin players. In 3.5 if players were rarely if ever allowed to trade magical treasure, and when they were they got unfavorable prices, the GM was being difficult. In this edition, the same situation implies the GM is making a concession for the players.

RE: Analogy to modern market for space shuttlesIf a game set in modern times involved extensive use of space shuttles, then I'd want some rules for a procurement market a la Space-X. But that's me.
*Yes, I know some people don't play with the optional rules, and some games won't really have a lot of buying and selling of magic items, but some people played other editions without those rules when they weren't listed as "optional" as well.

[darkrose50]

[1.0] I lean towards the simulationist bent. Mainly this means that people should act like people.

[1.1] Treasure should be desired and valuable. People desire treasure. One is not considered to be a treasure hunter if they spend their time searching for something that is non-valuable. Treasure being valuable is something that people relate to. People buy and sell treasure.
[1.2] Magical treasure should be a desired and valuable. One should not have a hard time locating a buyer for something that is desired and valuable. People not wanting magical treasure is wrong on several levels.
[1.3] A statement such as “x is worth too much gold to sell to anyone” makes my head hurt, and defies supply and demand. This is sloppy window dressing to explain away the reason why one cannot buy and sell magical items. This rational is internally inconsistent. That would be like telling someone that it would be impossible to sell a large amount of gold, or that there is no way to sell a famous work of art because people have not figured out a way to trade them.

[2.0] I also lean towards internal consistency. Mainly this means that rules should attempt to be consistent. No rules should say 1d8 or optionally 6 (skipping the 4.5 average entirely).

For example

[2.1] The PHB says you may roll hit points
[2.2] Or take the average, rounded up.
[2.3] I like the idea of something like 1d6= 4, 1d8 = 5+1, 1d10 = 6+2, and 1d12 = 7+3 to better represent martial prowess.

However I would think it sloppy to go from 2.1 to 2.3 without having 2.2, and without having a rational for 2.3.

[Tanarii]

Irrelevant. If magic were chaotic it irrational the game mechanics would reflect that, like in Warhammer.You're making the same mistake again. Assuming that the mechanics are a model of in-game reality. I.e. a simulationist model.

[Mr.Moron]

[1.0] I lean towards the simulationist bent. Mainly this means that people should act like people.

[1.1] Treasure should be desired and valuable. People desire treasure. One is not considered to be a treasure hunter if they spend their time searching for something that is non-valuable. Treasure being valuable is something that people relate to. People buy and sell treasure.
[1.2] Magical treasure should be a desired and valuable. One should not have a hard time locating a buyer for something that is desired and valuable. People not wanting magical treasure is wrong on several levels.
[1.3] A statement such as “x is worth too much gold to sell to anyone” makes my head hurt, and defies supply and demand. This is sloppy window dressing to explain away the reason why one cannot buy and sell magical items. This rational is internally inconsistent. That would be like telling someone that it would be impossible to sell a large amount of gold, or that there is no way to sell a famous work of art because people have not figured out a way to trade them.

[2.0] I also lean towards internal consistency. Mainly this means that rules should attempt to be consistent. No rules should say 1d8 or optionally 6 (skipping the 4.5 average entirely).


You keep repeating the same things over and over again without addressing people's arguments. At any rate the rules are not and will not be what you want. People aren't getting on board the particular train you're driving. So from a practical perspective you really only have 3 options:

Stop playing D&D 5e.
Keep playing D&D 5e and not enjoying the economics of it.
Homebrew your own rules that fit your personal hyper-specific definition of internally consistent.


At the end of the day it's about enjoying the way you're spending your time right?

[mgshamster]

Wait. The DMG starts with an assumption that magic items don't have a market, and the rest of the book is written with that assumption. Isn't that the very definition of "internal consistency"? They are being consistent with their own internal assumptions. By demanding that they follow real world economics, you're bringing in an outside assumption and complaining that a pre-written book doesn't follow assumptions you brought to it rather than the assumptions it stated within itself.

Of course, it's irrelevant, because they also provide other options for a GM to use or make up as they see fit. Which is what D&D is all about. WotC understands their market, and they know that people customize and design their own material all the time. It's more common than not.

I'm also sure they've done the analysis for simple rules (5e) vs complex/simulationist rules (3.x) and they know what will bring in more money and more customers for their product. Which is probably why we have the current system instead of another rules complex system designed to simulate reality as much as possible. The loss of a few customers due to lack of complex rules is likely outweighed by new customers purchasing into the simple rules that allows for massive customization.

[Warpiglet]

In my initial semi sober response to this thread, I did not point out one fact which might help to rationalize the assumptions of 5e.

While precious things ARE sold, (e.g. Diamonds) what is the market for flawless fossils, meteorites, moon rocks, etc.? What would it be without modern communication? No internet, no modern postal service? Would it be hard to find a buyer? Wouldn't the rare case of a magic item sale be best adjudicated by a DM on a case by case basis?

Think of it this way: on your way to work in a car, how many fossil dealers do you pass?

This presupposes rarity for a general lack of magic sales to make sense. It's not impossible to buy a dinosaur egg but if you are gaming in in the 1300 Europe, do we need rules for fossil sales?

Being able to easily make and buy magic items killed the fantasy for me and probably many (NOT ALL) long time players. In the days of yore, you COULD make magic items, but it took a long time and the chance of failure was great.

For some the new assumptions make sense. For some campaigns, buy sell and haggle. It's your (OUR) game!

[mgshamster]

You keep repeating the same things over and over again without addressing people's arguments. At any rate the rules are not and will not be what you want. People aren't getting on board the particular train you're driving. So from a practical perspective you really only have 3 options:

Stop playing D&D 5e.
Keep playing D&D 5e and not enjoying the economics of it.
Homebrew your own rules that fit your personal hyper-specific definition of internally consistent.


At the end of the day it's about enjoying the way you're spending your time right?

This ties in with option 3, but you could also purchase a 3PP and adopt those rules into the system for a better simulationist game. Or copy someone else's homebrewed rules. I'm sure they've been written by someone.

[Steampunkette]

I am not saying that 1d4 coming up a 4 is broken because it averages 2.5.

This one line response clearly communicates exactly what you intend while dispelling all confusion.

I am now convinced.

[darkrose50]

The rules are internally consistent if you pick the options you want to make them consistent.


The base assumption is that there is average level of magical items at the x rate for the base game. For example Forgotten Realms is the base setting. So if the recommended number of magical items x at level y should be representative in the random rolls.



What you're asking for is to make these options all consistent with each other:

1) Magic items are so rare that there is no market.
2) Magic items exist in a market equivalent to readied art
3) Magic items are common enough to be bought and sold at specific locations, such as Sigil
4) Magic items are common enough that they can be bought and sold in major kingdoms
5) Magic items are so common that they can be bought and sold in most small towns
6) Any option you so desire between those or beyond


What would be nice would be to have modifiers to a chart based on the level. Something like roll 1d100 + <level above x10> where more magical items would be available the higher from 120+, or whatnot.



How do you make a rule set that is "internally consistent" when those are the options laid out in the DMG and you're specifically told that as the GM you have the power to shape your campaign world how you like?


There can be a rule that says “make up everything.” I still expect a certain level of quality. I would like more work to be done with the magical economy at the default D&D level.



You want option 5 or 6. Another person may want option 1 or 2. You want WotC to have premade an entire economic system that takes into account every little variant that every single one of their players want, and that's just not going to happen from a mart letting point of view. It's a waste of WotC's time and money when the entire game is designed around customization by the player. WotC made options, from simple to moderately complex. You want extreme complexity. That's perfectly fine, as a GM that's your preview to design if you so want; or you can pick up another product (again, off the shelf) and incorporate it into your game. Heck, it looks like someone has already done what you want, as another poster linked!


I expect the rules to be internally consistent.

I would like economic rules that make sense for a various range of settings.



The issue is that you didn't get *exactly* what you want and you're claiming that the system isn't internally consistent. When you look at it from a design context with the variety of customers that WotC has, it's perfectly consistent. They're not here to provide a simulation, there here to provide options for you to make your own simulation - with whatever complexity you may want.

I don’t know how I could be any clearer. If they say a character starts with 10 GP and the only optional rule says one can instead optionally roll 2d4x10, then this would be a poorly worded optional rule.



That's always been what D&D and other table top RPGs have been about. "Here are some rules we came up with, enjoy and modify as you will." Some systems are more complex, some are not, some provide more options and some less. 5e is all about providing options, and when some of those options are exact opposites of each other, then any claim of "internal consistency" between rules becomes irrelevant, as the rules aren't meant to simulate one campaign setting, but a large variety of campaign settings (some published, some expected to be made up by the customers).

I can make up my own rules, I do this all the time. I expect the rules I buy to be internally consistent. This is a measure of quality.



Essentially, you're looking at the game from an entire wrong perspective and wondering why it doesn't match up to the expectations of that perspective. The reason it doesn't is because it was never meant to; it's designed from a different perspective where the rules are perfectly consistent.

You can't look at Forgotten Realms and complain that it doesn't have the same economics as Planescape or Ebberon or Greyhawk or Spelljammer or Darksun. The core rules are designed so you can play in any of those setting (and more!) and has to accommodate that.


I am looking for a base line, and not the standard being X, and the optional random item being wildly different than X. It would be much more useful if the random method resembled X.

Again, an optional rule still needs to be well thought out and internally consistent.

[darkrose50]

You keep repeating the same things over and over again without addressing people's arguments. At any rate the rules are not and will not be what you want. People aren't getting on board the particular train you're driving. So from a practical perspective you really only have 3 options:

Stop playing D&D 5e.
Keep playing D&D 5e and not enjoying the economics of it.
Homebrew your own rules that fit your personal hyper-specific definition of internally consistent.


At the end of the day it's about enjoying the way you're spending your time right?

This is really a simple concept. If there a guideline that says a level x character should have y magical items, then I expect an effort to be made that the random generator would attempt to simulate that guideline. It is clearly sloppy not to do so.


In my initial semi sober response to this thread, I did not point out one fact which might help to rationalize the assumptions of 5e.

While precious things ARE sold, (e.g. Diamonds) what is the market for flawless fossils, meteorites, moon rocks, etc.? What would it be without modern communication? No internet, no modern postal service? Would it be hard to find a buyer? Wouldn't the rare case of a magic item sale be best adjudicated by a DM on a case by case basis?

Think of it this way: on your way to work in a car, how many fossil dealers do you pass?

This presupposes rarity for a general lack of magic sales to make sense. It's not impossible to buy a dinosaur egg but if you are gaming in in the 1300 Europe, do we need rules for fossil sales?

Being able to easily make and buy magic items killed the fantasy for me and probably many (NOT ALL) long time players. In the days of yore, you COULD make magic items, but it took a long time and the chance of failure was great.

For some the new assumptions make sense. For some campaigns, buy sell and haggle. It's your (OUR) game!

There is evidence from prehistoric times of complex and extensive trade routes of items moving from one place to another (across vast distances over continents). This was well before the concept of currency.

This is a statement that should be true. Magic should be coveted. Treasure should be valuable. Something that is both coveted and valuable should be involved in the economy. This is how people work at a fundamental level.

[Tanarii]

This is really a simple concept. If there a guideline that says a level x character should have y magical items, then I expect an effort to be made that the random generator would attempt to simulate that guideline. It is clearly sloppy not to do so.There is no such guideline.

[darkrose50]

There is no such guideline.

I thought I remember seeing guidelines for how many magical items a higher level character would have at character creation.

[mgshamster]

The base assumption is that there is average level of magical items at the x rate for the base game. For example Forgotten Realms is the base setting. So if the recommended number of magical items x at level y should be representative in the random rolls.

Wrong. The random tables in the DMG are for the GM to use to assist them with coming up with random treasure. They are not there to model any particular campaign setting.


I would like economic rules that make sense for a various range of settings.

Then you can't also want something that is consistent with only a single campaign setting, like you've been asking for this entire time. You can't have rules for an economic system that describes both an abundance of a product and an absence of a product while also keeping the rules simple enough where your average player can understand and keep the rules within a certain page limit and within a certain cost for production (including hiring the expertise necessary to ensure accuracy).

You have to limit it somewhere. The best option from a production point of view is to simple not have the extreme level of detail you're requesting, because most customers won't care about it, it's cheaper, and the reduced space leave room for either fewer pages or other content.


I don’t know how I could be any clearer. If they say a character starts with 10 GP and the only optional rule says one can instead optionally roll 2d4x10, then this would be a poorly worded optional rule.

Can you please provide page numbers for these rules? I strongly suspect you're making up or ignoring rules to keep to your argument.

I can not think of anywhere in the books where it says you can either have 10 GP or 2d4x10 GP.


I can make up my own rules, I do this all the time. I expect the rules I buy to be internally consistent. This is a measure of quality.

They are. Just because you're not choosing to use the rules doesn't mean they're not internally consistent.

What you're asking for is for them to be consistent with the outside rules you've brought to the table, not the internal rules presented in the game.

[Tanarii]

I thought I remember seeing guidelines for how many magical items a higher level character would have at character creation.That's not the same as having x magical items for y level gained through play. Starting with higher level characters isn't even standard character generation, so it can't be the same thing.

[mgshamster]

That's not the same as having x magical items for y level gained through play. Starting with higher level characters isn't even standard character generation, so it can't be the same thing.

Especially when it says, "Starting equipment for characters above 1st level is entirely at your discretion, since you give out treasure at your own pace. That said, you can use the Starting Equipment table as a guide." Page 38 of the DMG.

Using the guidelines for a standard fantasy game, you could start the game with two uncommon magic items and a rare magic item if you're starting at level 17 or higher.

It's yet another example in the rules that the DMG isn't there to model one specific campaign setting, but rather it's there to provide the GM with options to use in their own games.

[darkrose50]

There most definitely can be a a baseline for a standard D&D game. Some games have more, and some have less.

The random treasure generation rules should reflect this average D&D setting.

I find this interesting.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?395770-Analysis-of-quot-Typical-quot-Magic-Item-Distribution

[Warpiglet]

This is really a simple concept. If there a guideline that says a level x character should have y magical items, then I expect an effort to be made that the random generator would attempt to simulate that guideline. It is clearly sloppy not to do so.

There is evidence from prehistoric times of complex and extensive trade routes of items moving From one place to another (across vast distances over continents). This was well before the concept of currency.

This is a statement that should be true. Magic should be coveted. Treasure should be valuable. Something that is both coveted and valuable should be involved in the economy. This is how people work at a fundamental level.

Can you think of anything that a kingdom emptied its coffers for? Yes Indians in North America had a huge trade network to the coast.

I just don't think there is a precedent for trade of items as singularly valuable or rare as magic (as portrayed in 5e) being traded with any regularity.

Even so, if magic items are terribly rare, why would we need rules for the rare event of their purchase? Couldn't you decide in this rare event that the emperor offers x gold and run with it?

We might say a meteor hits the continent and have magical consequences. Do we need rules to determine what those would be?

You're not wrong with what you want, but it is merely not consistent with the baseline world's parameters. Make your world have a magic item quik e mart if you wish!

Most people playing 5e simply would do it differently.

[JackPhoenix]

There's a thing: you don't want realistic economy. You want a standard price for a magic items that's always the same in Sigil, random backwater town, kingdom threatened by a demon invulnerable to normal weapons and a rich collector who's already got 3 of them, but want this one, because it's from a different maker.

Just because the items don't have price tag put on them by default doesn't mean they can't be bought or sold...it means they are so rare and circumstancially useful that the price can differ. You can trade your +1 dagger for a warm meal and a place to stay for the night if you're in a peaceful kingdom where nobody really needs it. You may have people begging and promising you half a kingdom if you give it to them, because the kingdom is under attack by a monster that can't be killed by a non-magic weapon, and the only other place where they have magic items is weeks away.

You can't just walk into some gallery, look at the price tag on Rembrandt painting and buy one. You may talk to the owner and try to convince him to sell it to you for a lot of money, or you may wait until he's selling in an auction, and pay more then anyone else who also wants it.

"Realistic economy" is a matter complex enough for its own handbook, not just a table or two with random percentile chance put into corner of PHB or DMG


Can you think of anything that a kingdom emptied its coffers for? Yes Indians in North America had a huge trade network to the coast.

Well, there was the ransom for Richard I, Atahualpa and propably many other rulers.

[Warpiglet]

There's a thing: you don't want realistic economy. You want a standard price for a magic items that's always the same in Sigil, random backwater town, kingdom threatened by a demon invulnerable to normal weapons and a rich collector who's already got 3 of them, but want this one, because it's from a different maker.

Just because the items don't have price tag put on them by default doesn't mean they can't be bought or sold...it means they are so rare and circumstancially useful that the price can differ. You can trade your +1 dagger for a warm meal and a place to stay for the night if you're in a peaceful kingdom where nobody really needs it. You may have people begging and promising you half a kingdom if you give it to them, because the kingdom is under attack by a monster that can't be killed by a non-magic weapon, and the only other place where they have magic items is weeks away.

You can't just walk into some gallery, look at the price tag on Rembrandt painting and buy one. You may talk to the owner and try to convince him to sell it to you for a lot of money, or you may wait until he's selling in an auction, and pay more then anyone else who also wants it.

"Realistic economy" is a matter complex enough for its own handbook, not just a table or two with random percentile chance put into corner of PHB or DMG



Well, there was the ransom for Richard I, Atahualpa and propably many other rulers.
Very good. Do we need ransom rules? ;)

[mgshamster]

Very good. Do we need ransom rules? ;)

It's sloppy writing that they didn't encorporate kidnapping and ransom rules in to the game. Obviously. Especially since there is historic precedent for it in the real world.

[ji6]

Words

If you really want to get some ideas on how to improve 5e economical system, you may be interested in some of Emily Dresner's writings (http://www.critical-hits.com/blog/category/critical-hits/columns/dungeonomics/)

I feel awkward for linking this twice in a hour span, but you would probably find a lot of her ideas cool if you are wishing to make a more feasible world. These ideas are pretty fun to place in campaigns and can fix some of the problems you were mentioning, but they are of course simply limited starting points. Although, I remember using these before 5e, and I honestly have not read a lot of the more recent works.

[Forum Explorer]

The random magical item tables should reflect the baseline rarity of magical items in 5e D&D. Sometimes random rolls are fun, and result in items that one would normally not place.

They don't. They never did, and they don't claim they do anywhere. They are an optional tool for DMs, who don't want to think up every last bit of treasure their monsters have. By themselves they tell you absolutely nothing about the world they are being used in.

If you are focusing only on them and complaining they don't match up to a realistic setting (which, by the way, isn't a standard setting in of itself), then you are being willfully obtuse, and have only yourself to blame for your dashed expectations.

The random tables, heck the entire DMG, is meant to provide ideas for the DM to make their own setting. They have random tables for plot goals and the like too, but I don't see anyone complaining about how 1 in 12 adventures require them to track down their villain's fatal weakness first.

The section you are complaining about isn't even in the part of the DMG about the rules! It's all about how things might be, and what you can do. It's design goal is to 'create and run great adventures'. Not tell you that X adventurer should be receiving Y amount of treasure by level Z.

[JackPhoenix]

If you really want to get some ideas on how to improve 5e economical system, you may be interested in some of Emily Dresner's writings (http://www.critical-hits.com/blog/category/critical-hits/columns/dungeonomics/)

I feel awkward for linking this twice in a hour span, but you would probably find a lot of her ideas cool if you are wishing to make a more feasible world. These ideas are pretty fun to place in campaigns and can fix some of the problems you were mentioning, but they are of course simply limited starting points. Although, I remember using these before 5e, and I honestly have not read a lot of the more recent works.

I'm not sure if I'm the only one who find this problematic, and it should propably be written in the PM, but...can you please stop using this tiny font? It's really annoying and hard to read.

[Shining Wrath]

This problem simply goes away if you imagine that kings want to win wars and therefore buy all the magic items they can find, and forbid their sale to other people. In the real world, that's been done with silk and glass that I can think of, and probably more, so why not magic items? Consider that a D&D war may well come down to Hector-equivalent versus Achilles-equivalent, and it gets rather unfair if Achilles-equivalent has been completely kitted out in +3 gear, rings of regeneration, and so on (mama Thetis is generous). Even in the time of the Crusades a Richard the Lion Hearted could turn the tide of a battle more or less single-handed through sheer badassery. Although I note in passing Saladin was the superior general and won the war, that's not always the case.

So, in a world in which magic items can be produced, the people who want to live comfortable lives in cities are going to sell every item they produce to the king-equivalent, and buying something "on the black market" is going to be hard to do and expensive. Artisans who want to produce things free of a king's "protection" are not going to advertise, because their rare products are worth as much as a common man's lifetime earnings, and a legendary item is worth as much as a skilled craftsman can earn in years or decades. You can't run a business of that sort openly without the protection of someone powerful, so the magic item maker either lives in the shadows, or has a king who buys his output and forbids the sale of powerful items to outsiders. I suppose you could invent an artisan who in addition to being a master craftsman is also so powerful personally that no one dare attack him, even in his sleep - you may as well call him Feanor and consider how well that turned out.

Therefore, a simulationist view that includes the perfectly predictable actions of kings winds up with very few magic items for sale.

[SharkForce]

kings aren't generally going to be able to force a person who can make legendary items to do anything. absolute best case scenario, you've annoyed a key source of magical items that you wanted (and most likely any apprentices, and possibly an associated organization), worst case scenario, they're mad enough to take action and you get to find out *why* you don't annoy high level spellcasters.

but again, let's be clear: unless magic weapons are *super* common, you're not going to see enough of them to significantly impact your ability to wage war. if you have a unit of guys with +1 weapons and armour, yeah they'll be better than the opposition... but not really by all that much. if the other side says "screw it, we'll just train twice as many knights instead", they are probably going to completely and utterly wreck you.

even if you had a whole unit with +3 magic weapons, it isn't likely to be that big of a deal. 5th edition tried really hard to make magic items less important than the person wielding them, and they mostly did a pretty good job (though as i noted earlier, some spellcasting items can cause problems).

magic items are generally just not that impactful. if you want to consistently win wars, train better soldiers, and train more of them (for the purpose of this discussion, soldiers does not exclude spellcasting classes; if you get better soldiers by making a deal with the queen of the seelie court, or sponsor a college of war mages, or make large donations to a specific church, that will once again have much more of an impact than trying to hoard all the +1 swords). within that context, i could see a king wanting to win favour with some organization by gifting them with a single powerful magical item, and wanting to buy it, but wanting to get a monopoly on magic weapons? you'll be blowing a ton of money on a very small improvement. a very small improvement which is relatively easy to take from you, i might add - it is much easier to steal your magic swords off of fallen warriors or from your armoury than it is to turn loyal soldiers against you, assuming you treat them reasonably well.

100 knights with +1 weapons and armour will beat 100 knights without such weapons and armour, but 125 knights with no magic weapons will probably beat the 100 knights with magic weapons. a +1 sword is just really not all that amazing of a thing. it isn't worth the effort of blowing all your money to equip your soldiers with magical gear. they are not some sort of super-weapon.

[ericgrau]

5e D&D economics = people must have been beaten stupid into a post-apocalyptic dark age

[1.0] It would seem that the default 5e D&D rules (especially the lack of economic rules) suggest a setting that is relatively primitive and post-apocalyptic compared to how it once was. Society must be crumbling, and people must be beaten stupid into a post-apocalyptic dark age. Trade routes are likely primitive, dangerous, filled with monsters, and filled with bandits of various races. People likely do not trade much. Education, economics, technology, and society have regressed.
[1.1] There is a lack of infrastructure to create, distribute, trade, buy or sell magical treasure. No agents, no collectors, no auction houses, and no shops. There are no individuals, or groups of wizards creating magical items for profit. There are no groups of people recovering old magical items to sell. No one is offering bounties on magical treasure.
[1.2] Magical treasure screams valuable and wanted. An economy not involving magic treasure where there exists such a thing as magical treasure is quite mindboggling. For magical items not to have an economic impact, at all, is quite telling. Either (a) the economic concepts are lacking or (b) the trade infrastructure to make a profitable magical item trade must be lacking. The economy must either be so primitive that people cannot figure a way to profit from magical treasure, or historic trade routes are crawling with apex predators making trade nigh impossible.
[1.3] Magical items are an advanced concept requiring a great deal of magical education, study, and practice. Society was once able to produce magical items, and was more advanced than it is now.
[1.4] Coins are used in the economy. This seems as if would be a somewhat advanced economic concept, and it is likely a holdover from an earlier pre-apocalypse age, and many are likely from bygone civilizations.

[2.0] Ruins are sporadically scattered in the wild that contain riches of old lost civilizations.
[2.1] Apex predators roam ruins, and are not kept in check by civilization.
[2.2] Coins made of precious metals may be recovered in the ruins. Coins can be used for trade.
[2.3] Magical items may be recovered in the ruins. However due to being beaten stupid into a post-apocalyptic dark age no one has figured out how to profit from the magical item trade.

[3.0] I am simulationist. It is my goal to have rules that are internally consistent with the setting. It would seem that the rules would not fit the Forgotten Realms setting.
[3.1] In reality players do not care that there are not people in a setting acting like people via buying and trading magic items. Somehow, for reasons that seem exceedingly paradoxical, people want D&D magical treasure not to be valued as treasure. This seems beyond odd to me.
[3.2] A retiring adventurer should have people constantly begging him to sell his magic sword to them. People should be envious and jealous over his magical sword. Nobles would be offering to trade the privilege to marry one of their daughters in exchange for a magic sword. People not caring about the magical sword makes them non-treasure, and causes the mystery of magic to evaporate.
[3.3] In effect magical swords are like pennies. They are fun to play with (causing them to spin about on a table or whatnot), but if you saw one on the street you would keep walking.
[3.3] No one wanting magical treasure causes magical treasure to cease being treasure.
All of the above are the same issue: This is the default assumption but you are free to make your world however you want. If you want a rich well developed civilization where magic items are frequently traded you can make Eberron, or play in the world of Eberron. It says so right in the DMG. If you don't then you don't. Dude, a semi-devastated world with wondrous ancient ruins to explore is only the example and only a suggestion. There are several other suggestions given or you can make the world however you want. It's not fixed in the rules at all.

In the semi-devastated world nobody wants a +1 sword except certain uncommon powerful NPCS, and good luck finding them. DMG says you can sell it to one when you find one. Otherwise a level 1-3 character would never be dumb enough to buy it because he could raise a small army with that money. If you play in Eberron or make a similar world, then sure you can find lots of buyers and open up trade networks.

[Tanarii]

100 knights with +1 weapons and armour will beat 100 knights without such weapons and armour, but 125 knights with no magic weapons will probably beat the 100 knights with magic weapons. a +1 sword is just really not all that amazing of a thing. it isn't worth the effort of blowing all your money to equip your soldiers with magical gear. they are not some sort of super-weapon.
But one high level Champion with +3 weapons, armor and shield will probably wreck the other sides equal level champion that has no magic items. Or just solo all 125 Knights, if the other side doesn't have a champion.

Maybe. :) I haven't tried that yet. But I've no doubt a single wizard with a powerful magic staff could wreck an entire unit of the enemy. Multiple times over.

A plus one weapon is value at something like a Breastplate, or about half the value of Half-Plate, or a quarter of Full-plate. By your argument, why have Full Plate armored Knights when you can just have ten times as many soldiers in chain mail? The answer is shock value. You give a small unit of inherently more powerful or well trained guys every advantage you can get them, then field your normal force, and have those shock troops hit at the right place and right time to turn the tide.

In the case of D&D, where people are not equally powerful to begin with before equipment, that shock unit can be just one guy. Your champion. Or a small group of elite forces. Pack them with magical items on top of their natural skills, and watch them wreck the enemy exactly where it's needed.

[SharkForce]

one high level champion is very unlikely to solo 125 knights, with or without +3 items (though with +3 items, it's probably a better chance). and why would one side agree to a duel when one side has an obviously better-equipped champion?

one good wizard could probably wreck most regular units of soldiers with or without a magic staff, btw, and i did explicitly note that certain specific items (primarily spellcasting items) might actually hold exceptionally high values. but for the most part, magic items just aren't that big of a game-changer.

(part of the problem with the spellcasting items is that they basically give out abilities of a specific level, while fighter items just make you a little better at what you could normally do... which they're kinda stuck with, because if they made casters slightly better at what they did, for example by giving +3 save DC, casters would become hilariously overpowered).

you need a seriously huge equipment advantage (and probably also a training advantage) to really make smaller numbers of better-equipped soldiers work. for the most part, magic items do not provide nearly enough of an equipment advantage to make it work (again, with the exception of some items that cast spells)

[ji6]

I'm not sure if I'm the only one who find this problematic, and it should propably be written in the PM, but...can you please stop using this tiny font? It's really annoying and hard to read.

Sorry :S. I honestly find the font size on this forum too large and it is annoying for me to read (especially for longer posts). I really have to read my posts a lot to ensure I get my meaning across, so I find it important to read my own stuff. I have tried zooming out to fix the problem on my end, but that is annoying as I swap tabs frequently. I honestly wish my font could be between the size I typically post in and this size, but that is not really an option. Would it be better if I used something like Times New Roman?

If I used Times New Roman as this text, I can follow the text much easier as well as it basically shrinks the text.

[zeek0]

I shan't read the whole of this thread - which is chock full of ignoring good reasons.

But in regards to the post-apocalyptic setting - this is certainly true. The fantasy genre is grown out of medieval England and Europe, which looked back on the Greeks and Romans as paragons. The majority of their knowledge came from the Greeks, the Romans had vast armies and power, and anyone who looked at a temple built by either culture *knew* that their civilization paled in comparison. It was only recently that cultures around the world started to look forward instead of back for their knowledge and achievements.

I think that there are a myriad of reasons that the economy in D&D settings are as it is. Yes, all of them are setting specific, but that is the point. I especially liked the explanation given by Mr. Moron.

And ji6 - if you just zoom out on the webpage then *everybody's* posts will be smaller. You won't just have to read your own posts in a small font.

[Tanarii]

But in regards to the post-apocalyptic setting - this is certainly true. The fantasy genre is grown out of medieval England and Europe, which looked back on the Greeks and Romans as paragons. The majority of their knowledge came from the Greeks, the Romans had vast armies and power, and anyone who looked at a temple built by either culture *knew* that their civilization paled in comparison. It was only recently that cultures around the world started to look forward instead of back for their knowledge and achievements.

It's important to note that the 'looking back' at the Romans and Greeks as superior mostly started happening during the Renaissance. Things weren't nearly as dark in the so-called 'Dark Ages' as they were painted by the later times. Basically putting the Romans up on a pedestal was a thing that happened a thousand years after the fact. Just as the Romans put the Greeks on a pedestal a thousand years after the fact.

Which IMO reinforces your point even more. It's entirely possible, likely even, that the ancient collapsed civilizations found in the typical D&D world weren't as superior as they are being envisioned by the current people, a millennium later. Just *bigger*, as a political entity, with attendant benefits in resources and manpower.

[Shining Wrath]

kings aren't generally going to be able to force a person who can make legendary items to do anything. absolute best case scenario, you've annoyed a key source of magical items that you wanted (and most likely any apprentices, and possibly an associated organization), worst case scenario, they're mad enough to take action and you get to find out *why* you don't annoy high level spellcasters.

but again, let's be clear: unless magic weapons are *super* common, you're not going to see enough of them to significantly impact your ability to wage war. if you have a unit of guys with +1 weapons and armour, yeah they'll be better than the opposition... but not really by all that much. if the other side says "screw it, we'll just train twice as many knights instead", they are probably going to completely and utterly wreck you.

even if you had a whole unit with +3 magic weapons, it isn't likely to be that big of a deal. 5th edition tried really hard to make magic items less important than the person wielding them, and they mostly did a pretty good job (though as i noted earlier, some spellcasting items can cause problems).

magic items are generally just not that impactful. if you want to consistently win wars, train better soldiers, and train more of them (for the purpose of this discussion, soldiers does not exclude spellcasting classes; if you get better soldiers by making a deal with the queen of the seelie court, or sponsor a college of war mages, or make large donations to a specific church, that will once again have much more of an impact than trying to hoard all the +1 swords). within that context, i could see a king wanting to win favour with some organization by gifting them with a single powerful magical item, and wanting to buy it, but wanting to get a monopoly on magic weapons? you'll be blowing a ton of money on a very small improvement. a very small improvement which is relatively easy to take from you, i might add - it is much easier to steal your magic swords off of fallen warriors or from your armoury than it is to turn loyal soldiers against you, assuming you treat them reasonably well.

100 knights with +1 weapons and armour will beat 100 knights without such weapons and armour, but 125 knights with no magic weapons will probably beat the 100 knights with magic weapons. a +1 sword is just really not all that amazing of a thing. it isn't worth the effort of blowing all your money to equip your soldiers with magical gear. they are not some sort of super-weapon.

And why not? The king has wizards working for him, and mighty warriors, and so on. In a world like D&D a king who doesn't recruit people with class levels loses wars to kings that do, and kings are always and everywhere keen on not losing wars. Whatever you think the magic item maker is capable of doing, a king can hire a team that can take him down fast and hard - unless, like I said, you go the "magic item crafter is extra-uber" route. The ability to make a +3 sword does not require you to be a 99th level wizard.

And I again cite both The Illiad and the written history of the Crusades, among other examples: in a low-tech battle with D&D style weapons, one champion can kill dozens of ordinary mooks until confronted by another champion. It's not the "whole unit of mooks with +3 swords", it's the "one guy who can walk through your mooks reaping and you have no one who can confront him". If my champion can beat your mooks while your champion can beat my mooks, it comes down to whose champion can beat whose - and the champion kitted out in magic gear beats the guy without.

Admittedly, you can't just run into an army single-handed, knights are pulled from horses et cetera. So I'm not arguing King Richard could beat all of Saladin's army by himself. But there were battles that ended with Richard riding alone back and forth between the armies, calling on the Saracens to challenge him - and no one dared. Adding Richard to the Crusader side in any given battle moved the odds a lot.

[Tanarii]

And I again cite both The Illiad and the written history of the Crusades, among other examples: in a low-tech battle with D&D style weapons, one champion can kill dozens of ordinary mooks until confronted by another champion. It's not the "whole unit of mooks with +3 swords", it's the "one guy who can walk through your mooks reaping and you have no one who can confront him". If my champion can beat your mooks while your champion can beat my mooks, it comes down to whose champion can beat whose - and the champion kitted out in magic gear beats the guy without.

This is what I was alluding to by 'shock value'. My example of a champion with a powerful magic item was because it *is* possible for a powerful enough champion in D&D to solo a lot of mooks. But generally speaking, your elite unit, be it a single champion, or small party, or just a powerful unit, is a force multiplier. They're deployed in the right place alongside the regular army units to break the opponents morale & line.

A prebattle challenge a la Troy or RtLH may or may not be fiction, but in D&D it's one that matters:
1) it shows the troops how bad-ass the champion is and how he'll utterly wreck the common soldiers that come up against him
2) it removes the enemy champion from the field before the battle even begins.

But even if it's a small unit instead of a single champion, it's an effective strategy to have a shock unit as a force multiplier. As has been evinced in various war-game rule sets over time, and historical use of units like heavy Knights & Cataphracts.

[mgshamster]

When doing value conparison, it's important to notes costs as well. We know a +1 Weapon is around 100-500 GP. How much does a knight cost?

[Tanarii]

When doing value conparison, it's important to notes costs as well. We know a +1 Weapon is around 100-500 GP. How much does a knight cost?
A full plate & warhorse with chain barding Knight costs about 2300 gp. Plus training and upkeep.

So theoretically one heavy knight is worth about 5-20 (roughly) plus one weapons. So you could have 100 Knights armed with +1 weapons, or 105-120 Knights. Assuming 0 gp for training and upkeep of course.

If we assume the Knights do damage at about 50% hit rate, for d8+3, they get a DPR increase of 20-25%. That'd be worth the weapons. (Clearly if they were more powerful unit doing more damage, the increase would be less. But I'd expect the training and upkeep cost to become significant at that point.)

[Mr.Moron]

A full plate & warhorse with chain barding Knight costs about 2300 gp. Plus training and upkeep.

So theoretically one heavy knight is worth about 5-20 (roughly) plus one weapons. So you could have 100 Knights armed with +1 weapons, or 105-120 Knights. Assuming 0 gp for training and upkeep of course.

If we assume the Knights do damage at about 50% hit rate, for d8+3, they get a DPR increase of 20-25%. That'd be worth the weapons.

(Where does the cost figure on +1 weapons come from?)

At any rate if we're diving down that particular rabbit hole. We can probably get a bit more specific in our analysis.

From the monster manual we know a Knight has AC18, 52 hit points 2 attacks, and uses a Greatsword for 2d6+3

This means under normal conditions they hit on 13 (40%) hit rate and deal 10 damage on average. Or an average of 4 damage per hit, 2 per round.
With a +1 weapon they have a 45% hit rate and deal 11 damage on average. This is an average just under 5 damage per hit, or 10 per round.

Now it's important to remember at least in a pitched battle you can't just measure DPR increases. More bodies gets you more hit points so let's just the two extreme ends 105 and 120 and see who wins:


105 Normal Knights

Hit Points: 5,460
Damage Per Round: 840 = 6.19 rounds of effective melee contact to destroy the 100 +1 knights.



100 +1 Knights

Hit Points: 5,200
Damage Per Round: 1000 = 5.46 rounds of effective melee contact to destroy the 105 normal knights.



Winner: +1 Knights


120 Normal Knights

Hit Points: 6,240
Damage Per Round: 960 = 5.41 rounds of effective melee contact to destroy the 100 +1 knights.



100 +1 Knights

Hit Points: 5,200
Damage Per Round: 1000 = 6.24 rounds of effective melee contact to destroy the 105 normal knights.


Winner: Normal Knights

Though in neither case is the difference so overwhelming that from RAW numbers, the difference in approach to equipment would be the deciding factor. Superior generalship and support probably still wins the day.

It should also be noted the +1 weapons suffer greatly if you've got any sort of initiation with ranged combat since you're devaluing the impact of the melee part of the battle in relative terms, the only place in which a fancy sword applies.

Though I still find the odd of a ready supply of +1 weapons outfit armies rather odd, even if we accept the very modest price tags.

[Tanarii]

I took the price of 100-500 from the post I quoted. :) (but isn't that from the suggested price in the DMG?)

I like the use of MM stats for Knights. I think that'd cost a fair amount in terms of training and upkeep, but putting that aside, it's better to use the MM stats for what would assuredly be elite troops.

Your analysis shows that the cost range of 1 Knight ~= 5-20 +1 weapons properly brackets the effectiveness. Since at one end, Knights without weapons win, and the other, Knights with weapons win.

As to where the magic items come from, I thought this branch of the discussion was generated by the question: why would rulers buy up all the +1 weapons adventurers in the world found, thus making them unavailable for adventurers to purchase?

The answer is that the price point seems to make it worth it to buy any they can. ;)

[Mr.Moron]

I took the price of 100-500 from the post I quoted. :) (but isn't that from the suggested price in the DMG?)

I like the use of MM stats for Knights. I think that'd cost a fair amount in terms of training and upkeep, but putting that aside, it's better to use the MM stats for what would assuredly be elite troops.

Your analysis shows that the cost range of 1 Knight ~= 5-20 +1 weapons properly brackets the effectiveness. Since at one end, Knights without weapons win, and the other, Knights with weapons win.

As to where the magic items come from, I thought this branch of the discussion was generated by the question: why would rulers buy up all the +1 weapons adventurers in the world found, thus making them unavailable for adventurers to purchase?

The answer is that the price point seems to make it worth it to buy any they can. ;)

I suppose but the DMG values are presented as a somewhat loose suggestion on a variant rule. However I guess they're as fair as anything for a bit of silly analysis.

Anyway what I mean is even if leaders are buying up all the +1 weapons if you're going to outfit 100 Knights with them it means not only are your adventurers finding lots of +1 weapons, but they're finding lots of +1 weapons your troops already trained with which can only be some fraction of the total +1 weapons found. This inflates the total numbers of +1 weapons greatly.

You could explain this away by saying that a nation's magic weapon stocks have been built up slowly over a century or two and new knights get assigned and trained with a specific magic item from the national armory. However, turns the magic weapons from a general commodity they are in the knight outfitting exercise back into an important part of the kingdom's legacy. In that scenario it seems likely that the rulers would simply intact laws that make all magic weapons de jure property of the crown. The nobles wouldn't so much be buying the weapons from adventurers as simply taking them. "Treasure Hunting" would be a crime like poaching, the mere accusation of which earns you a quick 1-way trip to the gallows possibly without your balls.

[SharkForce]

you don't need to be a 99th level wizard to create a +3 sword... but last i checked, you did have to be something like level 15 iirc. which is pretty damn scary.

and no, you do not, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, want your own level 15 wizard to have a duel with their level 15 wizard. it isn't *quite* as stupid of an idea as making the wizard angry enough to start working against you *without* having a wizard of your own right there to duel them, but it's still pretty damn stupid. a fight between wizards has far too much potential to cause horrific amounts of collateral damage. even if you "win", you don't know how many controlled minions that wizard might have had, you still have to deal with the fallout in terms of apprentices and possibly the rest of the guild, plus there's the fact that having picked a fight with a powerful wizard isn't going to make you popular with all the people whose lives you just put at risk, and this even assumes that you do, in fact, have an equally powerful wizard on your side who thinks it's a good idea to attack a powerful wizard, in their home, surrounded by their defenses and their apprentices.

and, quite frankly, that item crafting wizard probably has more to offer the wizard you think the king is going to hire than the king does. you have gold? well, so does the guy making the items. except he also has the items you want to buy with that gold. and spell knowledge. and probably a line on spell components you'd find difficult to obtain. (also a bunch of adventurer customers and friends, most likely). and, as it happens, having a habit of hunting down wizards and murdering them for not wanting to be your servant is not likely to endear you to other wizards. of course, you could train your own wizard from someone who is loyal to you, but now we're right back to needing a wizard...

and even if you do manage to defeat the wizard, who's to say they don't have a clone backup of themselves, or friends that will raise them from the dead, or the ability to come back as a lich. and since they have absolutely no need to attack your wizard to exact their revenge, but can simply accomplish that by doing hit and run attacks anyplace you have a bunch of soldiers, weakening you until you've reached the point where you have nothing left to protect your country from other nearby countries, you had damn well better be more than 100% certain that you're going to win, and win so decisively that there is no way for the guy you just killed to come back - and in D&D, that isn't an easy thing to accomplish. and you'd further better hope that he doesn't have any friends of similar power who might want to avenge him.

as to the idea of a champion, well, first off:

1) that doesn't involve hoarding all the magic items to yourself.
2) that isn't a winning strategy by any means. richard the lionheart may have been a stronger warrior, but he still lost the war.
3) why would they have to assume a warrior is going to be unstoppable? barring the specific example of a level 18+ fighter(champion) fighting exceptionally inferior opponents, that simply is not the case in 5e. if we're not presuming to just give the magic gear champion an arbitrary advantage in every way, then the fair solution is to hand the no-magic champion an equivalent value in troops over the magic item champion. personally, i'd favour the champion with the small army in tow when it comes to answering the question of "who will win".

[Tanarii]

However I guess they're as fair as anything for a bit of silly analysis. For sure. We're doing extended theory crafting on unknowable consequences based on huge assumptions, right? At least, I am. If we want to do less, then we have to make the assumptions minimal, and we'll almost certainly come out with much broader and less specific scenarios.

For example:

Anyway what I mean is even if leaders are buying up all the +1 weapons if you're going to outfit 100 Knights with them it means not only are your adventurers finding lots of +1 weapons, but they're finding lots of +1 weapons your troops already trained with which can only be some fraction of the total +1 weapons found. This inflates the total numbers of +1 weapons greatly.the point is to determine if the value of a +1 weapon as a piece of equipment is approximately on par to just adding another soldier. If it is, it worth someone buying up what becomes available and equipping someone with it. Also note that the less powerful the person being equipped is, the more powerful the effect of the equipment, relative to base power.

Assumptions about total availability of magic items, total availability of non-magical equipment, total availability of trained vs untrained troops, will of course affect buyer motivations, and lengths they'll go to to obtain the items at a cheaper or no-cost option. (Ie seizing them or stealing them.)

[mgshamster]

That's it. My world now has at least one kingdom ruled by a bad manager who believes that it's cheaper to have a cache of magical weapons and armor to equip drafted citizens for defense rather than keeping a well trained and armored militia/army. After all, a single magic weapon can be reused soldier after soldier, whereas training has a constant upkeep of payment.

When they die off (after they win, of course), he just sends in more to retrieve the equipment. He'll have a whole set of middle managers (aka cronies from his good ol' boys network) to make sure no one steals anything and to ensure that the proper person(s) is blamed for whatever failures arise. Perhaps even a couple of well meaning adventurers that just showed up a few weeks ago.

The kingdom will likely be slaughtered by any well trained army, but our bad manager doesn't believe that problem will ever come about (or likely has never even thought of it). And if it does, he'll just try to come up with a buy-out option so he can walk away rich and leave the shambles-of-a-country to be someone else's problem (by lying about the value of the kingdom, of course).

And now we have one reason why magic items keep getting bought up.

(Half of this may be inspired by my wife's current boss).

[Tanarii]

That's it. My world now has at least one kingdom ruled by a bad manager who believes that it's cheaper to have a cache of magical weapons and armor to equip drafted citizens for defense rather than keeping a well trained and armored militia/army. After all, a single magic weapon can be reused soldier after soldier, whereas training has a constant upkeep of payment. make sure they're Str 3 people. You get a 100% increase in effectiveness on the guy who could only stab someone with that dagger for one point of damage if he can stab them for two instead! Blindingly obvious math! :)

[Keltest]

That's it. My world now has at least one kingdom ruled by a bad manager who believes that it's cheaper to have a cache of magical weapons and armor to equip drafted citizens for defense rather than keeping a well trained and armored militia/army. After all, a single magic weapon can be reused soldier after soldier, whereas training has a constant upkeep of payment.

When they die off (after they win, of course), he just sends in more to retrieve the equipment. He'll have a whole set of middle managers (aka cronies from his good ol' boys network) to make sure no one steals anything and to ensure that the proper person(s) is blamed for whatever failures arise. Perhaps even a couple of well meaning adventurers that just showed up a few weeks ago.

The kingdom will likely be slaughtered by any well trained army, but our bad manager doesn't believe that problem will ever come about (or likely has never even thought of it). And if it does, he'll just try to come up with a buy-out option so he can walk away rich and leave the shambles-of-a-country to be someone else's problem (by lying about the value of the kingdom, of course).

And now we have one reason why magic items keep getting bought up.

(Half of this may be inspired by my wife's current boss).

Im given to understand that this is how many militaries actually worked at the historically relevant time. Having a massive well trained army entirely of people who do nothing but fight all day is expensive not only in terms of upkeep, but also you have a bunch of people who aren't out there farming or stacking filth or whatever it was peasants did.

You typically had a small core of trained active soldiers, and a much larger force of laborers who also knew how to swing a weapon without decapitating themselves with it. Until your empire becomes large enough that you can afford to have a massive force of people who don't do anything productive during peace time, that's all you really are able to do.

[JoeJ]

I took the price of 100-500 from the post I quoted. :) (but isn't that from the suggested price in the DMG?)

That optional rule is incompatible with the optional rule for crafting, however, which sets the cost to make a +1 sword as 500 gp for materials plus 20 days worth of labor. Under the crafting rules, if we assume that a crafting wizard maintains a wealthy lifestyle (because that's as good as guess as anything else in this thread), then the total cost is 580 gp to create the sword.

You can get around the inconsistency if you assume that a large portion of +1 swords are found rather than newly crafted. Or you can just figure that the two options aren't meant to be used together and pick whichever one you like (or neither) for your campaign.

[Shining Wrath]

you don't need to be a 99th level wizard to create a +3 sword... but last i checked, you did have to be something like level 15 iirc. which is pretty damn scary.

and no, you do not, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, want your own level 15 wizard to have a duel with their level 15 wizard. it isn't *quite* as stupid of an idea as making the wizard angry enough to start working against you *without* having a wizard of your own right there to duel them, but it's still pretty damn stupid. a fight between wizards has far too much potential to cause horrific amounts of collateral damage. even if you "win", you don't know how many controlled minions that wizard might have had, you still have to deal with the fallout in terms of apprentices and possibly the rest of the guild, plus there's the fact that having picked a fight with a powerful wizard isn't going to make you popular with all the people whose lives you just put at risk, and this even assumes that you do, in fact, have an equally powerful wizard on your side who thinks it's a good idea to attack a powerful wizard, in their home, surrounded by their defenses and their apprentices.

and, quite frankly, that item crafting wizard probably has more to offer the wizard you think the king is going to hire than the king does. you have gold? well, so does the guy making the items. except he also has the items you want to buy with that gold. and spell knowledge. and probably a line on spell components you'd find difficult to obtain. (also a bunch of adventurer customers and friends, most likely). and, as it happens, having a habit of hunting down wizards and murdering them for not wanting to be your servant is not likely to endear you to other wizards. of course, you could train your own wizard from someone who is loyal to you, but now we're right back to needing a wizard...

and even if you do manage to defeat the wizard, who's to say they don't have a clone backup of themselves, or friends that will raise them from the dead, or the ability to come back as a lich. and since they have absolutely no need to attack your wizard to exact their revenge, but can simply accomplish that by doing hit and run attacks anyplace you have a bunch of soldiers, weakening you until you've reached the point where you have nothing left to protect your country from other nearby countries, you had damn well better be more than 100% certain that you're going to win, and win so decisively that there is no way for the guy you just killed to come back - and in D&D, that isn't an easy thing to accomplish. and you'd further better hope that he doesn't have any friends of similar power who might want to avenge him.

as to the idea of a champion, well, first off:

1) that doesn't involve hoarding all the magic items to yourself.
2) that isn't a winning strategy by any means. richard the lionheart may have been a stronger warrior, but he still lost the war.
3) why would they have to assume a warrior is going to be unstoppable? barring the specific example of a level 18+ fighter(champion) fighting exceptionally inferior opponents, that simply is not the case in 5e. if we're not presuming to just give the magic gear champion an arbitrary advantage in every way, then the fair solution is to hand the no-magic champion an equivalent value in troops over the magic item champion. personally, i'd favour the champion with the small army in tow when it comes to answering the question of "who will win".

Nor does the level 15 (17, 19) level +3 sword crafter want to go up against the local king's team of 6 level 15 characters of various classes. Based on numerous BBEG in campaigns, that doesn't end well for the wizard. A king has access to the resources of an entire nation, including those of loyal feudal underlings. He can take out pretty much anyone within his borders except perhaps a duke or equivalent in a strong defensive position (Percy in Northumberland, e.g.). So given that the king is, in fact, in charge of his nation, the crafters of magic weapons who want to remain within his domains will be at least outwardly obedient.

[SharkForce]

go read the thread where someone was looking for advice on how to make a level 17 diviner wizard a challenge for their group of level 13 PCs. and in that case, we're talking about a wizard that was not allowed to use summoned minions or allies (such as apprentices) at all.

no, it doesn't turn out poorly for high level wizards. it turns out poorly for the high level wizards that the DM specifically set up to be defeated as the conclusion of a campaign, *because* that opponent is not being played to the absolute maximum of their capacity. high level wizards played to the limit of their capacity generally do quite well.

the reason a high level crafting wizard doesn't pick fights with the ruler is largely because:

1) they're not there to pick fights, they just want to spend their time doing wizard things... mostly crafting items, researching spells, probably studying various things, etc.
2) there isn't that much to gain. wizards gain more from money than just about any other character can possibly hope to, but a wizard doesn't need huge armies of soldiers, and they especially don't need to spend all their time in admistrating a kingdom or an empire. getting money by ruling a kingdom takes a lot of time, and if you have no time you've defeated the purpose of having all that money in the first place.

in other words, the crafting wizard isn't likely to be a problem for you unless you make yourself a problem for them. for example, by declaring them an outlaw and attempting to force them to make items for you and only you. or by sending your soldiers to go and kick them out of their tower and drive them away from your kingdom.

but if you do make yourself into a problem, well, wizards are great problem solvers, and you don't want to find out what it feels like to get solved. the only kind of wizard you're going to be able to get rid of are the ones that by disposition would never have been a problem anyways.

[mgshamster]

Im given to understand that this is how many militaries actually worked at the historically relevant time. Having a massive well trained army entirely of people who do nothing but fight all day is expensive not only in terms of upkeep, but also you have a bunch of people who aren't out there farming or stacking filth or whatever it was peasants did.

You typically had a small core of trained active soldiers, and a much larger force of laborers who also knew how to swing a weapon without decapitating themselves with it. Until your empire becomes large enough that you can afford to have a massive force of people who don't do anything productive during peace time, that's all you really are able to do.

That's nifty!

I'm not sure what kind of daily dangers people in our own histories faced, but probably didn't have to deal with huge monsters of lore. :)

With the threat of kobolds, goblins, orcs, dragons, undead, and many more - in addition to the typical political battles between countries fought over land, religion, etc.. I think a smarter move may be to actually have a standing army with regular training.

But you definitely bring up a good point, and I'm betting our typical fantasy would have a decent mix.

[Keltest]

That's nifty!

I'm not sure what kind of daily dangers people in our own histories faced, but probably didn't have to deal with huge monsters of lore. :)

With the threat of kobolds, goblins, orcs, dragons, undead, and many more - in addition to the typical political battles between countries fought over land, religion, etc.. I think a smarter move may be to actually have a standing army with regular training.

But you definitely bring up a good point, and I'm betting our typical fantasy would have a decent mix.

Depending on where you lived, "soldier" may or may not be a viable profession. If youre out in a farming community, youre a farmer or someone necessary to support them (ie, a butcher or miller). You take your week doing guard duty, stab a few kobolds unfortunate enough to get close enough, then go back to farming. If you live in a major city, you can probably enlist in whatever standing military force they have and expect to be able to go home and not worry about your other three jobs just to feed your family. Youll go out on patrols to help keep the bigger nasties away from your farming villages so the farmers can farm.

[Shining Wrath]

go read the thread where someone was looking for advice on how to make a level 17 diviner wizard a challenge for their group of level 13 PCs. and in that case, we're talking about a wizard that was not allowed to use summoned minions or allies (such as apprentices) at all.

no, it doesn't turn out poorly for high level wizards. it turns out poorly for the high level wizards that the DM specifically set up to be defeated as the conclusion of a campaign, *because* that opponent is not being played to the absolute maximum of their capacity. high level wizards played to the limit of their capacity generally do quite well.

the reason a high level crafting wizard doesn't pick fights with the ruler is largely because:

1) they're not there to pick fights, they just want to spend their time doing wizard things... mostly crafting items, researching spells, probably studying various things, etc.
2) there isn't that much to gain. wizards gain more from money than just about any other character can possibly hope to, but a wizard doesn't need huge armies of soldiers, and they especially don't need to spend all their time in admistrating a kingdom or an empire. getting money by ruling a kingdom takes a lot of time, and if you have no time you've defeated the purpose of having all that money in the first place.

in other words, the crafting wizard isn't likely to be a problem for you unless you make yourself a problem for them. for example, by declaring them an outlaw and attempting to force them to make items for you and only you. or by sending your soldiers to go and kick them out of their tower and drive them away from your kingdom.

but if you do make yourself into a problem, well, wizards are great problem solvers, and you don't want to find out what it feels like to get solved. the only kind of wizard you're going to be able to get rid of are the ones that by disposition would never have been a problem anyways.

I contributed to that thread. The premise of the thread was one of the ruling wizards of Thay (that is, a king-equivalent, or at least a prince) got to pick their time and place to attack the 13th level party. That's rather different than a king choosing to attack a wizard, sending a party of 15th (not 13th) level adventurers who are prepared to fight exactly that wizard, and the king may even have people working for him who can block the wizard's divinations so the party achieves complete surprise.

And if that doesn't work, the king spends a little more gold next time and sends a 16th level party with two more members. Repeat until the king wins. If a king decides someone within his realm is a threat to his rule, the king usually wins, for that is pretty much the definition of "king". Note I said usually, for there's all sorts of stories of kings barely holding on to their throne, nobles who have more power than the king, et cetera. But usually, an absolute monarch can take care of business within his realm.

If you don't like "sell only to the king", replace with "king gets first chance to buy anything produced". It's going to be a rare artificer who wants to live in Realm X but tells the king "No, your money's no good here". And after the king there's a long list of titled nobles who also want to stock their armories - feudal societies are like that. Assuming that artificers are rare compared to nobles, which is not implausible in most non-Eberron settings, there's not going to be a 3.5 magic mart in most places. Simple survival of the ruling class ensures that. In fact, in a world in which a day's wage for a common man is 1 sp, the people who are going to be buying ANYTHING that costs 500 gp (5,000 days wages!) are going to be the nobles, the richest merchants, and the occasional adventurer - but for the artificer, the regular customers will be the first two groups.

[JackPhoenix]

snip

Of course the king won't send his court wizard to duel that annoying uncooperative wizard. He'll hire few bards. The bards will visit the inns and spread stories of the evil acts the wizard has commited, the vast treasures hidden in his lair (well, it's in fact a nice manor in the countryside, but he's an evil wizard, of course it's lair!), and the fame and riches that avaits the one who defeats him. Then he only waits until a band of righteous murderhobos come for the reward for ending his villainous plan (which, in fact was consisted of "minding my own business")

Or the king hires the Assassin's Guild to send a squad his way, if he's evil (of course he's got the Assassin's Guild in his kingdom...he's evil!)

also, read this: http://www.critical-hits.com/blog/category/critical-hits/columns/dungeonomics/page/5/
great series of articles about D&D, medieval economy and what not...also, 5e

[SharkForce]

I contributed to that thread. The premise of the thread was one of the ruling wizards of Thay (that is, a king-equivalent, or at least a prince) got to pick their time and place to attack the 13th level party. That's rather different than a king choosing to attack a wizard, sending a party of 15th (not 13th) level adventurers who are prepared to fight exactly that wizard, and the king may even have people working for him who can block the wizard's divinations so the party achieves complete surprise.

And if that doesn't work, the king spends a little more gold next time and sends a 16th level party with two more members. Repeat until the king wins. If a king decides someone within his realm is a threat to his rule, the king usually wins, for that is pretty much the definition of "king". Note I said usually, for there's all sorts of stories of kings barely holding on to their throne, nobles who have more power than the king, et cetera. But usually, an absolute monarch can take care of business within his realm.

If you don't like "sell only to the king", replace with "king gets first chance to buy anything produced". It's going to be a rare artificer who wants to live in Realm X but tells the king "No, your money's no good here". And after the king there's a long list of titled nobles who also want to stock their armories - feudal societies are like that. Assuming that artificers are rare compared to nobles, which is not implausible in most non-Eberron settings, there's not going to be a 3.5 magic mart in most places. Simple survival of the ruling class ensures that. In fact, in a world in which a day's wage for a common man is 1 sp, the people who are going to be buying ANYTHING that costs 500 gp (5,000 days wages!) are going to be the nobles, the richest merchants, and the occasional adventurer - but for the artificer, the regular customers will be the first two groups.

dunno where you imagine the king gets an unlimited supply of high level idiots willing to go get slaughtered in the wizard's home from (or how you're paying them, because you're gonna have to shell out some serious cash to get them to do anything for you, let alone go on a suicidal quest to guarantee they won't be able to spend their money on anything useful). i also don't know why you seem to imagine the wizard has posted helpful signs all across the kingdom detailing his abilities and how to bypass all his defenses so that the high level idiots can prepare specifically to deal with him, and i especially don't know how they're going to perfectly predict which of the wizard's probably rather large spell list is going to be prepared on any given day (never mind which items he has on hand at any moment, considering this *is* an artificer). oh, and yeah... the wizard still decides the location. except, instead of having two days to prepare, the wizard has had years, decades, or even centuries. good luck.

2 levels more helps. it doesn't help nearly enough. if you remember the thread, you should remember that the OP didn't decide that the threat was a little bit too much... he decided that the wizard was probably going to TPK the party with zero chance of fighting back (which is basically what would have happened, based on what did happen), and instead had the wizard make a show of strength and then choose to die so that they could have a chance to avenge her. and again, i cannot stress enough that this is ONE wizard, alone, denied of all support artificially, and prevented from *really* taking the time to set up that they could, and unable to even use summoning spells at all (which consist of some of the most powerful spells in the game).

but hey, let us suppose that the king's hired morons do manage to finally kill the wizard after several botched attempts while the wizard inexplicably sits in his home waiting to die instead of destroying your kingdom so that you don't have the money to pay your squads of high level idiots. how do you know the wizard is even actually dead? how do you make sure the wizard stays dead if he is actually dead? how do you know you didn't kill a simulacrum, or that the wizard doesn't have a clone somewhere, or an agreement with the high priest of <deity> that he used to adventure with that either will bring the other back to life? how do you know the wizard didn't have dozens of bound extraplanar creatures as servants and now that you've killed him, they're all free to wreak havoc on your kingdom?

or, more likely, you don't have an endless supply of level 15 idiots willing to go get killed so that you can keep all the magic items to yourself (and out of their hands, it is worth noting). and, if the first group fails, and the wizard isn't *incredibly* tolerant, shortly afterwards various military bases that you've established start getting destroyed by summoned creatures, your armory is full of rust monsters, your castle is a pile of flaming rubble, and every day a new tribe of giants or other powerful creatures suddenly get the idea that the ruins of the places that were destroyed would make a great new home when the wizard suggests as much to them.

also, due to a lack of stupidity, you are killed in your bedroom by an assassin by various people within the kingdom who like it in it's current not-destroyed state before you can blow the entire treasury sending the kingdom's mightiest heroes off to their death, because declaring war on a wizard is actually even dumber than getting involved in a land war in asia *and* going in against a sicilian when death is on the line, and lots of the people who have power in your kingdom aren't dumb enough to make that kind of blunder.

of course, if you're "really lucky" the wizard may be a total pacifist and just decide to move somewhere else that doesn't think it's a great idea to pick a fight with someone who can level kingdoms, and they'll get the benefit of having him live there. and soon, the only wizards left in your country are your court wizard (who, if he suggested you declare war on another wizard, was probably plotting to overthrow you and wanted the other wizard out of the way where they couldn't protect you, because there's no other scenario in which it sounds like a good idea) and the ones who would rather fight you then go live peacefully elsewhere.

[Zalabim]

As much fun as this rabbit hole is, I have to make some corrections. This is assuming we're using the optional rules for downtime activities for adventurers to make magic items. The daily 25 gp cost includes a modest lifestyle, or half-cost on comfortable. NPC item makers have no reason to use these rules, but if they are, then a +3 sword requires level 11, not level 17. A level 11 wizard is mighty, but not the end of the world, maybe not the end of a kingdom, and certainly no immortal, multiply-cloned lich with friends who can cast true resurrection. In any case, these items take 2000 days of work by level 11+ crafters.

The legendary items that require level 17 are stronger than a +3 sword, and also would take 20,000 days of work by qualified characters to create. That's nearly 55 years. These legendary items also require a formula of the non-existent rarity one step higher than legendary, probably artifact-level. They're extremely likely to require specific materials or locations in their crafting. A king who commissions one of these from a lone wizard, secure in his tower, is unlikely to live to see it completed. Many aarakocra lost their lives, etc.

[Areinu]

The OP claimed that magic item distribution from magic table is against the principle of "magic items are rare", and then gave us a link to thread summarizing the results.

With 4 player party using the magic table generation nets(per hero):


4 or 5 common consumables
5 uncommon consumables
5 rare consumables
4 or 5 very rare consumables
1 legendary consumable
2 or 3 uncommon permanent items
1 or 2 rare permanent items
1 very rare permanent item
1 legendary permanent item

So even level 20 adventurer, who spent his whole life in dungeons gets 7-9 permanent magic items. That IS rare, and very consistent with rest of DMG. Consumables don't really matter, since they are being sold.

We have to remember that many of the magic items found by a character won't be weapons or armor. Those might be wands, amulets, cloaks and so on that only have some silly benefit like "you are feeling comfortable when it's very cold or hot".

The OP forgets that making "economy for world" is not very good idea, since every region will have varied economy. One country in your world might have government keeping the commoners until military oppression, while giving propaganda that rulers are holy. The trade of magic items might be banned by church, and prosecuted with death. If you are spotted holding magic item you are killed at the spot, no questions asked. If you tell the government that your neighbor has magic items you are national hero.

And country next to it might have free trade of magic items, with shops full of them.

Now, let's look at real world examples. Let's say North Korea. Propaganda, in 2004-2008 mobile phones(magic items) were banned, while South Korea had shops full of them. Going against government in North Korea generally isn't a good thing too. And those are 2 countries occupying neighboring lands. While big part of our world has good access to tablets, computers, advanced medical hardware and other magic items there are areas where they are uncommon to very rare, maybe even legendary.

And hey, even in "default 5e setting" (whatever that might be, 3 books published don't really establish any) it's never said "no one wants to buy magic items". It's only said there's no market for them. There might be potential buyers, but there might be just no potential sellers. Assuming random loot generator and hero having 7-9 permanent items, he might have just one magic weapon, 1 magic armor and 5-7 random magic gadgets that he sometimes find useful. Why would he sell any of them? The wand of magic detection will come in handy sometimes and it doesn't require attunement. The cloak of "I'm not cold when it's cold" is great when adventuring. Drift-globe is great for reading books in the evening. And he is not letting go of his bag of holding. Oh, and that ring of flame resistance? No way he is taking it off before going into hellish dimensions. And since he already got headband of intellect he is smart enough to keep all those items.

Even if he got multiple weapons(quite uncommon) there would be little reason to sell them unless it was upgrade from +1 to +2(and even then most parties would probably give +1 to someone who doesn't have any weapons yet).

And those are heroes! Guys who spent whole life checking out dungeons, looking for magic items, adventures, killing bad stuffs and so on. They went trough so many dangers to acquire those items, they can make so many stories about them and they still probably don't have enough to want to sell! And even when they get old they have so many stories related to those objects they won't really be willing to sell them. It's better to give it to son, maybe he will be next adventurer in the family? Or maybe the hero now has a keep, owns big piece of land, and is a noble. Maybe he keeps those as heirlooms, while making his sons and daughters life comfortable? Still not selling. Sure, new adventurer might really want to buy those items. He has gold! But they are not selling.

And even when someone wants to sell, or you are in place where selling magic items is available you have rules you can use, or you might make your own.

[Ikitavi]

In the mundane world, knights had castles to help them project power. A castle could be held for a substantial amount of time while a noble sent to nearby allies for aid. Castles protected the stables that allowed for a mounted response force. The rulers could summon more military power from a greater area than the ruled.

And at that time, castles took a substantial effort and time to reduce, so the nobility could push back against royal efforts to control them fairly readily.

Now in an AD&D world, after about 5th level or so, the prospects of mobility go up. You have flying spells, you have Phantom Steed which is faster than a normal mount, you have exotic beasts potentially available as mounts. Extra mobility, concentration of power. It isn't 100 soldiers with mundane weapons vs 100 with enchanted stuff that is being considered. It is the rapid response force of the king with say, a group of 25-50 5th level or higher sorts who can deploy far faster than his squabbling nobles can reinforce each other. He has the ability to quickly reduce nobility that defy him, at relatively low cost.

And this goes on for a while, and concentrates a lot more power under the king.

Now take it up to 9th level, you are talking TELEPORT for deployments. Instant deployment, instant communications. Or at least far faster than anything can respond. Instead of one king keeping down a dozen barons or so, you can have a king who is the dominant force over hundreds of them, and able to take towns and cities rapidly because of the whole "very familiar" target area. When you are talking teleport, you can have your offense group do a major mission every day and still be available for defense, for court events, for politics. More magic on the response group makes them more effective, makes each teleport spell able to deliver that much more power.

Once you hit 9th level, kingdoms would be able to militarily consolidate much greater areas.

Maybe instead of castles, nobles rely on being able to shelter their heirs and family from surprise attack by using Rope Trick scrolls. Sure, the rioters can seize the castle, but help can arrive within the 3 hour duration of the minimum level Rope Trick if you are talking reliable magic use for communications. Maybe nobles don't like giving up their independence to a crown, but knowing that a bunch of elite Crown Knights and Casters will arrive within the hour if their castle is threatened, that is worth giving up a little sovereignty for.

So the prevailing level of magic really affects how big the kingdoms are, and at what level politics will be engaged on. Once you have teleport available, you have people with teleport, and people who really don't have much influence.

[Nicodiemus]

Also remember that NPCs with character levels are uncommon. A standing army isn't full of even L1 fighters. They're L0 with the soldier background. Most of the clergy at the temple can't cast spells, they just help the priest do rituals and sweep the floors. PCs are supposed to be extraordinary, even at low levels.

[McNinja]

Players are the 1% in their campaign world. I've always thought that the economics are how the player characters would view economics - it's not that deep because its not important.

[Arkhios]

5 pages was TL;DR, so this might have been pointed out already...

It's one thing to own a magic item, and completely another to know that it is a magic item.
Beyond the way a sword looks like it's impossible to say if that said sword was magical in nature just by looking at it. A villager (most likely an NPC) couldn't possibly know for certain that an adventurer had a magical sword, unless they have studied it more closely. And that's not very likely.

What I'm trying to say, is that magic items do not have their names and properties written in green/blue/purple/gold/whatever in a price-tag that comes along with them. An unidentified magic weapon is just as valuable as a mundane weapon of same kind for those who do not know the difference. Especially if they looked exactly same (FYI, a magical property doesn't make a weapon stand out by its appearance; while a magic item might look significantly more remarkable than non-magical, it's still not a definitive feature of just "because it's magical"), a person who couldn't identify one from another couldn't possibly know if one was magical or not. Therefore it's actually really plausible that magical items do not have prices listed anywhere by default. The prices can be set by the merchants just as they see fit.

[SharkForce]

5 pages was TL;DR, so this might have been pointed out already...

It's one thing to own a magic item, and completely another to know that it is a magic item.
Beyond the way a sword looks like it's impossible to say if that said sword was magical in nature just by looking at it. A villager (most likely an NPC) couldn't possibly know for certain that an adventurer had a magical sword, unless they have studied it more closely. And that's not very likely.

What I'm trying to say, is that magic items do not have their names and properties written in green/blue/purple/gold/whatever in a price-tag that comes along with them. An unidentified magic weapon is just as valuable as a mundane weapon of same kind for those who do not know the difference. Especially if they looked exactly same (FYI, a magical property doesn't make a weapon stand out by its appearance; while a magic item might look significantly more remarkable than non-magical, it's still not a definitive feature of just "because it's magical"), a person who couldn't identify one from another couldn't possibly know if one was magical or not. Therefore it's actually really plausible that magical items do not have prices listed anywhere by default. The prices can be set by the merchants just as they see fit.

DMG 136. handling a magic item for a few seconds is enough to tell you it is a magic item.

[Arkhios]

DMG 136. handling a magic item for a few seconds is enough to tell you it is a magic item.

Alright, fine. You can tell an item is magical if you hold it in your hands long enough. However, a random NPC hardly ever has held the magic item an adventurer possesses and thus wouldn't know that it is a magic item. Point is, by simply seeing someone has a beautifully crafted sword doesn't qualify for telling whether that sword is magical or not. It could just as well be a beautifully crafted sword. Without a single drop of magic juice in it.

A player character obviously knows whether his or her items are magical or not. That's not the case of innocent bystander who just happens to see what your equipment appears to be from the outside. I know it's pedantic, but a villager vying for arranged marriage in exchange for that sword "because it's magical" is just very unlikely, as the villager hardly has had zero chance of ever touching the sword, and thus being aware if it even is a magic sword; especially if the adventurer is as paranoid as adventurers tend to be. :smalltongue:

PS. I've grown used to the, now variant, rule of More Difficult Identification and to me it means you can't tell if an item is magical by merely holding it in your hands. I'd prefer that was the default, tbh.

[Stray]

Now take it up to 9th level, you are talking TELEPORT for deployments. Instant deployment, instant communications. Or at least far faster than anything can respond. Instead of one king keeping down a dozen barons or so, you can have a king who is the dominant force over hundreds of them, and able to take towns and cities rapidly because of the whole "very familiar" target area. When you are talking teleport, you can have your offense group do a major mission every day and still be available for defense, for court events, for politics. More magic on the response group makes them more effective, makes each teleport spell able to deliver that much more power.



9th level gives you only access to Teleportation Cirlce, and rebellious baron can destroy the permanent circle in his keep as his first act of defiance. At 13th level caster can use Teleport once a day (twice at 20th level) to transport himself and 8 other creatures, that might be not enough to capture and hold the castle (especially if barons also keep retinue of high level adventurers). How many high level casters has this king and how he controls them? If he can command their unquestioned loyalty why aren't they made new barons instead of disobedient ones? Or maybe fast response team is just as loyal or disloyal as the rest of nobility and the king is back to square one. A charismatic and talented leader can control half a continent like Alexander, Caesar or Napoleon. A klutz will see even the mightiest empire fall to ruin.

[Steampunkette]

http://orig04.deviantart.net/c60c/f/2012/245/a/f/the_thread_necromancer_by_sirtiefling-d5dcf00.jpg

[JackPhoenix]

Nope, necromancy limit is 45 days, this one had 4 days left to that point :smallcool:

[mgshamster]

Nope, necromancy limit is 45 days, this one had 4 days left to that point :smallcool:

So it was just a standard ressurection rather than a raise dead. :)

[EscherEnigma]

high level wizards played to the limit of their capacity generally do quite well.
So do kings. But you're assuming that in the "King buys up magic items" scenario, only one is "played to the limit of their capacity", and the other makes numerous serious blunders quickly enough that it becomes a contest at all.

[SharkForce]

So do kings. But you're assuming that in the "King buys up magic items" scenario, only one is "played to the limit of their capacity", and the other makes numerous serious blunders quickly enough that it becomes a contest at all.

kings can't warp the fabric of reality to suit their needs. wizards can.

there's also the fact that wizards, on the whole, strongly tend to be supergeniuses. that helps too.

and then there's the fact that the wizard, if they are an adventuring wizard, has likely been the subject of far more attempts to personally kill them than the king (and survived them all). and has probably spent a whole heck of a lot more time thinking about how to get past all kinds of ridiculous defenses than the king has, which also kind of implies having a better idea of how to defend against people trying to get past those ridiculous defenses. i mean, when there's a problem with a lich or a dragon or a pack of werewolves, you don't generally send the king to deal with it personally, you send someone else. like the wizard that is currently in the kingdom, making items.

and then there's also the fact that even if the king and his advisors have a good idea what wizards in general can do (not completely unreasonable, if we were to presume that only the spells in the PHB exist, that is. which isn't a terribly safe assumption for someone who's dedicated their lives to research, but hey, gotta draw a line somewhere), they will probably not have a great deal of reliable information regarding what this specific wizard can do.

so yes, i am expecting the more experienced supergenius with superior intelligence (as in information about their opponent, not as in repeating the part about being a supergenius) to play more or less to the limit of their capacity while the less intelligent less experienced person with less accurate information to not make some fairly substantial blunders (starting with the decision to pick a fight with the more experienced supergenius that has superior intelligence). that's kinda what typically happens, though, so i really don't see the problem with the expectation of the wizard making good choices. if the wizard was an idiot, the wizard would probably not be in a position to be crafting powerful magic items in the first place.

[Tanarii]

Players are the 1% in their campaign world. I've always thought that the economics are how the player characters would view economics - it's not that deep because its not important.I've always thought the players are far more than the 1%. By the time they make it to 10th level, they're one in a million.

But yeah, PHB economics is like a lot of things in D&D ... it works best if you think of everything in the rules as being PC-centric, and the rules working differently for anyone that isn't a murderhobo like they are. I mean, most editions have that explicit in PC vs monster stat blocks. No reason it isn't true for economics too.

[Tanarii]

Btw, I was looking at the 1e DMG for something else, and came across this viewpoint courtesy of Gygax:

"Economics

There is no question that the prices and costs of the game are based on inflationary economy, one where a sudden influx of silver and gold has driven everything well beyond its normal value. The reasoning behind this is simple. An active campaign will most certainly bring a steady flow of wealth into the base area, as adventurers come from successful trips into dungeon and wilderness. If the economy of the area is one which more accurately reflects that of medieval England, let us say, where coppers and silver coins are usual and a gold piece remarkable, such an influx of new money, even in copper and silver, would cause an inflationory spiral. This would necessitate you adjusting costs accordingly and then upping dungeon treasures somewhat to keep pace. If a near-maximum is assumed, then the economics of the area con remain relatively constant, and the DM will have to adiust costs only for things in demand or short supply -weapons, oil, holy water, men-at-arms, whatever.

The economic systems of areas beyond the more active campaign areas can be viably based on lesser wealth only until the stream of loot begins to pour outwards into them. While it is possible to reduce treasure in these area to some extent so as to prolong the period of lower costs, what kind of a dragon hoard, for example, doesn't have gold and gems? It is simply more heroic for players to have their characters swaggering around with pouches full of gems and tossing out gold pieces than it is for them to have coppers. Heroic fantasy is made of fortunes and king's ransoms in loot gained most cleverly and bravely and lost in a twinkling by various means - thievery, gambling, debauchery, gift-giving, bribes, and so forth. The "reality" ADBD seeks to create through role playing is that of the mythical heroes such as Conan, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Kothar, Elric, and their ilk. When treasure is spoken of, it is more stirring when porticiponts know it to be TREASURE!

You may, of course, adiust any prices and costs as you see fit for your own milieu. Be careful to observe the effects of such changes on both play balance and player involvement. If any adverse effects are noted, it is better to return to the tried and true. It is fantastic and of heroic proportions so as to match its game vehicle."

[Ikitavi]

9th level gives you only access to Teleportation Cirlce, and rebellious baron can destroy the permanent circle in his keep as his first act of defiance. At 13th level caster can use Teleport once a day (twice at 20th level) to transport himself and 8 other creatures, that might be not enough to capture and hold the castle (especially if barons also keep retinue of high level adventurers). How many high level casters has this king and how he controls them? If he can command their unquestioned loyalty why aren't they made new barons instead of disobedient ones? Or maybe fast response team is just as loyal or disloyal as the rest of nobility and the king is back to square one. A charismatic and talented leader can control half a continent like Alexander, Caesar or Napoleon. A klutz will see even the mightiest empire fall to ruin.

I meant 9th level character, not 9th level spell.

Basically, once a kingdom has access to loyal 9th level wizardry, they can have their wizard tour the country with a suitable entourage, picking up areas where they can teleport to. They do not need to inform the local baron where exactly the teleport in point is, they just need to be very familiar with it.

The issue isn't so much the direct confrontation between king and baron anyway. The issue is that with a teleport response team, the need for local standing armies greatly decreases. Teleport also means that politics at the capital become MUCH more important, because it can project an enormous amount of power so much more quickly. If you have just 1 9th level wizard, sure, you can only take 3 people with you... but you can have a bunch of other casters give the Away Team flight, protection from normal missiles... a huge collection of buffs spells and wands and THEN teleport. They don't even have to try to take territory, they can just assault stuff that is valuable to the recalcitrant barony and make their withdrawal.

Teleport simply massively changes the nature of conflict. Once one kingdom has a core response group, suddenly all those border territories have to be concerned about teleport raiders from OTHER countries.

The paradigm changes a bit, from adventurers slogging through hostile terrain for months to get to a particular dungeon and slogging their way back out, to the party being involved in politics and short brutal expeditions that take a day or two, and back to the Capital to enjoy the high life. And perhaps teleport expedition don't get as much dominance because they compete with flying ships or something that equally changes how power is projected.

I just don't see the medieval paradigm surviving Scry and transcontinental communications at 7th level or transcontinental transport (for elites) at 9th level. Empires start getting a lot bigger, especially with Comprehend Languages and Tongues smoothing over the period of learning the neighbor's language.

[Ikitavi]

But it isn't so much that the kingdom would inspire loyalty or be able to control high level wizards, but that the kingdoms that would SURVIVE and dominate would be ones that effectively make use of 9th level+ wizards. A kingdom that can't develop a teleport response group will get nibbled to death by raiders they can't respond to until they do.

Maybe they would simply owe a month's military service over the year, and being able to teleport, the King might call upon their services a day at a time. Or maybe they pay for it in terms of Scrolls of Teleport prepared in relative bulk.

Wizards would be loyal to the kingdom in part because it is where they keep all their stuff. They get their private and isolated research tower (with magical communications back to the capital), a luxurious townhouse in the capital convenient for entertaining and showing off their stuff. And in a campaign where the high level wizards routinely teleport around, the capitals gain a bit of interest because so much stuff can be brought to the capital for the perusal of visiting wizards. Everybody goes to Ethshar because everybody goes to Ethshar. Or Rome. Or New York.

[Stray]

I meant 9th level character, not 9th level spell.


Yes, I got that. In 5th edition 9th level wizard doesn't have access to Teleport spell since he/she has no 7th level spell slots. Teleportation Circle is only 5th level spell, available to 9th level spellcasters but is significantly nerfed compared to previous editions and requires the infrastructure of permanent circles to be useful. No known circles = no response group. But I get impression you are not talking about 5th edition.

[ravenkith]

~Stuff~

You are absolutely right that in terms of the universe that exists within the game, the complete lack of supply and demand when it comes to magic items, heck, lack of support for item crafting is both ridiculous and baffling.

At the very least, people in universe would want magic items that allow them to start fires easily (wand of produce flame), help dig out their fields when it comes time to plant (move earth), and assist in rapid transport (teleport). Healing would also be in demand on a daily basis, as would any number of other spells.

While individuals would most likely be unable to afford magic items, I could easily see a medium to large town council putting the cash together to buy a wand of cure, for instance. It could literally save multiple lives a day, and as long as it isn't over-used, is a completely renewable resource!

But then, the decision to de-emphasize crafting along with the decision to not to list magic item prices in the DMG, is actually simple to explain when viewd in the light of *this* world - Here in the near future, they can quite easily produce a completely separate book that retails at $50 a copy called 'The Magic Item Compendium' and it will instantly become a 'core' book.

Along with the PHB, the DMG, and the MM, the item compendium will be something that every group has to buy at least one copy of, and most players will want to have access to.

In my mind, it's a money move, a kind of a **** one at that, because they can reprint every item in the DMG, only now with prices and creation info attached (rolls eyes).

[EvilAnagram]

The DMG provides a list of magic items, rules for crafting them, and rules for selling them.

This thread then pops up decrying the game for lacking a magic weapon economy.

[SharkForce]

yeah, we can complain about the *quality* of the crafting and magic item price rules (they're terrible), but there isn't ground to complain about their absence (i could complain quite a bit about their presence in their current form, however... )

and while i'm quite certain WotC would like to make money off of 5e D&D (that's kinda why they exist, after all), i find it somewhat doubtful to accuse them of trying to pull a fast one on us by publishing a new book loaded with important content that we're all basically going to want to buy. there are things that i'm not totally thrilled about with 5e, but one problem they don't have yet, and show no signs that they're going to have any time soon, is publishing new books loaded with rules material that we'll need to have if we're to keep up.

i mean, the elemental evil book they released basically 99% of the crunch publically for free. iirc, all the magic items in the various adventures they've published are available in online supplements as well somewhere. we don't have the crunch from SCAG (and no indication whether we will ever get it), but frankly... it really looks like if anything, they're going out of their way to make sure that nothing remotely like the "compendium of magical items" mentioned above happens any time soon.

maybe that will change. i certainly don't have any concrete evidence that it won't. but at least for the moment, it looks like they're deliberately not making that kind of book.

[Ikitavi]

Yes, I got that. In 5th edition 9th level wizard doesn't have access to Teleport spell since he/she has no 7th level spell slots. Teleportation Circle is only 5th level spell, available to 9th level spellcasters but is significantly nerfed compared to previous editions and requires the infrastructure of permanent circles to be useful. No known circles = no response group. But I get impression you are not talking about 5th edition.

Oh, I hadn't realized that 5th changed Teleport so much.