Let's talk mundane equipment.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So. The Equipment table in the PHB (and its associated descriptions). Are there things missing that definitely should be there? Things that are redundant/bad/stupid/awful (inherently or just their details like weight/cost)? Are there things whose descriptions are bad?

I'll start--

1. The thrown consumables (holy water, acid, alchemist's fire). Unclear description, high price for small value. Maybe should be special weapons instead (and give some classes proficiency?)
2. There really should be winter clothes (or other heavy clothes) on the list. I've run into that a few times.
3. ??

[Amnestic]

It'd be nice if there were at least a few options for improved gear - "Masterwork Caltrops" or the like, instead of just the baseline only existing.

Also I think it'd be nice if there was reason to consider each different armour with tradeoffs/benefits rather than just "the most expensive one is definitely the best every time" (except for medium armour, where the most expensive one is just the best 90% of the time).

We're missing some of the old guard for usable items - tindertwig, thunderstone, tanglefootbag, and smokestick. I guess they could/would be common magic items but technically so are potions of healing so...

It might also be nice if there were legitimate mechanical reasons to dish gold out on better lodgings rather than just because in-character makes you want to not sleep in a ditch. Owlcat's Kingmaker/WotR games gave different passive foodbuffs based on the meal you ate as part of resting, better lodgings could do something similar, and be something you could replicate by seeking out higher quality foodstuffs for camping instead of just trail rations.

[Catullus64]

There should either be way more stuff, or much less.

More stuff would mean leaning into simulationism. Add prices for all kinds of services, land, buildings (especially castle & fortress improvements), trade goods, mundane weapons of superior (or inferior) craftsmanship. I'm of the opinion that +X weapons and armor should be nonmagical, with magic reserved for weapons with special properties.

Less stuff would mean stripping it down to adventure-relevant things. Get rid of perfume, tankards, abacuses, sealing wax, different types of clothing. Whetstones are a particularly silly inclusion in a game with no wear-and-tear mechanics on its weapons. If an item's use is pretty much exclusive to camp or town, cut it, and trust DMs to improvise prices and rulings if these items become relevant.

[KorvinStarmast]

We appear to be carping at the margins here.
Is this question aimed at NiH development?

[Notafish]

The tables should be populated based on what the Players are thinking about, not which store the characters might need to visit - one table for alchemical consumables (and yes, bring back the Tanglefoot bag!), one for magic foci and spell components, one for the kits/tools that require proficiency, a table for adventuring kit and sundries, and another one for raw materials.

For the alchemy stuff, pretty much everything but the health potion should get a re-write to be semi-attractive to a low-level party. Prices are fine, but make them all conceivably worth spending a cunning action to use.
The thrown items are presumably intended to be thrown. Remove the "improvised weapon" clause and give them better effects.
Antitoxin needs to be an antidote, not a preventative.
Healer's kits should be renamed or become a tool proficiency rather than a consumable.

For the tools and kits, some 3.5-style rules on crafting and downtime skill use honestly wouldn't go amiss.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We appear to be carping at the margins here.
Is this question aimed at NiH development?

There are always margins. I'm always looking for stuff to improve, whether applied to a spinoff system or not.

[Leon]

This is the edition that came with no basic crafting rules and removed a great deal of depth or grit from the whole ruleset

[RazorChain]

I just feel that in 5e that equipment was a missed opportunity. I think that may be because skills or tool proficiencies have no "concrete" rule mechanics that support equipment, like tools that give bonuses or equipment that provide smaller bonuses than just advantage.

Things like alchemy fire, acid and caltrops/ball bearings are virtually useless after tier 1.
Basic Poison is a waste of gold and sadly the economy in DnD is borderline braindead and just tells us that we are playing a game and is immersion breaking. Why would anyone buy a vial of poison that costs 50 gp and has less than 50% chance to inflict 1d4 damage? And why can you apply poison on 3 arrows/bolts while it only applies to 1 hit with melee weapon?

I have scoured a lot of 3rd party equipment guides, pulled out of them the best bits that fit my game and made a equipment/crafting guide that my players can use with reasonable price points.

[Mastikator]

Honestly? I often feel like there aren't any. Alchemist fire for 50gp to deal 1d4 fire damage per round? Not worth the action, not worth the gold. Functionally the game doesn't exist. Holy water for 25gp and deals 2d6 against fiends and undead, situationally useful for a party that doesn't have radiant damage and is fighting a vampire. Caltrops? A creature will just jump over it. Same issue with bag of ball bearings. Basic poison for 100gp for 1d4 poison damage AND it has a DC 10 con save?

An adventurer will never buy any of this, if they happen to have it will almost never use it and are always better off selling it to buy healing potions. Healing potions is really the only item on the equipment list that is worth buying. I've seen players TRY to make use of oil, mainly because it costs only 1sp and therefore the player can buy many flasks of oil. But even that is a trap option because in combat it will still cost 1 action per flask.

I think the prices need to be addressed first, it needs to be more useful to use them than to sell them. The second thing to address is their power level, a 5 foot square is not big enough, 1d4 damage is not enough.
Alchemist fire should at most cost 10gp, and when thrown hits an area of 10x10 feet square, and anyone who starts their turn in it takes 1d6 fire damage, plus 1d6 when the alchemist fire is thrown on them. That might actually be good in T1 at least. I understand that in T2 mundane equipment will fall off but even in T1, even in level 1, none of the mundane equipment is worth using.

[stoutstien]

I've been pondering this myself for my WIP.

Outside of super specific plot devices gear and mundane equipment is the sole avenue for advancement via wealth. The issue is there isn't any real advancement to be had. The largest step is getting the best armor you can wear for your given character and maybe a slightly more expensive weapon but that's it. That means that outside of consumables like arrows, room and board, and spell components there isn't much point. All those upgrades are on a separate system via magic items.

The utility items like holy water and flasks of X don't function well with the way DnD scales now days. Back when any amount of damage was a noticable amount they were fine but with damage scaling by nearly double in the first 5 lvs alone and the are comparing them to cheap at-will alternatives you are hard pressed to consider them. Practically the only option is to make the provide some kind of non-damage condition rider but then you have to figure out how to scale the save of check DC.

As for things like winter weight clothing I don't think you need a separate line. All you need is a *tag* for anything that would give you some sort of advantage in a select environment be it heavy furs for cold or special fabric to deal with extreme heat. Same for "fine" clothing.

[Beelzebub1111]

Longsword and Battleaxe are the same weapon. This annoys me to no end.

Also lantern oil is more effective than Alchemist's Fire which seems incorrect to me.

[KorvinStarmast]

I just feel that in 5e that equipment was a missed opportunity. Alchemist's fire is good against a troll at low level. It keeps on burning. But otherwise, I agree on the poison, oil, and holy water being a missed opportunity. Dropping the price for poison is a better idea than adding damage, and when I see that the NPC assassin gets poison damage on every attack, I think poison ought to last a minute/during one combat, when applied to a melee weapon. Or three rounds.

I miss using flasks of oil to make a flaming pool (to deter or damage low INT oppontents mostly) from earlier editions.

Outside of super specific plot devices gear and mundane equipment is the sole avenue for advancement via wealth. The issue is there isn't any real advancement to be had. The point of this edition is the PC, not the gear. Do we need to resurrect "game balance with no magic items needed for standard party of 4" again? That goes double for mundane gear.

The utility items like holy water and flasks of X don't function well with the way DnD scales now days. True.

I always go for silk rope, since most of my games have included encumbrance.

[Beelzebub1111]

The point of this edition is the PC, not the gear. Do we need to resurrect "game balance with no magic items needed for standard party of 4" again? That goes double for mundane gear
That kind of exemplifies the problem of wealth being pointless. It doesn't really do anything unless you keep track of it and nickel and dime your players out of everything between adventures and keep meticulous track of the passage of time and resources and how much they are spending to survive each day. Maybe if you keep track of rations and meals and lodging and taxes and with older editions, or maybe have secured treasure become Experience Points, then treasure does something. As it currently stands and I'd wager in most 5e games, wealth doesn't do anything other than Get Your Full Plate (if you don't find it first). Then it just sits there collecting dust, so it ceases to be a motivator.

I'm sure someone created a system for managing a fortress or starting a business or whatever, but it doesn't really serve any end other than a drain on your resources.

[KorvinStarmast]

That kind of exemplifies the problem of wealth being pointless. It doesn't really do anything unless you keep track of it and nickel and dime your players out of everything between adventures and keep meticulous track of the passage of time and resources and how much they are spending to survive each day. Maybe if you keep track of rations and meals and lodging and taxes and with older editions, or maybe have secured treasure become Experience Points, then treasure does something. As it currently stands and I'd wager in most 5e games, wealth doesn't do anything other than Get Your Full Plate (if you don't find it first). Then it just sits there collecting dust, so it ceases to be a motivator.

I'm sure someone created a system for managing a fortress or starting a business or whatever, but it doesn't really serve any end other than a drain on your resources. The game offers a daily leak of about 2 GP per PC for the abstraction of room and board in a 'comfortable' life style. If you use the tools offered.
Expensive spell components are another way to decrease a party's pile of gold. Whether or not a given table will keep track of time (half the table I have played do a crap job of that, the other half keep track of time) and resources is table dependent.

And lastly, yes, as an economics sim D&D usually falls short. I have had some good results from reducing the piles and bags of coins and more often converting them to gems or jewelry or art objects on ingots/bars. The players don't necessarily find coins.

[Beelzebub1111]

The game offers a daily leak of about 2 GP per PC for the abstraction of room and board in a 'comfortable' life style. If you use the tools offered.
Expensive spell components are another way to decrease a party's pile of gold. Whether or not a given table will keep track of time (half the table I have played do a crap job of that, the other half keep track of time) and resources is table dependent.

And lastly, yes, as an economics sim D&D usually falls short. I have had some good results from reducing the piles and bags of coins and more often converting them to gems or jewelry or art objects on ingots/bars. The players don't necessarily find coins.
My gripe was more that the resources don't actually do much at all, so there's no incentive to collect them. Either have the economic sim or let your players spend their earned wealth on stuff to improve their character (even if it is just experience points). Otherwise, why collect the imaginary cash at all?

[JellyPooga]

IMO, mundane gear should scale automatically with level. All those "useless past lvl.1" items like Hunting Traps, Alchemists Fire, Poison etc. should be better than cantrips or standard (unbuffed) weapon attacks because you either pay per use or for the luxury of having it as an option. The very fact that cantrips, alone, scale while weapon attacks do not is an issue, let alone paying extra on equipment for less output. "Pay more, get less" is barse ackwards game design if ever I saw it and balance isn't an issue because outside of a very few, specific features, everyone can use mundane equipment equally well. Consumables that are useless beyond their monetary value in a game in which beyond a certain point, monetary value is value-less, are just useless. Anyone that's played a vast majority of CRPG's could tell you that (just go boot up your favourite save game and take a look at how much useless junk is in your inventory for the sole purpose of selling on, or "just in case" when "in case" never happens).

You shouldn't have to be paying additional to have "masterwork" or "greater" versions to enjoy this scaling either. Bog standard, run-of-the-mill, mundane equipment should still be relevant at higher levels. The expensive gear should be better (and scale better) still.

Only once this issue is solved will adding additional utility or function to existing gear and/or adding more mundane equipment into the game be actually worth doing.

Making mundane gear more special also has the side effect of not requiring magic items to fulfil the same or similar functions, in turn allowing you to have less of these kind-of-boring utility magic items in the game, in turn actually making the remaining magic items more special/unique as well. IMO.
Commonplace, uninteresting, mundane magic is boring.
Exclusive, exciting, special magic is something worth talking about.

[Oramac]

Longsword and Battleaxe are the same weapon. This annoys me to no end.

Agreed. Sure, they have a slightly different cost and weight, but most people don't pay any attention to that. Certainly not after character creation is done.

This is one place where BG3 definitely handles it better. Each weapon type has its own special attacks. Which certainly sounds like the new Mastery system, but is way better.

[Amnestic]

This is one place where BG3 definitely handles it better. Each weapon type has its own special attacks. Which certainly sounds like the new Mastery system, but is way better.

Quietly slips this somewhat faithful adaptation (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/ncp-sXKlWDJf) while we're here...


That kind of exemplifies the problem of wealth being pointless. It doesn't really do anything unless you keep track of it and nickel and dime your players out of everything between adventures and keep meticulous track of the passage of time and resources and how much they are spending to survive each day. Maybe if you keep track of rations and meals and lodging and taxes and with older editions, or maybe have secured treasure become Experience Points, then treasure does something. As it currently stands and I'd wager in most 5e games, wealth doesn't do anything other than Get Your Full Plate (if you don't find it first). Then it just sits there collecting dust, so it ceases to be a motivator.

I'm sure someone created a system for managing a fortress or starting a business or whatever, but it doesn't really serve any end other than a drain on your resources.

This is why, despite what the DMG might imply/say, I am firmly in the camp that the game's wealth does expect you to be buying magic items.

The nickle and dime of 2gp a day when you're not in the wilderness doesn't come close to touching how much wealth you're expected to be earning from tier 2 onwards. An individual party member is expected to have earned an average of around 3000g by 6th level, not counting any magic items, if the hoard tables are to be believed, (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/9lewra/5e_wealth_by_level_hoard_tables/) and it only gets more disparate from there.

Spell components and plate mail will only take you so far (assuming your party even needs plate - a squad of medium armour guys isn't exactly unusual) before you're swimming in more gold than you know what to do with.

Ammunition is dirt cheap, such that a 1st or 2nd level character can drop 10gp on arrows and be set for the next 10 levels (they might not even need to spend anything again, if they have woodworking tool proficiency), and most armour isn't terribly expensive either. The mundane expenditures do not keep pace with how much you're - apparently - expecting to be earning.

[Oramac]

Quietly slips this somewhat faithful adaptation (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/ncp-sXKlWDJf) while we're here...

Jeez. That's waaaaaaaay better than the dumb Mastery system. I'd rewrite several just to clean it up and simplify it, but even as written it's better than Mastery.

Anyway, bunny trails. :P

[BRC]

Quietly slips this somewhat faithful adaptation (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/ncp-sXKlWDJf) while we're here...



This is why, despite what the DMG might imply/say, I am firmly in the camp that the game's wealth does expect you to be buying magic items.


The whole equipment system is a weird artifact, a halfway compromise between two good ideas.


One one hand, Magic Items are much cooler when they're unique things with stories behind them, rather than just bought from a shop as an expected part of character advancement. Hence not putting strict prices on them and having attunement slots.


On the OTHER hand, character advancement is fun, and buying magic items is a way to customize your character. Getting loot is ALSO fun, grabbing big piles of gold is a key part of the fantasy.


So they build a system that piles gold on you so you CAN buy magic items...but provides no method of doing so.

[Merlecory]

I think it's a missed opportunity to not have poison apply the poisoned condition. I'm not really sure why they felt it should only do a little damage when the condition was right there.


I'm not sure what mundane equipment scaling would/could look like I'm higher tiers. Thief rogue and artificer both feel like they should support item based play the whole way through. A sort of Batman with his utility belt vibe.

[Beelzebub1111]

I'm not sure what mundane equipment scaling would/could look like I'm higher tiers. Thief rogue and artificer both feel like they should support item based play the whole way through. A sort of Batman with his utility belt vibe.
I think it would look something like the Pathfinder 2e's Alchemist. Each item has, essentially, the next "Tier" of quality above it for more cost to reflect the wealth. Like Acid could be Minor, Lesser, Greater, Major, Pure with a price and damage relative to the tier using cantrip damage as a baseline.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think it would look something like the Pathfinder 2e's Alchemist. Each item has, essentially, the next "Tier" of quality above it for more cost to reflect the wealth. Like Acid could be Minor, Lesser, Greater, Major, Pure with a price and damage relative to the tier using cantrip damage as a baseline.
The DMG has bigger and better poisons, for whatever that's worth. (Also @Merlecory) and has costs for them.

[Beelzebub1111]

The DMG has bigger and better poisons, for whatever that's worth. (Also @Merlecory) and has costs for them.

If they expanded that to all 'mundane' items I'd be all for it.

[Dork_Forge]

Cold weather clothing was introduced in Rime of the Frost Maiden (10GP, automatically succeed on saves against extreme cold as long as they're dry), but this highlights an issue. The game has continued to introduce new mundane items/weapons, but they are scattered in different books, primarily adventures. They should have used a book like Tasha's to consolidate and introduce new mundane items, which would have also bolstered some archetypes and probably martial.

Personally:

- Rogues should get improvised weapon prof built in to reflect their resourceful nature
- Items like Alchemists fire should be expensive, prices should be grounded in world expectations, how hard it is to manufacture and who the target audience is. The public isn't going to be buying it like a normal item, it's also very dangerous, the pricing also stops it becoming like arrows, too cheap and you may as well assume an endless supply.
- More items are needed to make the game more engaging and versatile, a bag of sand is a common thing people homebrew to add in because it's a classic trope. Smoke pellets, flashbangs etc. could and should have versions in the game. The UA Artificer (the Alchemist and Gunner) had some ideas here to steal, they basically created items like this to use, such as the tanglefoot bag.
- The weapons table needs refinement. Too many weapons are copies of each other with different damage types when damage types aren't utilised heavily enough to be impactful. I'll be honest, I don't think 'weapon skills' or whatever are necessarily the way to go, particularly if they cause saving throws. It could very easily start to bulk down the gameplay and increase the learning curve. I do, however, think that the table could benefit from 2+ more weapon traits to use. Reach and Light were good starts (TWF isn't bad design), versatile could probably be tweaked, but there just needs to be more to draw upon.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'd like to see a total rework of armour so that characters are allowed to get better at defending themselves as they level. Whether that means changing the AC formula to add in Proficiency Bonus, or making armour do something other than reduce hot rate, I'd like to see characters not relying solely on better armour to get better defence.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd like to see a total rework of armour so that characters are allowed to get better at defending themselves as they level. Whether that means changing the AC formula to add in Proficiency Bonus, or making armour do something other than reduce hot rate, I'd like to see characters not relying solely on better armour to get better defence.

That sounds like "throw out bounded accuracy all together". Which is a total nonstarter as far as I'm concerned--I'm much more in favor of reducing ways to get better AC. Otherwise you're looking at adjusting all monsters and ending up at best on a treadmill... Or more likely letting people fall behind because they didn't pay the tax.

Edit: and more importantly, I'm focusing on the actual Adventuring Equipment table here, not the entire chapter. Armor, weapons, and mounts (etc) are conversations that have very different needs and merit in depth conversation... Elsewhere.

[Anonymouswizard]

That sounds like "throw out bounded accuracy all together". Which is a total nonstarter as far as I'm concerned--I'm much more in favor of reducing ways to get better AC. Otherwise you're looking at adjusting all monsters and ending up at best on a treadmill... Or more likely letting people fall behind because they didn't pay the tax.

Or, you know, have AC scale in a similar way to Attack Bonuses. Maybe leather armour gives 9+PB+DEX while plate armour gives 14+PB (numbers picked to feel 'about right' rather than checking current percentages).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or, you know, have AC scale in a similar way to Attack Bonuses. Maybe leather armour gives 9+PB+DEX while plate armour gives 14+PB (numbers picked to feel 'about right' rather than checking current percentages).

Without rebuilding all the monsters, you'd break everything. To make the numbers match with current, you'd have to say that plate is 12 + PB...which means Chainmail would be 10+PB. And leather would be 6+PB+DEX. Ie someone in leather armor would be be worse than a naked, no DEX person now unless their PB + DEX was 4 or higher. And to refactor all the monster numbers means completely discarding the link between attack bonus and modifiers.

No, the armor numbers as they are are consequences of the basic decision to have a proficiency bonus instead of a base attack bonus. You'd have to refactor every single piece of the math to make that work.

[Witty Username]

On Dork Forge's point, an arms & equipment guide would definitely be helpful for 5e. Compilation books are kinda light in 5e (really there is only Monsters of the Multiverse, and it has an arcross the board rebalance that cheeses people off).

An arms & equipment guide or spell compendium type book would definitely be welcome.

Also 5e books tend to be light on actual mechanics, which is frustrating for me.
--
The AC conversation has my interest but I don't want to derail the thread, I may have follow up questions in another venue.

[Leon]

Also 5e books tend to be light on actual mechanics, which is frustrating for me.


Because 5e as a whole is light on everything

[Skrum]

The one and only time I've ever used any of that stuff was when I was playing a level 3 rogue, and I doused a spellcaster in oil because he had been using fire bolt up until then. The DM liked the creativity and said if he cast again, the oil would ignite.

Fun bit of flavor, but mechanically terrible - spending my action to attack would do more damage, and had a greater chance of success, than using the oil. And before anyone says it, I completely agree that not all actions must be optimized, and I enjoyed making this particular sub-optimal move.

But that's the rub, isn't it....if anyone wants to use this equipment, they have to make suboptimal moves. Cause the equipment is terrible. Which is a real shame cause it makes it awfully hard to play a creative or "dirty" fighter that uses their wits and cunning more than their brawn (what cunning fighter makes bad moves??). Rogues (and the rogue archetype) in particular would really benefit from having situational equipment options, both mechanically and narratively.

Even more so than skills, the equipment options are just woefully underdeveloped in 5e. The adventure gear in particular is obviously just included for legacy purposes, and it kinda stinks. Should that type of gear be relevant at all tiers of play? No, probably not. But it would be nice if it was at least useable, at some level.

My wishlist:
- throwing potions shouldn't be an improvised attack (why is it *harder* to hit someone with something that just needs to splash on them??)
- there should be different types of poison
- nets should be useable without sacrificing 5 goats to the dice gods
- more alchemical items, like thunderstones, smokesticks, tanglefoot bags, and sunrods

I would add something about weapons too but the upcoming Weapon Mastery system is looking pretty great on that front

[RazorChain]

What I did about equipment was to scour some 3rd party books and make my own list with reasonable price and what tools could be used to craft those items and how long it takes.

Things like poisons, acids, alchemy fires have tiers where they do more damage and cost more, just like there are tiers of healing potions.

I also added things like smoke bombs, thunder stones, flash pellets for more variety.

Then I reworked potion pricing and made them more accessible with pricing ranging from 50 to 1000 gp for most of them instead of some stupid 10.000 gp and 4 weeks of crafting a supreme healing potion which would mean that it would cost at least 10.000+ to buy.

Poison I reworked to be similar for both ranged and melee. According to the rules you can poison 3 arrows or use it for one successful melee attack. I get it that at least the melee attack is a guaranteed hit while the arrows are not. Ranged is superior to melee as a damage mitigation so I have it so that poison on melee weapons last for 3 hits.

Then again my players are lucky if they get their grubby hands on potions and consumables because the bad guys just don't put their valuable assets into storage, they actually use those in a fight.

If you give the PC's options to spend their gold on they will usually take it. The problem is just that prices and options for consumables and non magical equipment are bad.

I also blame this somewhat on the system as it wasn't designed with equipment in mind.

[Merlecory]

How do people feel about mundane equipment being boosted by your stats/skills? Increased throw range based on Strength, more healing from a healing kit based on your medicine skill. That last one feels a little odd for 5th edition, but I am not sure I have ever seen that skill used at a table I played at, so maybe a change is needed.

Hunting trap could have its dc based on survival? That sounds satisfying to me, but then I have to figure out how to get saves to play nice with skills, when the later can get expertise and guidance.

[Dork_Forge]

How do people feel about mundane equipment being boosted by your stats/skills? Increased throw range based on Strength, more healing from a healing kit based on your medicine skill. That last one feels a little odd for 5th edition, but I am not sure I have ever seen that skill used at a table I played at, so maybe a change is needed.

Hunting trap could have its dc based on survival? That sounds satisfying to me, but then I have to figure out how to get saves to play nice with skills, when the later can get expertise and guidance.

The DC of some stuff increasing might be satisfying, but maybe as a feature some classes get and definitely not based on a skill. Skill modifiers are extremely easy to get stupid high.

As for Healing Kits, are you thinking of a different edition? A Healer's Kit does nothing but stabilise you when at 0HP, they only restore HP with the Healer feat, which has built in scaling (and very good scaling at that).

[Rilem]

Even more so than skills, the equipment options are just woefully underdeveloped in 5e.

As a longtime 3.5/PF holdout who just played his first RL 5E one-shot with a level 5 PC, equipment was honestly the biggest surprise. We had a decent starting budget for mundane items and I couldn't find anything useful to spend it on.

What I liked about alchemist's fire and the like in 3.5 was that it was a reliable means of energy damage for non-spellcasters, and a way of ensuring hits against high-AC monsters. Maybe that's not needed when almost anybody can get a cantrip, but I still miss it.

Somebody mentioned PF2 item scaling, and Starfinder has something similar. You can buy a Level 1 item or a Level 12 item or a Level 17 item — in fact, you're expected to, as you progress — with the higher level items doing multiple dice of damage and costing thousands more

[Merlecory]

As for Healing Kits, are you thinking of a different edition? A Healer's Kit does nothing but stabilise you when at 0HP, they only restore HP with the Healer feat, which has built in scaling (and very good scaling at that).

I was suggesting it as an update to the existing kit. I think that you should be able to use the medicine skull and items to achieve some sort of healing. Having to pay a feat to restore hp, and not using medicine is not what someone would expect based on names alone. Also I want the medicine skill to have more written use cases than stabilizing someone, and identifying poison. Let me treat it!

[JLandan]

If you want to include PB in AC without having to rescale all the monsters, just drop the 10 base for PCs (leave it for monsters and NPCs) and make it 8 (the same formula as spell DC). So tier 1 stays the same, and later tiers get progressively better.

As to equipment, there are many things missing, most of which can be improvised on the spot by the DM. Cold weather clothes should be basic and included. Alchemist stuff needs a complete re-work. It needs to scale to spells in the same manner as healing potions and Cure Wounds for cost and effect.

The gp value of magic items should never have been scrapped from 3e. 5e values are crazy wide ranged. I prefer specific value for specific items.

I use the old 3.5 DMG for gp values; and I use a homebrew crafting system (because 5e crafting, magic and mundane, is unworkable) based on gp value, with the same formula applied to both magic and mundane items. Each item requires an amount of crafting points equal to 1/2 its gp value; half of that (1/4 total) is in materials and a minimum of 10 per cent must be contributed each day it is worked on until the material cost is met. The other half of the crafting point cost is paid each day it is worked on with a tool use check specific to what is being made, (magic items may also require spell casting each day of the necessary spell) proficient assistants may aid the check as may spell effects (like Guidance). The check total is the number of craft points contributed that day. Work continues until the full crafting point cost is attained. So brewing up a 50 gp healing potion costs 12 gp and 5sp, and requires an alchemist kit and 12 crafting points. It could be done in one day, but a botched check may require more time. I would allow a PC to forego the materials cost if a means of finding/acquiring/etc. the materials is available.

Plate Mail: 375 gp materials, 375 crafting points, smithing tools.
+1 Longsword: 500 gp materials, 500 crafting points, smithing tools and know Magic Weapon spell (taking most likely a month)

In 5e a +1 Longsword can be from 101 to 500 gp value, although to craft one (per Tasha's) costs 2000 gp (for a 101-500 gp item) in materials and takes 10 weeks; also requiring 9-12 ingredients that in turn require successfully completed adventures to acquire.

[Luccan]

The DC of some stuff increasing might be satisfying, but maybe as a feature some classes get and definitely not based on a skill. Skill modifiers are extremely easy to get stupid high.

As for Healing Kits, are you thinking of a different edition? A Healer's Kit does nothing but stabilise you when at 0HP, they only restore HP with the Healer feat, which has built in scaling (and very good scaling at that).

Would it really be that much of an issue, though? Ok, you used an ASI/Class Feature to boost your ability to lay a Hunting Trap. That covers a 5-foot, grounded square and you need to set it up beforehand. I'd certainly hope it would work if it ever even came up. Alternately you just set a cap on how much you can scale the DC up

[Dork_Forge]

Would it really be that much of an issue, though? Ok, you used an ASI/Class Feature to boost your ability to lay a Hunting Trap. That covers a 5-foot, grounded square and you need to set it up beforehand. I'd certainly hope it would work if it ever even came up. Alternately you just set a cap on how much you can scale the DC up

None of that is a reason to ignore how the maths of the game works, tying it to a skill modifier is too much (nevermind a skill roll) and breaks bounded accuracy for no good reason. The default DC for that stuff is 10 right? A feature/feat that cranks it up to 15 would be more suitable.

As for what you said, you're thinking of a single trap. I can easily see a party using a bunch of these and disguising them with Survival rolls or illusions.

[Merlecory]

None of that is a reason to ignore how the maths of the game works

Yeah, but maymbe I wanted to ignore all the math in 5e since I played more than 30 minutes. :wink:


More seriously, what areas do you feel like equipment is lacking Pheonix? Devoting a huge section of the game to mountineering equipment doesn't feel like a great fit for 5e (too many rules for modern WoTC).

How about somethign like a folding canoe? Not mundane enough? Too vehicle-y? I don't recall there being any vehicle combat rules in the PHB or DMG, but I could be forgetting.

[Imbalance]

The tables and descriptions themselves are probably OK, overall. The problem is getting players to think about any of those things beyond character creation, which may be a product of published adventures that ask for little, if any, use of such things as solutions. I've taken to placing mundane items into my descriptions of rooms where they could be directly useful, and they're still overlooked. Next session, there will be a switch on a column on the other side of a trench of toxic sludge, and I will clearly mention the ten foot pole standing in the nearby corner. I guarantee you they will still either try to jump the gap, simply wade through and take damage, burn a spell slot, or even throw a dagger to try to activate the switch instead of the obvious mundane solution of reaching over with the stick.

Most of my players have been playing Tears of the Kingdom, as well, and so I'm giving serious thought to framing some puzzles around similar functions as that game, just to see if they go for it.

[JellyPooga]

The tables and descriptions themselves are probably OK, overall. The problem is getting players to think about any of those things beyond character creation, which may be a product of published adventures that ask for little, if any, use of such things as solutions. I've taken to placing mundane items into my descriptions of rooms where they could be directly useful, and they're still overlooked. Next session, there will be a switch on a column on the other side of a trench of toxic sludge, and I will clearly mention the ten foot pole standing in the nearby corner. I guarantee you they will still either try to jump the gap, simply wade through and take damage, burn a spell slot, or even throw a dagger to try to activate the switch instead of the obvious mundane solution of reaching over with the stick.

Most of my players have been playing Tears of the Kingdom, as well, and so I'm giving serious thought to framing some puzzles around similar functions as that game, just to see if they go for it.

Published adventures and their "kick-in-the-door" style and heavy focus on combat encounters that are little more than boring resource drains are largely to blame, yes. That and the CRPGs that adopted the same style, in large part due to programming limitations. Between the two, players have not been encouraged to think outside the box character sheet, relying on the funky features and shiny buttons that they're told they should be using (by the game) rather than actually listening to the GM and using a little of their own imagination and initiative.

There's two solutions; the first is to play a different game. D&D has a massive focus on combat and 5e has lots of features, abilities and spells that do all the thinking for you; all you have to do is build your character and push the buttons at the right time. Anything outside of this paradigm, like using mundane equipment or terrain features, is actively discouraged by simply not being as effective as doing the thing your character sheet tells you that you should be doing (i.e. the "optimal" thing you built your character for). Many other systems move away from this by downplaying "character builds" and special abilities; Traveller, FATE and to an extent GURPS do this, for example. If the buttons on your character sheet aren't that interesting or are merely there to enable you to interact with your scenario/environment, then you are encouraged to look outside and find the fun yourself. By way of analogy, D&D is a kid stuck indoors with a games console, whilst FATE is a kid who got kicked outdoors and is wondering whether to climb the tree in their back yard or go build a sick, awesome ramp for his bike. I'm not saying one is better than the other; the games console is engaging, has bright lights and is no doubt a whole lot of fun. Then again, the outdoors kid is probably learning more practical skills, getting some decent exercise and is probably having just as much fun.

The other solution is to train your players. Reward creative thinking and paying attention to your descriptions. Have your NPC's engage in the kind of action and activity you want your player to. Discuss the situation with your players and tell them that you're happy to bend the rules if they do something cool, even (or especially!) if it steps on the toes of a feat, feature or spell that they don't have access to or didn't take for whatever reason. For example, if the Barbarian wants to pick up the 40ft feasting table and throw it at the guards rushing into the banquet hall, let him know (in session 0) that he won't be held to the borken-ass improvised weapon rules and can do the awesome thing that is actually effective. Make them roll for it, appropriately to their character, but let them do more than limit themselves to their character sheet. Saying "yes, but" to your Players is DMing 101..."yes, you can throw the feasting table and it'll force everyone in a 40ft line to make a Str or Dex save to avoid taking damage and being knocked prone, but the DC will pretty low...let's say 5+your Athletics modifier."

[sithlordnergal]

The DC of some stuff increasing might be satisfying, but maybe as a feature some classes get and definitely not based on a skill. Skill modifiers are extremely easy to get stupid high.


I mean...is that an actual issue though? Especially for mundane equipment? Sure, you could have a Rogue focused on Survival set a trap with a DC of 30, but its still your basic Hunting Trap. It'll stop movement for that round and deal 1d4 damage, but after that they can basically ignore the trap with no downsides. Sure, they will have limited movement if the trap is connected to a chain...but a chain has 10 HP or needs a DC 20 Strength check to break. And nothing says whatever was trapped can't use their action to destroy or break the chain on the turn they're trapped.

I'd say the same holds true for most equipment. Let Slight of Hand increase the DCs of Ball Bearings and Caltrops. Use Alchemy Supplies to make stronger basic Acid/Alchemist Fire/ect. For things like Acid, it could be as simple as 2d6+(whatever you rolled on your check) or you could make a table where the damage increases by 1d6 for every 5 to 10 points above 10 that you roll, and if you roll 5 or lower you lose 1d6.

It'll make skills and tools a LOT more important.

[greenstone]

I would simplify it to kits relating to skills.

For example, there would be a equipment item called "Survival kit" with a cost and weight.

If the characters were sleeping rough, the GM could call for, "a WIS (Survival) check, if you have a kit you have advantage." If they were sleeping in bad conditions, the GM could say, "a WIS (Survival) check, no kit means disadvantage." Or perhaps, "a WIS (Survival) check, but if you don't have a kit then don't make the check - you don't get a long rest without the gear."

Some uses of the skill (for example, WIS (Survival) for tracking a beast) would not need a kit.

[Dork_Forge]

I mean...is that an actual issue though? Especially for mundane equipment? Sure, you could have a Rogue focused on Survival set a trap with a DC of 30, but its still your basic Hunting Trap. It'll stop movement for that round and deal 1d4 damage, but after that they can basically ignore the trap with no downsides. Sure, they will have limited movement if the trap is connected to a chain...but a chain has 10 HP or needs a DC 20 Strength check to break. And nothing says whatever was trapped can't use their action to destroy or break the chain on the turn they're trapped.

Yes, breaking bounded accuracy for no good reason is an actual issue. But since you're focused on addressing the individual items, let's:

The hunting trap is chained down by default as per it's description. It immediately stops movement and deals a small amount of damage, forcing the use of an action to escape it.

So, for an action and 5GP, you're getting damage, movement denial, and action denial. Oh and there is no size limitation on it, RAW you can nab a Tarrasque like this. Even if they see and avoid it, you've influenced their interaction with the battlefield. I can see a case for upping the DC, but the effects are certainly potent enough to warrant saying 'no you can't go off the rails with your DC for such little investment.'

Given that Scouts get Survival Expertise built in, and someone in the party is usually good at Survival regardless of the comp, it seems needless.

Oh, and then there's the argument for poisoning the jaws of the trap which would probably come up in some instances.


I'd say the same holds true for most equipment. Let Slight of Hand increase the DCs of Ball Bearings and Caltrops. Use Alchemy Supplies to make stronger basic Acid/Alchemist Fire/ect. For things like Acid, it could be as simple as 2d6+(whatever you rolled on your check) or you could make a table where the damage increases by 1d6 for every 5 to 10 points above 10 that you roll, and if you roll 5 or lower you lose 1d6.

Do you really think caltrops need a boost? Their DC is 15 from the get-go, which is very respectable for a Dex save. Ball bearings could be higher, but tie it to a skill and you're basically creating a mundane Grease spell.

As for Acid and Alchemist's fire, part of the point is being able to use the damage types (not jus the raw damage itself), but you're probably meant to add Dex mod to the damage. Not only can you read the rules this way, IIRC JC confirmed it in a tweet a while back.

2d6+Dex acid damage is respectable, especially since you're opening this to Thieves using Fast Hands to do this as a bonus action. And part of the reason to use Alchemist's Fire is action denial to put it out. Considering you can then start lobbing self-igniting oil at the same creature, this really seems fine.


It'll make skills and tools a LOT more important.

I've never been in a game where skills aren't important, and the value of tools is already expanded by the optional tool rules.

It gets dangerous making either of those things even more important than they already are because the ability check system is so easily cracked wide open. Expertise, Jack of All Trades, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, Cosmic Omen etc. etc. The tools to do so are prevalent enough than any old average party could get out of hand with DCs easily, but someone actually building with this stuff in mind would be ridiculous.

[Amechra]

[...] D&D has a massive focus on combat and 5e has lots of features, abilities and spells that do all the thinking for you; all you have to do is build your character and push the buttons at the right time. [...]

*Cries in early D&D, which had none of those things.*

[tokek]

As I just discovered when asked to make a ruling a vial of acid makes no sense

A vial of acid weighs 1 lb

A vial only holds 4 oz. Vials of poison or perfume have negligible weight, this makes sense for them. It makes no sense for 16 oz of acid.

It’s easy to rule one way or the other but you have to ignore something - either the weight or the stated size of a vial

[JellyPooga]

*Cries in early D&D, which had none of those things.*

Yeah, in a lot of ways I preferred earlier editions of D&D because whilst it didn't have a lot of polish, it left a lot open to the GM and Players to make rulings and use their noggin instead of wondering if there's already a feature that'll do "the thing" (whatever that it) already. It still had a big combat focus, having been developed from a wargame and all, but at least the rules were fairly bare-bones, which encouraged creative thinking to make it interesting.

[Oramac]

I would simplify it to kits relating to skills.

For example, there would be a equipment item called "Survival kit" with a cost and weight.

If the characters were sleeping rough, the GM could call for, "a WIS (Survival) check, if you have a kit you have advantage." If they were sleeping in bad conditions, the GM could say, "a WIS (Survival) check, no kit means disadvantage." Or perhaps, "a WIS (Survival) check, but if you don't have a kit then don't make the check - you don't get a long rest without the gear."

Some uses of the skill (for example, WIS (Survival) for tracking a beast) would not need a kit.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! (not sarcasm)

IMO, this would be the simplest and best solution. It doesn't cover everything (such as a vial of poison), but it covers damn near everything, and reduces bookkeeping and overhead tremendously.

[JellyPooga]

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! (not sarcasm)

IMO, this would be the simplest and best solution. It doesn't cover everything (such as a vial of poison), but it covers damn near everything, and reduces bookkeeping and overhead tremendously.

For to a degree, I agree. No need to specify that you have a mess kit, bed roll, blanket, waterskin, etc. if you lump it all into one "Survival Kit". How non-specific or specific does this get, though? Does an "Exploration Kit" have a lantern or does it have torches? If the former, what kind of lantern? Does the Exploration Kit have rope, or do you need a Climbing Kit for that? When you start delving into what, specifically, a "Kit" can do, you're going to come up against the same problem of what specific mundane items do or are capable of, because at some level those Kits are going to have to be comprised of certain items. For example, how much rope is in a Climbing Kit? Do you need several Climbing Kits if you want more than, say, 100ft rope? There's also going to be the issue of overlap (both a Survival Kit and an Exploration Kit might have rope, a tinderbox, etc.), which in turn creates potential issues with weight and encumbrance. How abstract does the rabbit hole get? Do you borrow a leaf from Blades in the Dark and have equipment "slots" that are defined only by their encumbrance (and perhaps price) until actually used/needed? It's a system that works, but D&D has historically been fairly specific about equipment; it was largely what differentiated one character from another in the days before classes and their features became more prominent (bearing in mind that back in ye olden days, even ability scores had much less impact than they do in later editions).

[Oramac]

For to a degree, I agree...For example, how much rope is in a Climbing Kit?

snip

Snipping for space.

All valid points. I think this falls into the DMs purview. In the last (almost) 10 years of playing 5e, I can count on one hand the number of times the answers to those questions mattered beyond "yes, you have enough [insert mundane item here]". Outside of hardcore apocalyptic survival games, it's just not that important.

At the end of the day, anything that speeds up gameplay while also allowing for interesting choices and dice rolls is an improvement, IMO. Greenstone's "Skill Kits", for lack of a better term, does that fairly well.

[JellyPooga]

Snipping for space.

All valid points. I think this falls into the DMs purview. In the last (almost) 10 years of playing 5e, I can count on one hand the number of times the answers to those questions mattered beyond "yes, you have enough [insert mundane item here]". Outside of hardcore apocalyptic survival games, it's just not that important.

At the end of the day, anything that speeds up gameplay while also allowing for interesting choices and dice rolls is an improvement, IMO. Greenstone's "Skill Kits", for lack of a better term, does that fairly well.

Fair point. It doesn't solve the issue of things like a alchemists fire and other consumables though. If you want to get creative with the "kit" system, I suppose a skill based consumable kit that scales damage or effects on the result of a skill check could work. For example, an Alchemy Kit (or abstract "alchemical reagents" that can be used in conjunction with alchemists tools), that has X uses, which can be used to create a variety of effects (AoE fire, entanglement, etc.) is something I could get along with. It would save having to list x,y,z specific items and would allow for creative thinking whilst simultaneously allowing for hard rule limits (i.e. gating damage levels or specific effects behind class level or check results e.g. you can't create a stun effect until after lvl.5 or a DC:20 check).

[NontheistCleric]

Snipping for space.

All valid points. I think this falls into the DMs purview. In the last (almost) 10 years of playing 5e, I can count on one hand the number of times the answers to those questions mattered beyond "yes, you have enough [insert mundane item here]". Outside of hardcore apocalyptic survival games, it's just not that important.

At the end of the day, anything that speeds up gameplay while also allowing for interesting choices and dice rolls is an improvement, IMO. Greenstone's "Skill Kits", for lack of a better term, does that fairly well.

It's like spell component pouches. They are assumed to contain any components without a specific cost, whenever you need them, for any spell you might cast, but no sensible DM is going to let you open one and unleash an avalanche of materials with no specific cost.

[Oramac]

It doesn't solve the issue of things like a alchemists fire and other consumables though.
snip

I mean, you could just extend it to tools as well. This is basically already done for Thieves' Tools. And as you say, Alchemist's Fire could easily be replaced by a check with Alchemist's Tools in the same way. I do like the gated scaling idea too. Probably scaling by character level would be simpler, though scaling by DC would be more dynamic.


It's like spell component pouches. They are assumed to contain any components without a specific cost, whenever you need them, for any spell you might cast, but no sensible DM is going to let you open one and unleash an avalanche of materials with no specific cost.

Basically this, yes.

[Damon_Tor]

Honestly? I often feel like there aren't any. Alchemist fire for 50gp to deal 1d4 fire damage per round? Not worth the action, not worth the gold. Functionally the game doesn't exist. Holy water for 25gp and deals 2d6 against fiends and undead, situationally useful for a party that doesn't have radiant damage and is fighting a vampire. Caltrops? A creature will just jump over it. Same issue with bag of ball bearings. Basic poison for 100gp for 1d4 poison damage AND it has a DC 10 con save?

An adventurer will never buy any of this, if they happen to have it will almost never use it and are always better off selling it to buy healing potions. Healing potions is really the only item on the equipment list that is worth buying. I've seen players TRY to make use of oil, mainly because it costs only 1sp and therefore the player can buy many flasks of oil. But even that is a trap option because in combat it will still cost 1 action per flask.

I think the prices need to be addressed first, it needs to be more useful to use them than to sell them. The second thing to address is their power level, a 5 foot square is not big enough, 1d4 damage is not enough.
Alchemist fire should at most cost 10gp, and when thrown hits an area of 10x10 feet square, and anyone who starts their turn in it takes 1d6 fire damage, plus 1d6 when the alchemist fire is thrown on them. That might actually be good in T1 at least. I understand that in T2 mundane equipment will fall off but even in T1, even in level 1, none of the mundane equipment is worth using.

This is why I'm extremely permissive with how the throwables are used. At my table, anything which breaks the container sets off the effect. That means using them as ammo for the catapult spell is permissable. You could wrap up several in a net and throw the whole thing at once, or rig them up to a tripwire trap to drop on enemies automatically. Generally I read the "throw it like an improvised weapon" text on the items as a sort of serving suggestion, but I encourage my players to be creative and not feel restricted to what's written.

[sithlordnergal]

Yes, breaking bounded accuracy for no good reason is an actual issue. But since you're focused on addressing the individual items, let's:

The hunting trap is chained down by default as per it's description. It immediately stops movement and deals a small amount of damage, forcing the use of an action to escape it.

So, for an action and 5GP, you're getting damage, movement denial, and action denial. Oh and there is no size limitation on it, RAW you can nab a Tarrasque like this. Even if they see and avoid it, you've influenced their interaction with the battlefield. I can see a case for upping the DC, but the effects are certainly potent enough to warrant saying 'no you can't go off the rails with your DC for such little investment.'

Given that Scouts get Survival Expertise built in, and someone in the party is usually good at Survival regardless of the comp, it seems needless.

Oh, and then there's the argument for poisoning the jaws of the trap which would probably come up in some instances.



Do you really think caltrops need a boost? Their DC is 15 from the get-go, which is very respectable for a Dex save. Ball bearings could be higher, but tie it to a skill and you're basically creating a mundane Grease spell.

As for Acid and Alchemist's fire, part of the point is being able to use the damage types (not jus the raw damage itself), but you're probably meant to add Dex mod to the damage. Not only can you read the rules this way, IIRC JC confirmed it in a tweet a while back.

2d6+Dex acid damage is respectable, especially since you're opening this to Thieves using Fast Hands to do this as a bonus action. And part of the reason to use Alchemist's Fire is action denial to put it out. Considering you can then start lobbing self-igniting oil at the same creature, this really seems fine.


I wouldn't say you're breaking bounded accuracy for no reason. In fact, I'd say most of those detriments are actually benefits, and part of the very reason you'd want to make that change. Because it gives a mundane form of battlefield control that matches and, potentially, surpasses magical battlefield control. Something that is a boon in my book, especially since mundane battlefield control is lackluster at best. A highly skilled player should be able to use traps and mundane equipment to much greater effect, and increasing the DC is the perfect way to emulate that.

As for how powerful they are...I don't actually think they're all that powerful. Things like the hunting trap seem strong at first, but its a single 5 foot space, and the chain it uses to prevent creatures from moving very far is easy to break. A creature can just avoid stepping in the space the trap is set, which is easily do-able if the trap is set during combat, or just break the chain. Given chains have 20 HP or require a DC 20 strength check, that's pretty easy for most high CR creatures to do. Meanwhile things like ball bearings and caltrops can be avoided completely if a creature moves at half speed through them. So its not like they completely replace the spells they emulate. Also, outside of the hunting trap, those items are single use.

Also, a small thing with the hunting trap, I don't think its chained down by default. I can see it coming with a chain and spike attached to it, but you need something to chain it to, such as a tree or the ground. And if you're in a place with a stone floor where you can't really drive the spike into the ground, you're pretty limited on where you can set the trap up.


As for things like Acid, Alchemist Fire, Holy Water, ect., I don't see a reason why you shouldn't be able to increase their damage. Sure, they're mostly used for the damage types, but so many spells outperform them that they become functionally useless. By adding ways to make them stronger, you give non-magical martial classes a way to easily access those damage types without relying on spellcasters that remain competitive with those spellcasters. Which is a good thing. And the rules on throwing keeps them in check. A fighter can't throw 2 vials of acid, just like they can't throw two javelins. Same holds true with a thief and their Fast Hands, though this lets them make an attack with a normal weapon then throw something, but that's fine.





I've never been in a game where skills aren't important, and the value of tools is already expanded by the optional tool rules.

It gets dangerous making either of those things even more important than they already are because the ability check system is so easily cracked wide open. Expertise, Jack of All Trades, Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, Cosmic Omen etc. etc. The tools to do so are prevalent enough than any old average party could get out of hand with DCs easily, but someone actually building with this stuff in mind would be ridiculous.

And this expands them even further without making things "more important than they already are". I'd say this actually expands the use of rarely used Skills and Tools. Sure, Stealth, Perception, and Investigation are common checks. But Survival? Not nearly as often. Its generally used to avoid getting lost, tracking things, or identifying things in the general area.

Also, I'd say those investments are a fair trade. Expertise is a a very limited resource, and you can't just change your Expertise on a whim. The few classes that get Expertise cap out on 4 skills total. Meanwhile things like Bardic Inspiration and Cosmic Omen are using up limited resources from other classes, and Guidance requires an Action and Concentration to use. So if someone is willing to spend all those resources and focus on Survival to make a DC 35 Hunting Trap, then I say good on them. Let them do it. It still only deals 1d4, and the chain that prevents more movement only has 20 HP, making it pretty easy to break out of.

[Dork_Forge]

I wouldn't say you're breaking bounded accuracy for no reason. In fact, I'd say most of those detriments are actually benefits, and part of the very reason you'd want to make that change. Because it gives a mundane form of battlefield control that matches and, potentially, surpasses magical battlefield control. Something that is a boon in my book, especially since mundane battlefield control is lackluster at best. A highly skilled player should be able to use traps and mundane equipment to much greater effect, and increasing the DC is the perfect way to emulate that.

Increasing DC with skills doesn't show how skilled a player is at all, and is there a particular reason why you seem to be against increasing DCs within bounded accuracy?


As for how powerful they are...I don't actually think they're all that powerful. Things like the hunting trap seem strong at first, but its a single 5 foot space, and the chain it uses to prevent creatures from moving very far is easy to break. A creature can just avoid stepping in the space the trap is set, which is easily do-able if the trap is set during combat, or just break the chain. Given chains have 20 HP or require a DC 20 strength check, that's pretty easy for most high CR creatures to do. Meanwhile things like ball bearings and caltrops can be avoided completely if a creature moves at half speed through them. So its not like they completely replace the spells they emulate. Also, outside of the hunting trap, those items are single use.

Forcing a creature to avoid a certain area is a form of control. Forcing a creature to move at half speed through an area is a form of control. I also don't get why you're talking about high CR creatures having a pretty easy time, when the majority of creatures affected won't be high CR, and the higher the CR the higher the cost of the lost attack/action to break it?

There is also literally nothing single use about caltrops and ball bearings, you put them down, you can pick them up.


Also, a small thing with the hunting trap, I don't think its chained down by default. I can see it coming with a chain and spike attached to it, but you need something to chain it to, such as a tree or the ground. And if you're in a place with a stone floor where you can't really drive the spike into the ground, you're pretty limited on where you can set the trap up.

Are you just arguing this on memory? Here's the description (which I already referenced):

" The trap is affixed by a heavy chain to an immobile object, such as a tree or a spike driven into the ground."

That's by default. Could there be some environments where it's not conducive to being chained down? Sure, but given the entire point of pitons is to get hammered into stone as an anchor point, it should be the minority of the time.


As for things like Acid, Alchemist Fire, Holy Water, ect., I don't see a reason why you shouldn't be able to increase their damage. Sure, they're mostly used for the damage types, but so many spells outperform them that they become functionally useless. By adding ways to make them stronger, you give non-magical martial classes a way to easily access those damage types without relying on spellcasters that remain competitive with those spellcasters. Which is a good thing. And the rules on throwing keeps them in check. A fighter can't throw 2 vials of acid, just like they can't throw two javelins. Same holds true with a thief and their Fast Hands, though this lets them make an attack with a normal weapon then throw something, but that's fine.

This is a solution in search of a problem. The point of using these items for a certain damage type, beyond maybe tier 1, is to hit a certain weakness. Magical BPS is the least resisted/immuned damage in the game, the reasons martials want fire/acid/radiant is to hit certain monsters where they live.

This is mostly shown up in the Regeneration trait, like with Trolls, where you only need to hit them once a turn to shut it down, then your other attacks can hit normally. You're not looking to create an entire alternative to your BPS, you're looking to compliment it.

And I gotta say, frankly, these kinds of equipment probably shouldn't be on par with spells that do the same damage. Outside of cantrips those spells are costing slots, these items cost some gold (and that is probably cheaper if using tools to make it yourself). Nevermind that spells have a lot of rules attached to them, which act as natural limiters/failure points, and this gear doesn't.

I can see specialist subclasses excelling at this stuff, but not changes to the base equipment/equipment rules.

I'm also curious what 'that's fine' means, I think 2d6+Dex is very nice BA damage for a Thief, but you seem to think it should be higher?


And this expands them even further without making things "more important than they already are". I'd say this actually expands the use of rarely used Skills and Tools. Sure, Stealth, Perception, and Investigation are common checks. But Survival? Not nearly as often. Its generally used to avoid getting lost, tracking things, or identifying things in the general area.


I mean yes, those are some things Survival are used for, as well as foraging food, but ime those are common and frequent part of D&D. Even in an urban campaign tracking down a creature you're chasing comes up. Is Survival just under-utilized in your games?


Also, I'd say those investments are a fair trade. Expertise is a a very limited resource, and you can't just change your Expertise on a whim. The few classes that get Expertise cap out on 4 skills total. Meanwhile things like Bardic Inspiration and Cosmic Omen are using up limited resources from other classes, and Guidance requires an Action and Concentration to use. So if someone is willing to spend all those resources and focus on Survival to make a DC 35 Hunting Trap, then I say good on them. Let them do it. It still only deals 1d4, and the chain that prevents more movement only has 20 HP, making it pretty easy to break out of.

My point was to provide an example list of very common features that can come up and affect the proposed system. But since you went to the specific things:

- Scouts get Expertise in Survival on top of their 4 normal Expertise.
- 4 is a lot of Expertise skills to have, but let's not pretend like Expertise is hard to get. It's a 1 level Rogue dip, there are two feats that can grant it.
- Let's not pretend that using Guidance is really difficult most of the time.
- Bardic Inspiration is plentiful 5th level onwards.

Again, my point was to illustrate how easy it is to bump a DC made in this manner, but I guess I'll throw in some bonus ones to hammer home my point:

- Autognomes can add a d4 after seeing the result prof times a day.
- Mark of Finding get a d4 to Survival permanently
- Kenku can give themselves advantage on prof skill rolls
- Reborn get a d6
- Halflings get Lucky
- If Sleight of Hand, Vedalken get a d4
- Enhance Ability exists and has desirable benefits outside of boosting the DC

In one of my games I regularly see the high 20s/early 30s in Expertise skills from my players without them stacking stuff, I have no desire for that to turn into DCs.

I'm seeing no real reason to make a DC increase anything but a flat number, or at least making it something like '10+prof or the item's DC, whichever is higher.'

This is doubly so since the discussion seems to be simultaneously 'boost DCs' and 'make the item itself better.'

[JellyPooga]

This is mostly shown up in the Regeneration trait, like with Trolls, where you only need to hit them once a turn to shut it down, then your other attacks can hit normally. You're not looking to create an entire alternative to your BPS, you're looking to compliment it.

And I gotta say, frankly, these kinds of equipment probably shouldn't be on par with spells that do the same damage. Outside of cantrips those spells are costing slots, these items cost some gold (and that is probably cheaper if using tools to make it yourself). Nevermind that spells have a lot of rules attached to them, which act as natural limiters/failure points, and this gear doesn't.

The problem here isn't spell slot vs. gold cost, it's action cost. Using equipment, outside of solely the Thief Rogue (to my knowledge) will always cost an Action (unless noted in the item description). You don't get to deal 1 point of fire damage with Alch.Fire and then unleash your arsenal of useful attacks; at best you're setting up your allies to have an "effective" round, but then you're relegating your round to something a commoner could do. If you're saving a spell slot by spending money, you're also wasting your action because the effect is negligible compared to your renewable resources. I said it before upthread; consumables must be competitive compared to whatever else you are able to do for a comparable action at your given level, otherwise they may as well not be in the game. At the very least, they should be better than a cantrip or standard weapon attack. How this is implemented is beside the point because currently, outside of potions and scrolls (which replicate magical effects), there isn't really any consumable better even than that.

Look at it this way. Let's consider Alchemists Fire vs. attacks and cantrips.
For your action, you can;
1) Deal 1d10+mod physical damage
2) Deal 1d8 elemental damage with a debuff rider
3) Deal 1d4 fire damage per turn until your opponent elects to lose an action.

When are you ever going to use (3)? Yeah, technically it could be a decent trade at 1st level when every HP matters, but let's look at the next step up (at level 5), it looks like;
1) 2d10+2(mod) physical damage
2) 2d8 elemental damage with a debuff rider
3) Deal 1d4 fire damage per turn until your opponent elects to lose an action.

At this point the most common creatures you're fighting have HP in the 40-60 range and you'll be fighting things with 100's. Ain't none of them wasting an action to prevent 1d4 damage a turn. It'll take using option (3) at least 6 rounds, on average, to match the a single use of option (1) in terms of damage. The fight is already over before action (3) matches even the most basic combat function of "I attack with my pointy stick". When you consider that (3) costs 50gp a pop and both (1) and (2) cost literally nothing after a one-time purchase, who's even bothering? This doesn't even take into account an entire games worth of features, feats and abilities that buff (1) and (2) compared to almost literally nothing that improves your results with (3).

So yeah, you could probably increase the DC to extinguish Alchemists Fire to the result of the creators Arcana check (or whatever) and double its damage and make it scale by an equal amount at level 5/10/15/20 (4d4/6d4/8d4/10d4) and it still probably wouldn't be as good as making a basic attack (because 25 damage/turn on a non-proficient attack roll from 20ft away, at level 20, is still not a good use of an action). At 50gp a pop. Yeah. Mundane gear either needs a serious overhaul (not just a lip-service glow-up) or to be removed from the game (which it basically has been by being as trash as it is).

[Amnestic]

Tangentially related, Baldur's Gate 3 turns throwing equipment (which includes tossing alch fire/acid/etc.) into Attacks rather than Actions, so extra attack lets you do two per turn (or more, once you get more fighter levels).

Pretty sure it also puts your ability mod onto the attack/damage roll. It does change the burning status to just last two(iirc) turns instead of requiring an action to remove though.

That change alone makes them more viable an option, save for rogues, and I guess the change then would be to add a subclass ('Grenadier', 'Toxicologist', 'Mad Bomber' or whatever you wanna call it) that lets them sneak attack with them. Or make it baseline, I doubt it'd break if you did. Either/or would work I expect.

[Dork_Forge]

The problem here isn't spell slot vs. gold cost, it's action cost. Using equipment, outside of solely the Thief Rogue (to my knowledge) will always cost an Action (unless noted in the item description). You don't get to deal 1 point of fire damage with Alch.Fire and then unleash your arsenal of useful attacks; at best you're setting up your allies to have an "effective" round, but then you're relegating your round to something a commoner could do. If you're saving a spell slot by spending money, you're also wasting your action because the effect is negligible compared to your renewable resources. I said it before upthread; consumables must be competitive compared to whatever else you are able to do for a comparable action at your given level, otherwise they may as well not be in the game. At the very least, they should be better than a cantrip or standard weapon attack. How this is implemented is beside the point because currently, outside of potions and scrolls (which replicate magical effects), there isn't really any consumable better even than that.

Look at it this way. Let's consider Alchemists Fire vs. attacks and cantrips.
For your action, you can;
1) Deal 1d10+mod physical damage
2) Deal 1d8 elemental damage with a debuff rider
3) Deal 1d4 fire damage per turn until your opponent elects to lose an action.

When are you ever going to use (3)? Yeah, technically it could be a decent trade at 1st level when every HP matters, but let's look at the next step up (at level 5), it looks like;
1) 2d10+2(mod) physical damage
2) 2d8 elemental damage with a debuff rider
3) Deal 1d4 fire damage per turn until your opponent elects to lose an action.

At this point the most common creatures you're fighting have HP in the 40-60 range and you'll be fighting things with 100's. Ain't none of them wasting an action to prevent 1d4 damage a turn. It'll take using option (3) at least 6 rounds, on average, to match the a single use of option (1) in terms of damage. The fight is already over before action (3) matches even the most basic combat function of "I attack with my pointy stick". When you consider that (3) costs 50gp a pop and both (1) and (2) cost literally nothing after a one-time purchase, who's even bothering? This doesn't even take into account an entire games worth of features, feats and abilities that buff (1) and (2) compared to almost literally nothing that improves your results with (3).

So yeah, you could probably increase the DC to extinguish Alchemists Fire to the result of the creators Arcana check (or whatever) and double its damage and make it scale by an equal amount at level 5/10/15/20 (4d4/6d4/8d4/10d4) and it still probably wouldn't be as good as making a basic attack (because 25 damage/turn on a non-proficient attack roll from 20ft away, at level 20, is still not a good use of an action). At 50gp a pop. Yeah. Mundane gear either needs a serious overhaul (not just a lip-service glow-up) or to be removed from the game (which it basically has been by being as trash as it is).

That's all well and good, except as you point out, a commoner can do it. Yeah sacrificing your sole action that turn might not be satisfactory (this ignores the now rich world of bonus actions, but regardless), but if you just buff equipment itself, even a buff in making it, you're opening a can of worms.

Besides the world building implications of 'why arent guards just doing stuff instead of adventurers,' it makes minionmancy a serious problem at every level. There are plenty of people that take a RAW approach to stuff like an owl spreading oil or giving potions. You up the equipment and now that owl can do that stuff too. Or how about Steel Defenders, Drakes, Wildfire Spirits, Beast companions, summoned creatures, controlled undead? Nevermind actually hiring someone.

I would like to see a subclass that specialises in this stuff, and more items in general, but straight boosting mundane items to the point where they're competitive, and remain competitive, with your main action has crazy implications for the game.

Heck, best case scenario you're giving Thieves the equivalent a kind of Action Surge every turn when paired with Cunning Action, which is its own problem.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For the record, my current plan for the alchemical "grenades" is

1. They are now Exotic Ranged Weapons, on the weapons table, not on the Equipment table. Properties are Consumed, Special, and Thrown (range 20).
2. Fighters and rogues get proficiency with them.
3. The effects are slightly buffed--alchemists fire now does 2d4 initial + 1d4 repeating. Holy water affects fiends, undead, and anything with a silver vulnerability, and hits as if hit by a silvered weapon[1].
4. Any devout individual[2] can make holy water via ritual + 25 gp. The others need alchemist-kit proficiency.
5. I'm going to write in an explicit "you can rig these up in traps as well" clause on them.

I'm probably (but haven't yet) going to update the range to thrown (20/60). Consumed is just a flag that they're one-use items unlike other thrown weapons.

Effects of these changes:
1+2. Since they're explicitly weapons, they're part of an attack now. Fighters can action surge and throw 8 of them at level 20. If they wanted to. The old "do they add +MOD to damage" argument is settled as "yes". Rogues can sneak attack with them.

[1] this is more related to other changes, basically making silver not simply bypass resistance but have thematic effects. So yeah, holy water on a fiend is better than just radiant damage--it makes them have disadvantage on attacks their next turn. On werewolves, it reduces their max HP (because werewolves are now regenerating like trolls...without an end clause other than "max HP = 0 (ie from silver) or you take an action to behead it at zero".

[2] I'm leaving this open--not just "paladins and clerics by casting a spell", but anyone with a good relationship with a divinity. What exactly that means is up to the DM and players.

[Amnestic]

2. Fighters and rogues get proficiency with them.


Up to you, obvs, but I would suggest adding barbarians and potentially rangers to the list. The former because throwing things really hard is good barbarian imagery, the latter because it ties in with their "clever tool/trap using woodsmen" aesthetic.

(give Alchemist Artificers proficiency too, same reason)

[NichG]

The niche I'd aim for is non-action usage. The day-long benefits of elixirs in BG3 for example. A drug that delays or suppresses Exhaustion for an hour once per day but doubles down on it when it runs out. A drug that preemptively prevents bleeding and autostabilizes you but also weakens all healing by 4 points per instance, for 24 hours.

Or things like 'snowshoes let you treat snow and ice as normal terrain both in combat and overland travel', 'climbing gear prevents you from falling while climbing'.

Or conceptual utility things like 'this alchemical product turns 20ft x 20ft of water into a solid surface for 10 minutes', 'this alchemical product glows neon in contact with any surface that has been disturbed in the last 24 hours', 'a silent drill lets you look through walls up to 1ft thick, but takes a minute and leaves a mark', 'you can use a chisel when striking an object to control how it breaks' (avoid shattering potions or collapsing structures when breaking chests and doors and such).

For alchemical grenades, I'd refocus to military scale use and let them scale damage but at the consequence of being too unwieldy to use as gear or thrown weapons. So more like a 1000gp, 250lbs barrel of alchemist fire that deals say 5d4 per round for 10 minutes over a 30ft radius area and sticks to people and vehicles that pass through like napalm as the main usage, not the person-sized flask. And if instead of a barrel it's a massive tank, that could be a 10d4 fire over a 100ft radius area, but costing 10000gp for that one effect.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1. The niche I'd aim for is non-action usage. The day-long benefits of elixirs in BG3 for example. A drug that delays or suppresses Exhaustion for an hour once per day but doubles down on it when it runs out. A drug that preemptively prevents bleeding and autostabilizes you but also weakens all healing by 4 points per instance, for 24 hours.

2. Or things like 'snowshoes let you treat snow and ice as normal terrain both in combat and overland travel', 'climbing gear prevents you from falling while climbing'.

3. Or conceptual utility things like 'this alchemical product turns 20ft x 20ft of water into a solid surface for 10 minutes', 'this alchemical product glows neon in contact with any surface that has been disturbed in the last 24 hours', 'a silent drill lets you look through walls up to 1ft thick, but takes a minute and leaves a mark', 'you can use a chisel when striking an object to control how it breaks' (avoid shattering potions or collapsing structures when breaking chests and doors and such).

4. For alchemical grenades, I'd refocus to military scale use and let them scale damage but at the consequence of being too unwieldy to use as gear or thrown weapons. So more like a 1000gp, 250lbs barrel of alchemist fire that deals say 5d4 per round for 10 minutes over a 30ft radius area and sticks to people and vehicles that pass through like napalm as the main usage, not the person-sized flask. And if instead of a barrel it's a massive tank, that could be a 10d4 fire over a 100ft radius area, but costing 10000gp for that one effect.

Starting with (4) because it's easiest--I'd expect stuff like that to exist, but not to be on the standard Adventuring Equipment tables. That's "make contacts with the right people" kinda stuff, not "found on the shelves of AdventureMart, Inc"[1].

For the rest of them--my thoughts here are that the standard tables should be stuff you can expect to find most places, at least in civilized areas. Specialized goods, especially those that have strong

a) criminal
b) "non-mundane"
c) or combat

uses should be somewhere else--many of them counting as "magical items" (such as turning water into a solid surface, which is absolutely a magical effect, or anything that's going to require logic like "in the last 24 hours"). Things that have direct combat use (ie deal damage to people or directly impose conditions) should be on the weapons table or in their own spot.

A silent drill? That's something you'll have to negotiate with various criminal organizations for. Regular merchants aren't going to stock it. Etc.

[1] As a setting thing, personally, and YMMV, there's an explicit agreement between an international organization and most of the significant merchants that the NGO will subsidize (in both directions) a list of goods (corresponding to the weapons, armor, and equipment tables, as well as the trade goods table) to ensure fixed prices for sale and purchase, at least from people who have registered with the NGO or its national "branches" as an adventurer. Most of the merchants consider this to be too much hassle to police, so they provide those goods to all comers at fixed prices, at least in small-scale lots, subject to availability. Now if you want to buy a herd of cattle or something, that's different. But in the adventuring abstraction, it holds.

Military-grade stuff is completely different. And restricted. You're unlikely to find a barrel of alchemists fire for sale anywhere[2].

[2] Except one particular nation, and one particular organization within that nation. Because crazy weapon-engineers will build anything for a price. For just about anyone, as long as they get reports on how it worked. But most people aren't willing to do that, because, well, it's frowned on elsewhere.

[sithlordnergal]

Increasing DC with skills doesn't show how skilled a player is at all, and is there a particular reason why you seem to be against increasing DCs within bounded accuracy?

My point was to provide an example list of very common features that can come up and affect the proposed system. But since you went to the specific things:

- Scouts get Expertise in Survival on top of their 4 normal Expertise.
- 4 is a lot of Expertise skills to have, but let's not pretend like Expertise is hard to get. It's a 1 level Rogue dip, there are two feats that can grant it.
- Let's not pretend that using Guidance is really difficult most of the time.
- Bardic Inspiration is plentiful 5th level onwards.

Again, my point was to illustrate how easy it is to bump a DC made in this manner, but I guess I'll throw in some bonus ones to hammer home my point:

- Autognomes can add a d4 after seeing the result prof times a day.
- Mark of Finding get a d4 to Survival permanently
- Kenku can give themselves advantage on prof skill rolls
- Reborn get a d6
- Halflings get Lucky
- If Sleight of Hand, Vedalken get a d4
- Enhance Ability exists and has desirable benefits outside of boosting the DC

In one of my games I regularly see the high 20s/early 30s in Expertise skills from my players without them stacking stuff, I have no desire for that to turn into DCs.

I'm seeing no real reason to make a DC increase anything but a flat number, or at least making it something like '10+prof or the item's DC, whichever is higher.'

This is doubly so since the discussion seems to be simultaneously 'boost DCs' and 'make the item itself better.'

I mean, I wasn't really just looking at specific abilities. With the exception of Guidance, everything that gives you a boost to skills uses up some sort of resource that require a Short or Long Rest to regain, or its a special class feature that cannot be changed. Also, I'd say having to take a feat or take a level in a separate class is a pretty decent investment. The only time its a negligible investment is when you were planning on taking that feat or those levels in the first place. Also, keep in mind, you typically only get Expertise in two skills at level one, you have to reach level six in order to get all four.

As for Guidance, it is a spammable cantrip, especially outside of Combat. But since it takes Concentration, it competes with every single Concentration spell in the game, since you can only Concentrate on one spell at a time. So it wouldn't become as large of a problem. And if you are having a problem where players never run out of their resources, such as Bardic Inspiration, limit how many rests they can take.

That said, you do make a point. I'd be ok if we messed with the system and make some kind of chart. Personally, I think a specific skill should still be attached to setting the DC, so instead of 10+Prof, I could see 10+(all modifiers to skill relating to the item), kind of like how Passive Perception works. That allows a player to be rewarded for sinking some resources into a skill, but it'll never reach the insane levels that you're worried about.





Forcing a creature to avoid a certain area is a form of control. Forcing a creature to move at half speed through an area is a form of control. I also don't get why you're talking about high CR creatures having a pretty easy time, when the majority of creatures affected won't be high CR, and the higher the CR the higher the cost of the lost attack/action to break it?

There is also literally nothing single use about caltrops and ball bearings, you put them down, you can pick them up.


So, it is a form of control, but its very small amount of battlefield control. And my goal is to give players a mundane way to create some kind of Battlefield Control outside of Grappling. Also, if you can increase the DCs of those items, it can start affecting high CR creatures The reason you don't see those items used against high CR creatures currently is because of how low their DC is. If you had a way to easily increase the DC, you'd start seeing their use more often. That said, I'd say they'd be fine against lower CR creatures as well. The equipment that create battlefield control either affect a single creature, or the save can be avoided completely by moving at half speed. Compare that to spells where they don't get the option to avoid the save, and usually stack things like Difficult Terrain with a thing that Restrains or knocking creatures prone when they walk through it.

And I dunno about you...but I don't think you'd be able to just pick up 1,000 ball bearings after a battle. Maybe you could pick up the 20 caltrops if no-one moved through them, but even then I wouldn't say that's guaranteed. It'd be well within reason to say you lose a decent chunk, and having fewer in a bag would make it less effective. I can't think of a single DM I know that would let a player collect all of the caltrops or ball bearings, no matter how careful you are in combat.





Are you just arguing this on memory? Here's the description (which I already referenced):

" The trap is affixed by a heavy chain to an immobile object, such as a tree or a spike driven into the ground."

That's by default. Could there be some environments where it's not conducive to being chained down? Sure, but given the entire point of pitons is to get hammered into stone as an anchor point, it should be the minority of the time.


No, I wasn't working off memory. But unless the hunting trap comes equipped with its own immobile object, you still need to find a way to affix it to something. Somehow I doubt you get a free, immobile tree attached to every hunting trap you buy, and I doubt such a tree appears out of nowhere whenever you set a trap up. Now, I can see a heavy chain coming with a hunting trap and being attached to it, but that chain is not immobile on its own. You still need to find something to attach it to.

Now, you are correct, you can drive a piton into a stone floor if there's nothing to attach it to. But that's its own separate Object interaction, and takes an Action to do. Meaning you're using two Actions in order to set a trap that deals 1d4 damage and hinders movement. Pretty do-able if you're out of combat, but two actions is a very heavy price to pay in Combat. The only one who'd be able to do it effectively is the Thief Rogue, which I kind of like. It makes them stand out from other Rogues.

It still doesn't change the fact that a standard chain has 20 HP and requires a DC 20 Athletics check to break. Meaning a creature could ignore the trap and attack the chain instead. In fact, I'd expect a creature to focus on the chain when they realize just how difficult the trap is to avoid. 20 HP is not a lot.




This is a solution in search of a problem. The point of using these items for a certain damage type, beyond maybe tier 1, is to hit a certain weakness. Magical BPS is the least resisted/immuned damage in the game, the reasons martials want fire/acid/radiant is to hit certain monsters where they live.

This is mostly shown up in the Regeneration trait, like with Trolls, where you only need to hit them once a turn to shut it down, then your other attacks can hit normally. You're not looking to create an entire alternative to your BPS, you're looking to compliment it.

And I gotta say, frankly, these kinds of equipment probably shouldn't be on par with spells that do the same damage. Outside of cantrips those spells are costing slots, these items cost some gold (and that is probably cheaper if using tools to make it yourself). Nevermind that spells have a lot of rules attached to them, which act as natural limiters/failure points, and this gear doesn't.

I can see specialist subclasses excelling at this stuff, but not changes to the base equipment/equipment rules.

I'm also curious what 'that's fine' means, I think 2d6+Dex is very nice BA damage for a Thief, but you seem to think it should be higher?


No, this is a solution to make mundane items worthwhile. Though Jelly Pooga already went over all the things I'd have said. As for what I meant with "that's fine", I mean "its fine if the Thief Rogue, a Subclass with two abilities dedicated to using items, can make a regular attack, and then use a Bonus Action to make a second attack with an item. And I think its fine that you could give them an acid flask that deal more than 2d6+Dex or Alchemist Fire that deals more than 1d4+Dex for that bonus action attack."




I mean yes, those are some things Survival are used for, as well as foraging food, but ime those are common and frequent part of D&D. Even in an urban campaign tracking down a creature you're chasing comes up. Is Survival just under-utilized in your games?


I mean...it can be used to forage for food, but I've never seen anyone bother with it. Cause the very second food and water becomes an issue, someone snags Goodberry the second they can take Magic Initiate, and the Cleric always prepares Create/Destroy Water. And the moment the Cleric can cast 3rd level spells, they start casting Create Food and Water before each long rest, since the food lasts for 24 hours. As for tracking creatures down, that does happen occasionally. Usually the Wizard and Cleric find them via Divination spells. Of course, you might need to do some tracking to get within 1,000 feet of the target...but honestly most Divination spells will handle that.


EDIT:



That's all well and good, except as you point out, a commoner can do it. Yeah sacrificing your sole action that turn might not be satisfactory (this ignores the now rich world of bonus actions, but regardless), but if you just buff equipment itself, even a buff in making it, you're opening a can of worms.

Besides the world building implications of 'why arent guards just doing stuff instead of adventurers,' it makes minionmancy a serious problem at every level. There are plenty of people that take a RAW approach to stuff like an owl spreading oil or giving potions. You up the equipment and now that owl can do that stuff too. Or how about Steel Defenders, Drakes, Wildfire Spirits, Beast companions, summoned creatures, controlled undead? Nevermind actually hiring someone.

I would like to see a subclass that specialises in this stuff, and more items in general, but straight boosting mundane items to the point where they're competitive, and remain competitive, with your main action has crazy implications for the game.

Heck, best case scenario you're giving Thieves the equivalent a kind of Action Surge every turn when paired with Cunning Action, which is its own problem.

Keep in mind, those improved vials? Those would need to be created by the player. Your standard Alchemist Fire would still be 1d4. My suggestion for those is letting the player make an improved version, kind of like how you can buy a regular Healing Potion from the PHB, but you can create a Greater Healing Potion with Xanathar's rules. So guards aren't doing that stuff for the same reason you don't outfit an entire town's worth of guards with Greater or Superior Healing Potions. Yeah, they're better, but their cost isn't worth it.

And because players have to create those vials themselves, its pretty easy to control just how many they have and can make because each vial will take a certain amount of time and money to create. If a player suddenly decides they want to make 10 potions of stronger Acid, then they better have the downtime to do it.

As for a Thief with their own version of Action Surge...I don't see how that would break anything. Especially not with the given items. The Thief Rogue is basically your item user subclass, they literally have two abilities that let them use items in a way other classes can't.

[JellyPooga]

That's all well and good, except as you point out, a commoner can do it.
Well, yeah. Using my "not as good as it actually needs to be" Alchemists Fire, a naughty donkey, muddy dunking 20HD Commoner could chuck around vials of 10d4/round fire damage...but that's what I'd expect from a commoner that's present on a stage alongside elder dragons, liches with unimaginable power and multiplanar abominations beyond mortal comprehension. Your regular village idiot on the same stage would still only be doing a functionally ignorable 2d4/round (again, using my "not as good as it should be" suggestion) and should probably be getting the heck out of dodge rather than risking their life for "worse than a backhanded slap from the protagonists" damage.


Yeah sacrificing your sole action that turn might not be satisfactory (this ignores the now rich world of bonus actions, but regardless), but if you just buff equipment itself, even a buff in making it, you're opening a can of worms.GOOD! That's my entire intention. Pretty sure I said that when I said something along the lines of "the whole thing needs a massive overhaul". The can needs to be opened because right now the can is shut and no-one is getting at the tasty tasty protein inside (just ask a mole, they like worms, right?). If the basic premise of "paying money for something should have a greater result than not paying money for something" isn't a base line we can agree on, then this entire discourse is a massive waste of time.


Besides the world building implications of 'why arent guards just doing stuff instead of adventurers,' it makes minionmancy a serious problem at every level.Yeah, that's the point. The equipment scales with the user, whether they're an adventurer, an elite guardsman, a summoned minion or the village idiot. Is it so hard to stretch verisimilitude to have lower powered characters be, I don't know, weaker than higher level ones? What's breaking the game if weak things do less damage or only be able to inflict less effective or impactful status effects than more powerful ones? That's the entire point of a level based system. If Morthar of Kreethax, Ancient Black Dragon and scourge of the Western Marches chooses, for whatever reason, to use alchemists fire you'd better believe it's going to be worth their time. I don't expect the same of Ivan the Idiot. Currently, 5e does not allow Morthar to effectively use alchemists fire effectively outside of GM intervention (rulings not rules!), so why shouldn't Mighty Jim, Paladin of Helm and player character of Jimbob McGee (an actual real life human) be able to do the same? It is, after all, the difference between a lvl.1 Fighter with a basic longsword and a lvl.2 or higher Fighter armed with nothing more than that same longsword. The entire game is based on "dudes doing more with the same stuff because they're better at using it". Why make an exception for other mundane equipment, consumable or otherwise?.


Heck, best case scenario you're giving Thieves the equivalent a kind of Action Surge every turn when paired with Cunning Action, which is its own problem.If calling out a single subclass as the problem is your defence, then surely fixing the subclass along with the actual problem (if indeed it needs fixing; after all, a class that actively specialises in using a thing shoudl be, call me crazy, better at using the thing) is the better solution? That's like saying that having 20/20 vision is a problem in target shooting in a world where the vast majority of people require corrected vision. Just use glasses, my dude. Fix the problem, not the assumption.

[NichG]

Starting with (4) because it's easiest--I'd expect stuff like that to exist, but not to be on the standard Adventuring Equipment tables. That's "make contacts with the right people" kinda stuff, not "found on the shelves of AdventureMart, Inc"[1].

For the rest of them--my thoughts here are that the standard tables should be stuff you can expect to find most places, at least in civilized areas. Specialized goods, especially those that have strong

a) criminal
b) "non-mundane"
c) or combat

uses should be somewhere else--many of them counting as "magical items" (such as turning water into a solid surface, which is absolutely a magical effect, or anything that's going to require logic like "in the last 24 hours"). Things that have direct combat use (ie deal damage to people or directly impose conditions) should be on the weapons table or in their own spot.


This does seem much more of a setting consideration than a system-level design consideration. Personally, I'm not sure it makes sense to me that it'd be okay for a store to sell e.g. a scroll of Cloudkill or a ranseur to the adventuring class but not a very quiet drill. I also think there's a bit of a 'guy at the gym' thing going on here, where effects that are at all impressive must be 'magical' or 'prohibited', leading to a circular logic where mundane stuff will always be useless because if it were useful it would have to be on a different table. The exhaustion-delaying drug doesn't have to be a restoration spell, it can just be coffee (or amphetamines or something) and if you consume too much of it in a 24 hour period there are just plain biochemical reasons why you get diminishing returns or side effects like liver failure that basically mean 'don't do it' without having to be a magical timer. But that aside...

The broader point is that focusing on 'combat action exchange for damaging effect' and 'dice roll modification' leads to mundane things competing with other things that already fill those niches. So what's unique about mundane goods, and what aspects of the fiction and its contact with quantitative evaluations other than dice rolls and damage rolls are left relatively untouched? That moves me towards things like movement and exploration, changing

But also the one inherently unique thing about mundane goods is that in some sense they're bulk quantities which can be acquired in exchange for the industry or wealth of nations and organizations and so on. That is to say, they're things which can naturally exist at scales other than that of 'individual character, individual action, daily refresh' that tends to be the design focus of the rest of the game. So there's an opportunity to naturally couple to different scales that coexist in the setting (versus pinning everything to the squad-based combat level of things). That means you can naturally have things like 'if we just want one scout to travel through the mountains in winter quickly and safely then its only 10gp in mundane gear to equip them for the job. But if we want this caravan of 500 people to take the same trail, that would cost 5000gp. And if we want an army of 50000 to do so, it costs 50000gp.', which in turn means that being extremely wealthy in setting doesn't necessarily scale the intensity of what you can achieve (which is the issue in 3.5e itemization), but it scales the breadth of what you can achieve.

It also helps make sense of the existence of things like strategic resources that remain relevant in a world with high level characters. E.g. one alchemist fire flask might not do much in a high level fight, but a convoy transporting a tank containing 10000 units of the stuff? If AoE and damage scales somehow with quantity (need not be linear), that thing could indeed be more of an army killer than the squad of Lv12s you send to guard it. It also just makes more sense that if you have some inherently damaging or affecting 'stuff', you wouldn't need a character and action per unit of that stuff for it to do what it just does by existing, so rather than having to find excuses not to allow that (because of course the 'I load up a sheet with a thousand explosive runes' thing is old hat), you can actively embrace it in design and make it so that yes it scales, but not in a way that lets it remain at character-level to deploy. And if someone does do a high strength build with this or that bit of system mastery trickery to be able to carry 250lbs barrels of alchemist fire into battle and 'I cast barbarian fireball' at 1000gp per charge for a 10d4 splash, even that's not going to be competitive with the wizard casting fireball for 8d6.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This does seem much more of a setting consideration than a system-level design consideration. Personally, I'm not sure it makes sense to me that it'd be okay for a store to sell e.g. a scroll of Cloudkill or a ranseur to the adventuring class but not a very quiet drill. I also think there's a bit of a 'guy at the gym' thing going on here, where effects that are at all impressive must be 'magical' or 'prohibited', leading to a circular logic where mundane stuff will always be useless because if it were useful it would have to be on a different table. The exhaustion-delaying drug doesn't have to be a restoration spell, it can just be coffee (or amphetamines or something) and if you consume too much of it in a 24 hour period there are just plain biochemical reasons why you get diminishing returns or side effects like liver failure that basically mean 'don't do it' without having to be a magical timer. But that aside...

The broader point is that focusing on 'combat action exchange for damaging effect' and 'dice roll modification' leads to mundane things competing with other things that already fill those niches. So what's unique about mundane goods, and what aspects of the fiction and its contact with quantitative evaluations other than dice rolls and damage rolls are left relatively untouched? That moves me towards things like movement and exploration, changing

But also the one inherently unique thing about mundane goods is that in some sense they're bulk quantities which can be acquired in exchange for the industry or wealth of nations and organizations and so on. That is to say, they're things which can naturally exist at scales other than that of 'individual character, individual action, daily refresh' that tends to be the design focus of the rest of the game. So there's an opportunity to naturally couple to different scales that coexist in the setting (versus pinning everything to the squad-based combat level of things). That means you can naturally have things like 'if we just want one scout to travel through the mountains in winter quickly and safely then its only 10gp in mundane gear to equip them for the job. But if we want this caravan of 500 people to take the same trail, that would cost 5000gp. And if we want an army of 50000 to do so, it costs 50000gp.', which in turn means that being extremely wealthy in setting doesn't necessarily scale the intensity of what you can achieve (which is the issue in 3.5e itemization), but it scales the breadth of what you can achieve.

It also helps make sense of the existence of things like strategic resources that remain relevant in a world with high level characters. E.g. one alchemist fire flask might not do much in a high level fight, but a convoy transporting a tank containing 10000 units of the stuff? If AoE and damage scales somehow with quantity (need not be linear), that thing could indeed be more of an army killer than the squad of Lv12s you send to guard it. It also just makes more sense that if you have some inherently damaging or affecting 'stuff', you wouldn't need a character and action per unit of that stuff for it to do what it just does by existing, so rather than having to find excuses not to allow that (because of course the 'I load up a sheet with a thousand explosive runes' thing is old hat), you can actively embrace it in design and make it so that yes it scales, but not in a way that lets it remain at character-level to deploy. And if someone does do a high strength build with this or that bit of system mastery trickery to be able to carry 250lbs barrels of alchemist fire into battle and 'I cast barbarian fireball' at 1000gp per charge for a 10d4 splash, even that's not going to be competitive with the wizard casting fireball for 8d6.

5e doesn't sell scrolls of Cloudkill in stores. Because things that have that scale of effect are magic items, which are not for sale (generally). And anything that operates like those is rather definitionally a magic item, not a mundane thing. I fully expect "mundane" items to remain somewhat of a backwater field. Why? Because anything that anyone, even a commoner, can do must remain a backwater otherwise the whole conceit falls apart. The whole point of these tables is to point to other, miscellaneous stuff that enriches verisimilitude without having huge mechanical effects. If it has huge mechanical effects, it by definition needs to be on a different table somewhere. Because it needs more mechanical workup than a single line can provide.

And having stuff that operates on a non-individual scale mixed in with individual-scale stuff makes life annoying for everyone. That's why vehicles have their own table (among other things).

Tables also set expectations. Telling people "yes, you can expect to go down to your local merchant and pick up specialized criminal tools (because that's all an intentionally silenced, as opposed to just quiet, drill would be" or high-end alchemical goods" means that now all tables have to support that or intentionally edit it out. That's...yeah. A major setting imposition. And one not born out by any published setting.

I'd be totally ok with having a "Exotic Alchemicals" table, either in a DMG-like book or somewhere else. Even in player-facing stuff. But mixed in with camping supplies? Yeah, no.

[JellyPooga]

I fully expect "mundane" items to remain somewhat of a backwater field. Why? Because anything that anyone, even a commoner, can do must remain a backwater otherwise the whole conceit falls apart.

And yet a 5th level Barbarian with a bog standard, non-magical Maul and the right Feat(s) can fully expect to be putting out an average of around 30-odd damage per turn (max, non-crit potentially in the 50's), without further resource spent than their initial outlay of 10gp, whilst a 1st level Barbarian is only able to deal, a maximum (non-crit) of around 27 and a probable average of around 12. Even without Feats or features unique to their class (e.g. Rage), the difference between a lvl.5 martial character and one who's lvl.1 isn't so much their gear, as it is their level; simply put, one has Extra Attack and is dealing twice the damage.

Why does the whole conceit fall apart if a limited use, expensive item adheres to the same paradigm as a run of the mill sword? Or a spellcasters cantrip (which faces the same one-time cost for a component pouch or focus as any melee weapon)? Consumable mundane items that scale with level already exist, after a fashion; ammunition is just such a thing, but I don't hear anyone complaining about those breaking the entire conceit of the game. What is it about hunting traps, caltrops, vials of oil and alchemists fire that must remain relegated to efficacy only at 1st level in order to prevent the verisimilitude of the entire game to come crashing down?

I said it before, upthread, but if the items themselves are improved and everyone can use them equally, except a scant few specialised builds who can use them better, the oh so delicate balance of the game would be entirely unaffected. So that can't be the problem. The few builds that could truly exploit such things being better are few and far between and probably deserve a little love in the first place. So it can't be that either. I'm honestly failing to see what the resistance to the notion actually is beyond, maybe, the whole concept making it ever so slightly harder for GMs to have to actually include, gods forbid, something more interesting than "orc stab with pointy thing" into their combat encounters. It's that or the Wizard players getting butthurt that a Fighter or Rogue might have the audacity to step on their precious pointy-booted toes by being able to effectively use damage types and control effects beyond a mere stabby-stab, or doing something useful and interesting outside of combat that previously might have only been solved by a spell.

What actually breaks?

[PhoenixPhyre]

And yet a 5th level Barbarian with a bog standard, non-magical Maul and the right Feat(s) can fully expect to be putting out an average of around 30-odd damage per turn (max, non-crit potentially in the 50's), without further resource spent than their initial outlay of 10gp, whilst a 1st level Barbarian is only able to deal, a maximum (non-crit) of around 27 and a probable average of around 12. Even without Feats or features unique to their class (e.g. Rage), the difference between a lvl.5 martial character and one who's lvl.1 isn't so much their gear, as it is their level; simply put, one has Extra Attack and is dealing twice the damage.

Why does the whole conceit fall apart if a limited use, expensive item adheres to the same paradigm as a run of the mill sword? Or a spellcasters cantrip (which faces the same one-time cost for a component pouch or focus as any melee weapon)? Consumable mundane items that scale with level already exist, after a fashion; ammunition is just such a thing, but I don't hear anyone complaining about those breaking the entire conceit of the game. What is it about hunting traps, caltrops, vials of oil and alchemists fire that must remain relegated to efficacy only at 1st level in order to prevent the verisimilitude of the entire game to come crashing down?

I said it before, upthread, but if the items themselves are improved and everyone can use them equally, except a scant few specialised builds who can use them better, the oh so delicate balance of the game would be entirely unaffected. So that can't be the problem. The few builds that could truly exploit such things being better are few and far between and probably deserve a little love in the first place. So it can't be that either. I'm honestly failing to see what the resistance to the notion actually is beyond, maybe, the whole concept making it ever so slightly harder for GMs to have to actually include, gods forbid, something more interesting than "orc stab with pointy thing" into their combat encounters. It's that or the Wizard players getting butthurt that a Fighter or Rogue might have the audacity to step on their precious pointy-booted toes by being able to effectively use damage types and control effects beyond a mere stabby-stab, or doing something useful and interesting outside of combat that previously might have only been solved by a spell.

What actually breaks?

Because a 5th level barbarian isn't your average joe! That's the whole thing. The whole conceit of classes is that you need class features to do cool things.

To be sure, I think we're talking about different things here. I'm not particularly opposed to equipment scaling with class level or CR[1]. I don't have strong feelings one way or the other, personally, although I'd prefer to have it scale with feats and class features, rather than the scaling being some inherent property of the item itself. But only weakly. And if so, it'd be on the weapons table. Or the magic items table. Or a special table of its own. Because putting something like that on the adventuring equipment table mixes all sorts of things that don't belong together.

I was talking about why we don't put items like scrolls of cloudkill or nuclear weapons on the adventuring equipment table. The equipment itself, irrespective of the user, shouldn't have massive mechanical effects--that's what the host of other tables are for. Armor is on the armor table. Weapons (ie things that directly do damage) are on the weapons table. I'd say that things that directly impose conditions but don't require attack rolls should be on a table of their own. It's a matter of organization, rather than existence.

Regardless, I think that telling players "hey, you can walk to any store and buy the equivalent of a 500-lb iron bomb" is...yeah. Not appropriate for the vast majority of settings and something a DM needs to enable specifically. Adventuring is inherently individual-scale. Putting non-individual-scale stuff on those tables needs to be handled with care.

[1] not HD, this is not 3e. And commoners don't have class levels--in fact, I'd say that even NPCs built like PCs don't actually have class levels, they just have features similar to having class levels.

[JellyPooga]

Without rehauling classes, feats, etc. (i.e. most of the game) to allow mundane equipment to scale to the point of being useful at higher levels) isn't the easier fix to scale the equipment effects, rather than risk the inevitable pot-holes that would arise from dangerous rule changes to action economy and class features? Further, if the scaling effect is largely the same whether it's from class features or inherent to the item and further, that there's no real reason to disallow any given character from using it, why gate the scaling behind feats and features?

I agree that the kind of items we're talking about should, as a matter of convenience, have a separate section/table/whatever, but discussing publication layout isn't really a useful conversation :smallbiggrin:

[Ryuken]

I don't think mundane equipment should scale. It's what NPC commoners, guards, whatever, can buy with regularity. It's their force multipliers against the goblins and ghouls (which aren't that great) before they realize they need heroic PCs to come to the rescue. After 2-3 levels, mundane equipment is what you use to take care of the BBEG's fodder minions, so you save other resources for significant threats. To be fair, I use morale rules, so YMMV.

The problem with scalable mundane equipment is that once it's on a table, the expectation is PCs gonna wanna buy it. Same thing I experienced with the 3.5e magic items, which is one thing I liked in 5e with respect to common, rare, etc., instead of gp prices that were easily obtainable.

I think the better route would be to give a little more detail for crafting. Let the skills you take matter a bit more. I mean, if you need a regular ol mousetrap, what you find at the trading post should suffice. But if you need a trap for R.O.U.S.s, that shouldn't be something sitting on the shelf anywhere. Plus, its something to spend loot on.

I liked the idea upthread of kits providing advantage in applicable situations. I also could see where degrees of success on your skill roll can increase the effectiveness of a self-built item. Alchemist fire doing an extra die of damage, covering double the area, or lasting twice as long (you made it, you get to pick), hunters' traps could be more robust (higher HP/DC to break), more damage, etc.

[NichG]

There's a choice here of whether to make the game more abstract or more grounded.

For an abstract target, making the game centered around heroes using their class abilities, I think the right thing to do is to just remove money and equipment tables from the game rules entirely. Right now, money in 5e is awkwardly vestigial. It's basically irrelevant to the business of adventure, and the design goal is to not let it do anything that would challenge other sources of power. So just get rid of it at a mechanical level entirely and make it 100% setting material.

From a grounded point of view, tools, gears, etc are massively important in that they create new things that can now be done that simply couldn't before. An individual tool might not be so expensive as to be a serious decision for an individual adventurer, but often you'll want to equip more than just the one adventurer, and you do want a hundred stonemasons to accomplish things that the Lv10 wizard can't - that's why stonemasons matter enough to kings that kings get the wizards to protect them, etc. So this view would have diverse, specialized, relatively cheap (for adventurers) mundane gear that supports MacGyvery gameplay at the individual level and ties to a wider economic scale at the 'running a mercenary company' or 'ruling a country' scale of play, while not really trying to be a replacement for swords at the squad combat level. But along this approach, you'd want the mundane gear to matter and you'd want money to matter, and you'd want to entwine them in a way that makes the whole make sense. This is the 'equip your work crews to make the castle take one year rather than three' kind of thing, not the 'gain advantage on a masonry skill check' kind of thing.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Without rehauling classes, feats, etc. (i.e. most of the game) to allow mundane equipment to scale to the point of being useful at higher levels) isn't the easier fix to scale the equipment effects, rather than risk the inevitable pot-holes that would arise from dangerous rule changes to action economy and class features? Further, if the scaling effect is largely the same whether it's from class features or inherent to the item and further, that there's no real reason to disallow any given character from using it, why gate the scaling behind feats and features?

I agree that the kind of items we're talking about should, as a matter of convenience, have a separate section/table/whatever, but discussing publication layout isn't really a useful conversation :smallbiggrin:

One good thing about making them weapons, not items, is that you get the natural class scaling. Fighters can throw 4 2d6 +mod acid flasks per turn. Rogues can sneak attack with holy water flasks. All this takes is a simple change that lets fighters draw any number of thrown weapons instead of only one. Or some kind of bandolier.

So that fixes a lot of the need for scaling. And simple feats and general crafting changes mean it's not too expensive, at least beyond the earliest levels. Sure, it's probably not something you want to build an entire character around, but as a trick to pull out of your pocket when something needs a dose of acid, radiant, etc? Not bad.

Things like bear traps, nets, etc, things that apply conditions, just need to have some kind of DC scaling; conditions already scale with what they deny. And simple "8+proficiency+str" (for most of them, maybe Dex for some) is easy enough to add as a generic rule.

[JellyPooga]

One good thing about making them weapons, not items, is that you get the natural class scaling.
Making them a weapon isn't a bad shout, true. I still think that as weapons they'd need a significant boost to really come in line, due to their gold piece cost as consumables. 50gp per try is still a huge cash-sink compared to a fraction of that for other weapon attacks or ammunition. The cost either needs to be reduced drastically and/or the effect justified.

Even at lvl.1, consider a single encounter that lasts 3-4 rounds. That's potentially 100-200gp for that one encounter alone, compared to the 10-50gp cost of a melee weapon that you can use in the next fight too. Even if you brought the cost down to the same ballpark of 10-50gp per consumable, it still wouldn't be a justified cost outside of very exclusive scenarios. I grant that could be intentional; make them too cheap and you get games where no-one is swinging swords because lobbing greek fire is more effective. It's definitely a fine balance, but currently it's just ludicrously prohibitive.

As far as in-world credibility goes, it's worth bearing in mind that at their current price, a single phial of alchemists fire represents almost two months of modest living expenses. Only the ludicrously wealthy would be able to afford such a luxury consumable item. To use a real life analogy, it'd be like blowing two or three grand (dollar, euro or sterling) on a single drink. Even at a tenth of the price, only someone moderately well off would even consider it and even then only on a special occasion. At 100th the price most would likely still consider it a relatively expensive drink! In terms of world-building, even at that 100th cost, only elite guards or their ilk are likely to have access to such a valuable commodity and even still it's likely to be in very limited supply.

[Grim Portent]

I'm something of an outlier, in that I would like mundane equipment to be as effective as it is in the real world.

Which would mean something like a bear trap would be basically impossible to escape if the victim doesn't have hands. The number of animals who can reliably free themselves from a bear trap is borderline zero, it's kind of the point of the trap. The hard part should be getting something to step in it.

Similarly ropes, chains and manacles should be much harder to break to the point that you need to be super buff to do it. A commoner should have 0 chance of breaking out of manacles rather than 1/20. And probably 0 chance of wiggling out without something like oil as well.

Alchemist's fire should do substantially more damage.* Maybe oil as well, but it's a lot cheaper and it will consistently kill a normal man anyway.

Poison should be way more effective, why have assassin themed subclasses and poisoners tools if poisoning people isn't a useful strategy after all? Especially with the price of poisons. And by useful I mean things like a glass of poisoned wine being able to outright kill people with more than 4hp. It should also be a lot cheaper.


*You could probably make it deal 3x the damage it does and it still wouldn't be worth using.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Making them a weapon isn't a bad shout, true. I still think that as weapons they'd need a significant boost to really come in line, due to their gold piece cost as consumables. 50gp per try is still a huge cash-sink compared to a fraction of that for other weapon attacks or ammunition. The cost either needs to be reduced drastically and/or the effect justified.

Even at lvl.1, consider a single encounter that lasts 3-4 rounds. That's potentially 100-200gp for that one encounter alone, compared to the 10-50gp cost of a melee weapon that you can use in the next fight too. Even if you brought the cost down to the same ballpark of 10-50gp per consumable, it still wouldn't be a justified cost outside of very exclusive scenarios. I grant that could be intentional; make them too cheap and you get games where no-one is swinging swords because lobbing greek fire is more effective. It's definitely a fine balance, but currently it's just ludicrously prohibitive.

As far as in-world credibility goes, it's worth bearing in mind that at their current price, a single phial of alchemists fire represents almost two months of modest living expenses. Only the ludicrously wealthy would be able to afford such a luxury consumable item. To use a real life analogy, it'd be like blowing two or three grand (dollar, euro or sterling) on a single drink. Even at a tenth of the price, only someone moderately well off would even consider it and even then only on a special occasion. At 100th the price most would likely still consider it a relatively expensive drink! In terms of world-building, even at that 100th cost, only elite guards or their ilk are likely to have access to such a valuable commodity and even still it's likely to be in very limited supply.

Acid flasks, which I'd assume would be the default (because it's 2d6 and acid is generally a better damage type than fire) are 25 gp. I'd expect anyone who wants to use them regularly would have alchemist-kit proficiency, allowing them to be crafted per Xanathar's at 12.5gp each.

So at most, all it would take is a simple feat like "you can craft consumables at 1/4 of the base price, not 1/2, and in half the time." Then you're making 8 of them for the cost of a single (purchased) healing potion. As for the real-world/rest-of-the-world comparisons...these are adventuring gear, not every-day gear. Adventurers are, in comparison to everyone else, loaded. Seriously--a single T1 treasure horde is worth hundreds of GP, and it scales ludicrously from there.

And yes, I'd not expect those to be used every single round. Because you're going to be in melee sometimes. They're a sometimes food. As I said, I'd not expect anyone to build a character around them, but not everything has to be. In fact, I find the current "meta" take of hyper-specializing on one particular thing (ie all build resources into grappling or into polearms or into ranged combat) to be quite distasteful and to further the whole caster/martial divide. Of course you can't participate in anything non-combat--you sunk all your resources into one tiny combat-only niche! One source of disparity is that casters can't do so (or can't do so as fully). And it's completely unnecessary as far as the game itself is concerned, unless your group has given in to chasing the "difficulty/optimization" dragon, at which point it's a self-inflicted wound. /rant

[Easy e]

Crazy Opinion- There should be no set prices for anything, not even guidelines.

Also Crazy Opinions- Unless you are playing Oregon Trail D&D, players should just be assumed to have ordinary stuff like rope, torches, tinderbox, flasks, waterskins, rations, etc.

[Merlecory]

Coming in from the new UA, any thoughts on making acid vials or alchemist's fire an AoE option? Maybe acid vials keep higher damage, but alchemit's fire is a molotov cocktail.

[rel]

Consumables might need an overhaul, as written they are lackluster.

But I'm not sure if I want to expand the equipment rules directly or make superior equipment use something characters buy with build resources.

As to odd pieces of adventuring kit, like the existing entries, they're fun if your game is about resource management. Otherwise it's just busywork.