|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 10:43AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2010
|
I agree that we don't need to be concerned with nit-picking exact item values at this stage, though I think it is important to point out on feedback that the pricing is currently non-sensical. Even assuming that you can't buy and sell magical items, the text implies that trading one item for another is fair game, and if they're going to give us values at all, they should at least be somewhat sensible given the prices of other goods. Right now the implication is that you could easily trade in a non-magical suit of plate mail for a magical suit of plate mail (assuming you can find someone who has one) because they are considered to be equivalent in terms of value.
The fix here, though, seems pretty trivial: total cost = cost of enchantment + cost of materials.
Or something like the masterworked prices,
[Total Cost] = [Base Cost] + X or [Base Cost] * Y whichever is higher
where X and Y are based on rarity
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 11:06AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
corect me if i'm wrong but prices for selling magic items are only mentioned when it comes to selling items.
so am i wrong i assume the listed price is the price a player can get selling an item and not the cost for boying a item?
as the section buying magic items basicly sais their not for sale.
That creates a lot of stress on the D&D system. If you can't really do anything with gold past buying the best available non-magical armor, there's no benefit to having gold. Being able to buy magic items means there is an obvious something to do with it.
There are ways around this, but it is really difficult to default to being unable to buy magic items.
It also doesn't make a lot of real-world sense - most people are not going to have the ideal magic item that they want to own, so if there's an opportunity to exchange or upgrade, they're likely to take it. Magic Marts are silly, but there have to be fences who know people who'd like to give up items for an appropriate price and when they see bags of gold roll into their major city(aka adventurers), it is in their interest to figure out if the adventurers are curious about a deal.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 11:09AM
#53
|
|
|
corect me if i'm wrong but prices for selling magic items are only mentioned when it comes to selling items.
so am i wrong i assume the listed price is the price a player can get selling an item and not the cost for boying a item?
as the section buying magic items basicly sais their not for sale.
That creates a lot of stress on the D&D system. If you can't really do anything with gold past buying the best available non-magical armor, there's no benefit to having gold. Being able to buy magic items means there is an obvious something to do with it.
There are ways around this, but it is really difficult to default to being unable to buy magic items.
It also doesn't make a lot of real-world sense - most people are not going to have the ideal magic item that they want to own, so if there's an opportunity to exchange or upgrade, they're likely to take it. Magic Marts are silly, but there have to be fences who know people who'd like to give up items for an appropriate price and when they see bags of gold roll into their major city(aka adventurers), it is in their interest to figure out if the adventurers are curious about a deal.
I agree and disagree. On one hand, I like magic items being priceless. I love the fact that they can be unique and each one is one of a kind.
However, that does create the problem of "Wtf do I do with my gold?". My guess is that they want to gague our reaction to how they implimented it, and make changes based on that.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 11:11AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
corect me if i'm wrong but prices for selling magic items are only mentioned when it comes to selling items.
so am i wrong i assume the listed price is the price a player can get selling an item and not the cost for boying a item?
as the section buying magic items basicly sais their not for sale.
That creates a lot of stress on the D&D system. If you can't really do anything with gold past buying the best available non-magical armor, there's no benefit to having gold. Being able to buy magic items means there is an obvious something to do with it.
There are ways around this, but it is really difficult to default to being unable to buy magic items.
It also doesn't make a lot of real-world sense - most people are not going to have the ideal magic item that they want to own, so if there's an opportunity to exchange or upgrade, they're likely to take it. Magic Marts are silly, but there have to be fences who know people who'd like to give up items for an appropriate price and when they see bags of gold roll into their major city(aka adventurers), it is in their interest to figure out if the adventurers are curious about a deal.
well sell price for arms and armore are 1/2 of the sale price acording to the eqipment section.
so if the prices listed are the values you can sell the items for you need to duble them to get the theoretical prices of buying magical items.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 11:11AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
What to do with gold? I'm going to build a stronghold, establish a fiefdom, maybe fund an orphanage, and then use the rest to swim in like Scrooge McDuck! 
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 11:46AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
I am in agreement with the sentiment that accuracy due to ability scores is too high for the type of game they are trying to make. With bounded accuracy limiting the attacks of monsters and characters the added bonuses from very high numbers wrecks this completely.
I'd be comfortable with certain bonuses being split as they were in the past. sure a high strength gives a decent damage bonus since the game is designed around higher hitpoints and damage numbers but having a +4 bonus for high strength to hit breaks the low attack bonus function, this will be even worse when players start adding to their abilit scores as they level. (a mistake if I ever saw one.) maybe if we got half of the bonus to hit such as +2/+4 for an 18 strength instead of the current +4/+4.
It would be really nice if the devs would do this officially in the core rules so that I don't have such a large house rules document. It's upwards of nine pages of changes and 20 more pages of added stuff.
Halving the attack bonuses would certainly put a sticking plaster over many of the problems with bounded accuracy. If the giants are given the strength scores they were given in the recent legends and lore article instead of the item description the issue becomes even less problematic. For the record, the strength scores given reflect 1e where S18 was the maxumum a PC could have and S17 was the maximum a halfling could have. In 5e I think they need to adjust these so ogres start out as strong as the strongest PC again. I think ogres should have 20 strength and build from there (so storm giants end up with S26, titans S27, and it leaves 3 poitns spare for even more powerful creatures). Here is what the article showed and what the items would grant with the halved attack bonus:
Ogre Power: S18 +2/+4
Hill Giant: S19 +2/+4
Stone Giant S20 +2/+5
Frost Giant S21 +2/+5
Fire Giant S22 +3/+6
Cloud Giant S23 +3/+6
Storm Giant S24 +3/+7
Titan S25 +3/+7
The items also become quite dull without some additional abilities. I don't really see any point in trumpeting the actual strength score. What matters is that the character feels like they have giant strength. Bonuses to lifting heavy weights, wrestling beasts, and hurling items a long way go far more to making a PC feel super strong than a bonus to attack rolls that monkeys with the system. In mutants and masterminds they distinguised enhanced strength and super strength. Super strength just improved lifting, grappling and smashing inanimate objects so I don't see why D&D can't follow a similar approach to keep within the bounded system.
It also has to be pointed out that +5 bonuses froim artifacts will also screw with the system so they either need to reign that in too and limit attuned items to +2 and artifacts to +3, or perhaps halve attack bonuses on these too e.g. a masterwork weapon is +0/+1, a magic weapon is +1/+2, an attuned item is +1/+3 and artifacts would be +2/+4 or +2/+5.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 11:58AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Sorry if these questions have already been answered, but: 1) Are characters still limited to a max of 20 in ability scores, or with a belt of giant strength can they actually have a 29 Str? 2) I thought the Giant strengths were going back to 1st Ed values (Hill = 19, Stone = 20, Frost = 21, Fire = 22, Cloud = 23, Storm = 24), have they changed that?
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 4:57PM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
corect me if i'm wrong but prices for selling magic items are only mentioned when it comes to selling items.
so am i wrong i assume the listed price is the price a player can get selling an item and not the cost for boying a item?
as the section buying magic items basicly sais their not for sale.
That creates a lot of stress on the D&D system. If you can't really do anything with gold past buying the best available non-magical armor, there's no benefit to having gold. Being able to buy magic items means there is an obvious something to do with it.
There are ways around this, but it is really difficult to default to being unable to buy magic items.
30 years with no magic mart and I've never once found it difficult. I think you're grossly exaggerating the difficulty of no magic marts.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 4:58PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
corect me if i'm wrong but prices for selling magic items are only mentioned when it comes to selling items.
so am i wrong i assume the listed price is the price a player can get selling an item and not the cost for boying a item?
as the section buying magic items basicly sais their not for sale.
That creates a lot of stress on the D&D system. If you can't really do anything with gold past buying the best available non-magical armor, there's no benefit to having gold. Being able to buy magic items means there is an obvious something to do with it.
There are ways around this, but it is really difficult to default to being unable to buy magic items.
It also doesn't make a lot of real-world sense - most people are not going to have the ideal magic item that they want to own, so if there's an opportunity to exchange or upgrade, they're likely to take it. Magic Marts are silly, but there have to be fences who know people who'd like to give up items for an appropriate price and when they see bags of gold roll into their major city(aka adventurers), it is in their interest to figure out if the adventurers are curious about a deal.
I agree and disagree. On one hand, I like magic items being priceless. I love the fact that they can be unique and each one is one of a kind.
However, that does create the problem of "Wtf do I do with my gold?". My guess is that they want to gague our reaction to how they implimented it, and make changes based on that.
Lower the amount that you find. That does two things. It keeps the numbers lower, and raises the value of gold. It's not that hard to find good ways to spend 1,000 gold. It's fairly hard to find good ways to spend 1,000,000 gold. Not everyone wants to buy castles and/or a title.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 5:05PM
#60
|
|
|
No pc should think that the DM can't handle such a simple task.
And what about new/inexperienced DMs?
They wil learn with experimentation. That is how it works.
Who says that learning can't be fun? My group laughs at what we did when we were munchkins now. Good times.
By the time you find new DMs to 'stick it out and learn from experimentation' you'll have lost plenty of people to the learning curve.
Assuming that someone will 'learn' or that they are 'a good DM' is not the way to design a game that is supposed to attract new players and DMs...
The way to design the game is to make the smallest learning curve possible with the least amount of experimentation possible, but with the greatest flexibility possible.
Making a game where the DM has to do everything and constantly has to adjust dials takes away time from the DMs real job, which is to tell a story and run NPCs and monsters, as well as handling the rare situation that the rules don't cover...
Player can give their input.
It worked for 30 years with D&D being the most popular RPG. When it changed it suddenly lost first place. I think experimentation and steep learning curb are great. This is how we learn, why can't kids do it know?
You need to review your gaming history. D&D was the first game and it was a fad. As soon as video games came along they stole that fad status and the players of D&D went way down after that many other TTRPGs came out and stole even more market share, then D&D went fallow for several years. So saying D&D worked 30 years is being dishonest. It was the top contender in a shrinking market of which many years they didn't produce a thing and there was no marketing numbers to go on. Only recently with Pathfinder and Paizo do we have the ability to track its success against competitors. I'd hazard to guess that most of its success in the last 2-3 versions was purely from name brand recognition and that 5E needs to step up because its name brand recognition is wearing off...
Also it didn't just suddenly lose 1st place. They made a large portion of their player base angry and alienated them as much from 4E as from their business practices. The only reason I'm not playing Pathfinder right now from a customer service perspective is because I love the balance 4E brought to the table...
|
|
|
