It should also be noted that there is a point to giving a GP value even if there isn't a bazaar where they sell these things on a Thursday morning. While there may not be a thriving market for them, there Will still be times when parties will want to obtain a given magic item, and therefore a subset of those who don't want to do so by prying it from the cold, dead hands of the NPC who was the previous owner. There are also parties who have magic items that they'd wish to part with in exchange for something more appropriate to their circumstances.
In either case, there is a need for the DM and players to have an idea of what an item (magic or not) is worth to others. There might not be an entire industry based around these objects, but there would be a sense of value. A D&D given baseline value would prevent disagreements between players who think their +1 longsword is worth a life worthy of Kings and DMs who think that it might buy them 3 nights in the stable with leftover stew for supper.
To each their own, I guess. I VERY much prefer no gp value being provided as it makes it possible for the GM to adjust as necessary (for example, maybe they made a mistake earlier and handed out too much gold) and for there to be more motivation when characters negotiate a price.
This is a theme that I don't really understand on these boards so I have to ask - why can't you just ignore those values if they don't suit your purposes? If they say something they've obtained is worth 30gp, and you want it to be worth 10gp...have the vendor offer 10gp and refuse to go higher. It's much, much easier to ignore information given than it is to create information not given.
Because I deal with players who are real, living, people. Even after the game rules are set, they will push and push and push for RAW, even though they know that I'll never give it to them. Then, like many people here, even some people in this very thread, they'll whine about the GM not sticking to RAW. I'd rather just avoid the headache and stress
Now, I've answered your question, you can answer mine. Why can't you use gold piece values already posted on the web?
It’s the same justification - real people who won’t except “this is what someone on the internet said the price should be, and, no, there isn’t a specific real table to use, even though so many rules mention it.”
The one difference - having a real table, and RAW specifically stating “this table is a guideline; the DM controls the prices” would solve your problem and our problems. Your solution just solves your problem… which is why your/the current solution is bad game design and is my nomination for “one thing I would change.”
Every rule in the book is supposed to be a guideline. That statement has had no effect. Really, gp values don't belong in the DMG. RAW has no magic store. Official worlds with magic stores should have those gp values listed in the campaign book.
You wouldn't be telling them "This is what some guy on the Internet said it should be." You'd be telling them "This is where I set the prices."
Not in practice, almost everyone uses:
Magic items
The creating encounters guidelines (same thing except on paper as the encounter builder).
The creating monsters rules
You can just dismiss them as "guidelines", but a lot of the things in the DMG are important to having a balanced game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
It should also be noted that there is a point to giving a GP value even if there isn't a bazaar where they sell these things on a Thursday morning. While there may not be a thriving market for them, there Will still be times when parties will want to obtain a given magic item, and therefore a subset of those who don't want to do so by prying it from the cold, dead hands of the NPC who was the previous owner. There are also parties who have magic items that they'd wish to part with in exchange for something more appropriate to their circumstances.
In either case, there is a need for the DM and players to have an idea of what an item (magic or not) is worth to others. There might not be an entire industry based around these objects, but there would be a sense of value. A D&D given baseline value would prevent disagreements between players who think their +1 longsword is worth a life worthy of Kings and DMs who think that it might buy them 3 nights in the stable with leftover stew for supper.
To each their own, I guess. I VERY much prefer no gp value being provided as it makes it possible for the GM to adjust as necessary (for example, maybe they made a mistake earlier and handed out too much gold) and for there to be more motivation when characters negotiate a price.
This is a theme that I don't really understand on these boards so I have to ask - why can't you just ignore those values if they don't suit your purposes? If they say something they've obtained is worth 30gp, and you want it to be worth 10gp...have the vendor offer 10gp and refuse to go higher. It's much, much easier to ignore information given than it is to create information not given.
Because I deal with players who are real, living, people. Even after the game rules are set, they will push and push and push for RAW, even though they know that I'll never give it to them. Then, like many people here, even some people in this very thread, they'll whine about the GM not sticking to RAW. I'd rather just avoid the headache and stress
Now, I've answered your question, you can answer mine. Why can't you use gold piece values already posted on the web?
It’s the same justification - real people who won’t except “this is what someone on the internet said the price should be, and, no, there isn’t a specific real table to use, even though so many rules mention it.”
The one difference - having a real table, and RAW specifically stating “this table is a guideline; the DM controls the prices” would solve your problem and our problems. Your solution just solves your problem… which is why your/the current solution is bad game design and is my nomination for “one thing I would change.”
Every rule in the book is supposed to be a guideline. That statement has had no effect. Really, gp values don't belong in the DMG. RAW has no magic store. Official worlds with magic stores should have those gp values listed in the campaign book.
You wouldn't be telling them "This is what some guy on the Internet said it should be." You'd be telling them "This is where I set the prices."
Not in practice, almost everyone uses:
Magic items
The creating encounters guidelines (same thing except on paper as the encounter builder).
The creating monsters rules
You can just dismiss them as "guidelines", but a lot of the things in the DMG are important to having a balanced game.
You can't balance games by putting gp on equipment. If anything, it gives you just an illusion of balance.
It should also be noted that there is a point to giving a GP value even if there isn't a bazaar where they sell these things on a Thursday morning. While there may not be a thriving market for them, there Will still be times when parties will want to obtain a given magic item, and therefore a subset of those who don't want to do so by prying it from the cold, dead hands of the NPC who was the previous owner. There are also parties who have magic items that they'd wish to part with in exchange for something more appropriate to their circumstances.
In either case, there is a need for the DM and players to have an idea of what an item (magic or not) is worth to others. There might not be an entire industry based around these objects, but there would be a sense of value. A D&D given baseline value would prevent disagreements between players who think their +1 longsword is worth a life worthy of Kings and DMs who think that it might buy them 3 nights in the stable with leftover stew for supper.
To each their own, I guess. I VERY much prefer no gp value being provided as it makes it possible for the GM to adjust as necessary (for example, maybe they made a mistake earlier and handed out too much gold) and for there to be more motivation when characters negotiate a price.
This is a theme that I don't really understand on these boards so I have to ask - why can't you just ignore those values if they don't suit your purposes? If they say something they've obtained is worth 30gp, and you want it to be worth 10gp...have the vendor offer 10gp and refuse to go higher. It's much, much easier to ignore information given than it is to create information not given.
Because I deal with players who are real, living, people. Even after the game rules are set, they will push and push and push for RAW, even though they know that I'll never give it to them. Then, like many people here, even some people in this very thread, they'll whine about the GM not sticking to RAW. I'd rather just avoid the headache and stress
Now, I've answered your question, you can answer mine. Why can't you use gold piece values already posted on the web?
It’s the same justification - real people who won’t except “this is what someone on the internet said the price should be, and, no, there isn’t a specific real table to use, even though so many rules mention it.”
The one difference - having a real table, and RAW specifically stating “this table is a guideline; the DM controls the prices” would solve your problem and our problems. Your solution just solves your problem… which is why your/the current solution is bad game design and is my nomination for “one thing I would change.”
Every rule in the book is supposed to be a guideline. That statement has had no effect. Really, gp values don't belong in the DMG. RAW has no magic store. Official worlds with magic stores should have those gp values listed in the campaign book.
You wouldn't be telling them "This is what some guy on the Internet said it should be." You'd be telling them "This is where I set the prices."
Not in practice, almost everyone uses:
Magic items
The creating encounters guidelines (same thing except on paper as the encounter builder).
The creating monsters rules
You can just dismiss them as "guidelines", but a lot of the things in the DMG are important to having a balanced game.
You can't balance games by putting gp on equipment. If anything, it gives you just an illusion of balance.
Whats the point of gold if you cant use it on equipment?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
It should also be noted that there is a point to giving a GP value even if there isn't a bazaar where they sell these things on a Thursday morning. While there may not be a thriving market for them, there Will still be times when parties will want to obtain a given magic item, and therefore a subset of those who don't want to do so by prying it from the cold, dead hands of the NPC who was the previous owner. There are also parties who have magic items that they'd wish to part with in exchange for something more appropriate to their circumstances.
In either case, there is a need for the DM and players to have an idea of what an item (magic or not) is worth to others. There might not be an entire industry based around these objects, but there would be a sense of value. A D&D given baseline value would prevent disagreements between players who think their +1 longsword is worth a life worthy of Kings and DMs who think that it might buy them 3 nights in the stable with leftover stew for supper.
To each their own, I guess. I VERY much prefer no gp value being provided as it makes it possible for the GM to adjust as necessary (for example, maybe they made a mistake earlier and handed out too much gold) and for there to be more motivation when characters negotiate a price.
This is a theme that I don't really understand on these boards so I have to ask - why can't you just ignore those values if they don't suit your purposes? If they say something they've obtained is worth 30gp, and you want it to be worth 10gp...have the vendor offer 10gp and refuse to go higher. It's much, much easier to ignore information given than it is to create information not given.
Because I deal with players who are real, living, people. Even after the game rules are set, they will push and push and push for RAW, even though they know that I'll never give it to them. Then, like many people here, even some people in this very thread, they'll whine about the GM not sticking to RAW. I'd rather just avoid the headache and stress
Now, I've answered your question, you can answer mine. Why can't you use gold piece values already posted on the web?
And real living people can read the manual and realise that RAW is that DM sets the prices.
Why can't I use online resources created by fans?
They aren't playtested or otherwise vouched for to be fair. It's one random guy's opinion that may or may not be better than throwing a dart at a board.
I may not have Internet access when playing.
I paid a premium on top of the standard price for hardbacks for my D&D books, why should I have to spend more time searching the Web for something that really should be part of what I'm getting? If I pay someone to cook my food each day, I would not be pleased if I were told that, well, dinner is free at the soup kitchen, why can't you help yourself to that?
Does WotC really want me (and others) to get into the habit of looking on the Internet for D&D info that I don't already have? It's all out there - better they provide what I need for my games than make a habit of just Googling it. It makes their bank account a bit fuller.
It makes pricing more consistent. If I Google it, I might have one source come up, then the next time I might have another with a different value assessment. That can be unfair.
By having a single source, I can work with a consensus in the group. Yeah it's normally 50gp, but you've been selling tons of them lately creating a market glut and what does a farmer want with a dread helm anyway? 30gp. Having to go 3rd party adds another debate on to that - which boils down to "my source is better than yours!".
If WotC are not providing the information I need to run my games with less effort, then what am I paying them for?
As I said before, it's always much easier to ignorenl information given than to create information not given.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It should also be noted that there is a point to giving a GP value even if there isn't a bazaar where they sell these things on a Thursday morning. While there may not be a thriving market for them, there Will still be times when parties will want to obtain a given magic item, and therefore a subset of those who don't want to do so by prying it from the cold, dead hands of the NPC who was the previous owner. There are also parties who have magic items that they'd wish to part with in exchange for something more appropriate to their circumstances.
In either case, there is a need for the DM and players to have an idea of what an item (magic or not) is worth to others. There might not be an entire industry based around these objects, but there would be a sense of value. A D&D given baseline value would prevent disagreements between players who think their +1 longsword is worth a life worthy of Kings and DMs who think that it might buy them 3 nights in the stable with leftover stew for supper.
To each their own, I guess. I VERY much prefer no gp value being provided as it makes it possible for the GM to adjust as necessary (for example, maybe they made a mistake earlier and handed out too much gold) and for there to be more motivation when characters negotiate a price.
This is a theme that I don't really understand on these boards so I have to ask - why can't you just ignore those values if they don't suit your purposes? If they say something they've obtained is worth 30gp, and you want it to be worth 10gp...have the vendor offer 10gp and refuse to go higher. It's much, much easier to ignore information given than it is to create information not given.
Because I deal with players who are real, living, people. Even after the game rules are set, they will push and push and push for RAW, even though they know that I'll never give it to them. Then, like many people here, even some people in this very thread, they'll whine about the GM not sticking to RAW. I'd rather just avoid the headache and stress
Now, I've answered your question, you can answer mine. Why can't you use gold piece values already posted on the web?
It’s the same justification - real people who won’t except “this is what someone on the internet said the price should be, and, no, there isn’t a specific real table to use, even though so many rules mention it.”
The one difference - having a real table, and RAW specifically stating “this table is a guideline; the DM controls the prices” would solve your problem and our problems. Your solution just solves your problem… which is why your/the current solution is bad game design and is my nomination for “one thing I would change.”
Every rule in the book is supposed to be a guideline. That statement has had no effect. Really, gp values don't belong in the DMG. RAW has no magic store. Official worlds with magic stores should have those gp values listed in the campaign book.
You wouldn't be telling them "This is what some guy on the Internet said it should be." You'd be telling them "This is where I set the prices."
Not in practice, almost everyone uses:
Magic items
The creating encounters guidelines (same thing except on paper as the encounter builder).
The creating monsters rules
You can just dismiss them as "guidelines", but a lot of the things in the DMG are important to having a balanced game.
You can't balance games by putting gp on equipment. If anything, it gives you just an illusion of balance.
Whats the point of gold if you cant use it on equipment?
Food. Another night at the inn. Kind of hard to motivate players with gold they already have 100,000gp and they can spend at most 10gp a day, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It should also be noted that there is a point to giving a GP value even if there isn't a bazaar where they sell these things on a Thursday morning. While there may not be a thriving market for them, there Will still be times when parties will want to obtain a given magic item, and therefore a subset of those who don't want to do so by prying it from the cold, dead hands of the NPC who was the previous owner. There are also parties who have magic items that they'd wish to part with in exchange for something more appropriate to their circumstances.
In either case, there is a need for the DM and players to have an idea of what an item (magic or not) is worth to others. There might not be an entire industry based around these objects, but there would be a sense of value. A D&D given baseline value would prevent disagreements between players who think their +1 longsword is worth a life worthy of Kings and DMs who think that it might buy them 3 nights in the stable with leftover stew for supper.
To each their own, I guess. I VERY much prefer no gp value being provided as it makes it possible for the GM to adjust as necessary (for example, maybe they made a mistake earlier and handed out too much gold) and for there to be more motivation when characters negotiate a price.
This is a theme that I don't really understand on these boards so I have to ask - why can't you just ignore those values if they don't suit your purposes? If they say something they've obtained is worth 30gp, and you want it to be worth 10gp...have the vendor offer 10gp and refuse to go higher. It's much, much easier to ignore information given than it is to create information not given.
Because I deal with players who are real, living, people. Even after the game rules are set, they will push and push and push for RAW, even though they know that I'll never give it to them. Then, like many people here, even some people in this very thread, they'll whine about the GM not sticking to RAW. I'd rather just avoid the headache and stress
Now, I've answered your question, you can answer mine. Why can't you use gold piece values already posted on the web?
It’s the same justification - real people who won’t except “this is what someone on the internet said the price should be, and, no, there isn’t a specific real table to use, even though so many rules mention it.”
The one difference - having a real table, and RAW specifically stating “this table is a guideline; the DM controls the prices” would solve your problem and our problems. Your solution just solves your problem… which is why your/the current solution is bad game design and is my nomination for “one thing I would change.”
Every rule in the book is supposed to be a guideline. That statement has had no effect. Really, gp values don't belong in the DMG. RAW has no magic store. Official worlds with magic stores should have those gp values listed in the campaign book.
You wouldn't be telling them "This is what some guy on the Internet said it should be." You'd be telling them "This is where I set the prices."
Not in practice, almost everyone uses:
Magic items
The creating encounters guidelines (same thing except on paper as the encounter builder).
The creating monsters rules
You can just dismiss them as "guidelines", but a lot of the things in the DMG are important to having a balanced game.
You can't balance games by putting gp on equipment. If anything, it gives you just an illusion of balance.
Whats the point of gold if you cant use it on equipment?
In either case, there is a need for the DM and players to have an idea of what an item (magic or not) is worth to others. There might not be an entire industry based around these objects, but there would be a sense of value. A D&D given baseline value would prevent disagreements between players who think their +1 longsword is worth a life worthy of Kings and DMs who think that it might buy them 3 nights in the stable with leftover stew for supper.
To each their own, I guess. I VERY much prefer no gp value being provided as it makes it possible for the GM to adjust as necessary (for example, maybe they made a mistake earlier and handed out too much gold) and for there to be more motivation when characters negotiate a price.
This is a theme that I don't really understand on these boards so I have to ask - why can't you just ignore those values if they don't suit your purposes? If they say something they've obtained is worth 30gp, and you want it to be worth 10gp...have the vendor offer 10gp and refuse to go higher. It's much, much easier to ignore information given than it is to create information not given.
Because I deal with players who are real, living, people. Even after the game rules are set, they will push and push and push for RAW, even though they know that I'll never give it to them. Then, like many people here, even some people in this very thread, they'll whine about the GM not sticking to RAW. I'd rather just avoid the headache and stress
Now, I've answered your question, you can answer mine. Why can't you use gold piece values already posted on the web?
It’s the same justification - real people who won’t except “this is what someone on the internet said the price should be, and, no, there isn’t a specific real table to use, even though so many rules mention it.”
The one difference - having a real table, and RAW specifically stating “this table is a guideline; the DM controls the prices” would solve your problem and our problems. Your solution just solves your problem… which is why your/the current solution is bad game design and is my nomination for “one thing I would change.”
Every rule in the book is supposed to be a guideline. That statement has had no effect. Really, gp values don't belong in the DMG. RAW has no magic store. Official worlds with magic stores should have those gp values listed in the campaign book.
You wouldn't be telling them "This is what some guy on the Internet said it should be." You'd be telling them "This is where I set the prices."
Not in practice, almost everyone uses:
Magic items
The creating encounters guidelines (same thing except on paper as the encounter builder).
The creating monsters rules
You can just dismiss them as "guidelines", but a lot of the things in the DMG are important to having a balanced game.
You can't balance games by putting gp on equipment. If anything, it gives you just an illusion of balance.
Whats the point of gold if you cant use it on equipment?
Land, buildings, favors, etc.
Ah, yes. What players really want in a game where you explore the world and slay monsters - somewhere you will rarely visit because you are out exploring the world and slaying monsters.
Regarding your “illusion of balance” argument, (a) a Wizards vetted gold value, providing relative costs based on Wizards’ assessment of value, would be a decent starting point to quickly identify how powerful an item is, while (b) still giving DMs leeway to make their own power judgments based on campaign and party. It’s less “illusion of balance” and more “helpful tool to provide quick guidance on balance if you are in a rush.”
I will be honest, with everyone else pointing out myriad ways item prices would make the game more convenient, and your arguments all easily being dismissed as “RAW allows you to ignore this,” it feels a lot like YOU don’t want this in the game, but, from an objective “how best to design a game” position, you are struggling to come up with a way to defend against implementation of a common sense system that wasn’t ever a problem in prior iterations of the game. Heck, you admit that this is a rather useful feature insofar as you think players and DMs can use a third-party guide; it’s just a useful feature you don’t want to be official for… well, still waiting on a reason that survives “RAW gives the DM authority to ignore this.”
In either case, there is a need for the DM and players to have an idea of what an item (magic or not) is worth to others. There might not be an entire industry based around these objects, but there would be a sense of value. A D&D given baseline value would prevent disagreements between players who think their +1 longsword is worth a life worthy of Kings and DMs who think that it might buy them 3 nights in the stable with leftover stew for supper.
To each their own, I guess. I VERY much prefer no gp value being provided as it makes it possible for the GM to adjust as necessary (for example, maybe they made a mistake earlier and handed out too much gold) and for there to be more motivation when characters negotiate a price.
This is a theme that I don't really understand on these boards so I have to ask - why can't you just ignore those values if they don't suit your purposes? If they say something they've obtained is worth 30gp, and you want it to be worth 10gp...have the vendor offer 10gp and refuse to go higher. It's much, much easier to ignore information given than it is to create information not given.
Because I deal with players who are real, living, people. Even after the game rules are set, they will push and push and push for RAW, even though they know that I'll never give it to them. Then, like many people here, even some people in this very thread, they'll whine about the GM not sticking to RAW. I'd rather just avoid the headache and stress
Now, I've answered your question, you can answer mine. Why can't you use gold piece values already posted on the web?
It’s the same justification - real people who won’t except “this is what someone on the internet said the price should be, and, no, there isn’t a specific real table to use, even though so many rules mention it.”
The one difference - having a real table, and RAW specifically stating “this table is a guideline; the DM controls the prices” would solve your problem and our problems. Your solution just solves your problem… which is why your/the current solution is bad game design and is my nomination for “one thing I would change.”
Every rule in the book is supposed to be a guideline. That statement has had no effect. Really, gp values don't belong in the DMG. RAW has no magic store. Official worlds with magic stores should have those gp values listed in the campaign book.
You wouldn't be telling them "This is what some guy on the Internet said it should be." You'd be telling them "This is where I set the prices."
Not in practice, almost everyone uses:
Magic items
The creating encounters guidelines (same thing except on paper as the encounter builder).
The creating monsters rules
You can just dismiss them as "guidelines", but a lot of the things in the DMG are important to having a balanced game.
You can't balance games by putting gp on equipment. If anything, it gives you just an illusion of balance.
Whats the point of gold if you cant use it on equipment?
Land, buildings, favors, etc.
Ah, yes. What players really want in a game where you explore the world and slay monsters - somewhere you will rarely visit because you are out exploring the world and slaying monsters.
Regarding your “illusion of balance” argument, (a) a Wizards vetted gold value, providing relative costs based on Wizards’ assessment of value, would be a decent starting point to quickly identify how powerful an item is, while (b) still giving DMs leeway to make their own power judgments based on campaign and party. It’s less “illusion of balance” and more “helpful tool to provide quick guidance on balance if you are in a rush.”
I will be honest, with everyone else pointing out myriad ways item prices would make the game more convenient, and your arguments all easily being dismissed as “RAW allows you to ignore this,” it feels a lot like YOU don’t want this in the game, but, from an objective “how best to design a game” position, you are struggling to come up with a way to defend against implementation of a common sense system that wasn’t ever a problem in prior iterations of the game. Heck, you admit that this is a rather useful feature insofar as you think players and DMs can use a third-party guide; it’s just a useful feature you don’t want to be official for… well, still waiting on a reason that survives “RAW gives the DM authority to ignore this.”
Unless you are playing a bunch of murder hobos, land, buildings and resources (wizards’ towers, thieves’ guilds, barracks for one’s army, a library, etc.) would be very desirable.
A magic shop would take us right back to the problems with 3e and the Christmas tree effect. That’s why the game designers didn’t include support for that.
In either case, there is a need for the DM and players to have an idea of what an item (magic or not) is worth to others. There might not be an entire industry based around these objects, but there would be a sense of value. A D&D given baseline value would prevent disagreements between players who think their +1 longsword is worth a life worthy of Kings and DMs who think that it might buy them 3 nights in the stable with leftover stew for supper.
To each their own, I guess. I VERY much prefer no gp value being provided as it makes it possible for the GM to adjust as necessary (for example, maybe they made a mistake earlier and handed out too much gold) and for there to be more motivation when characters negotiate a price.
This is a theme that I don't really understand on these boards so I have to ask - why can't you just ignore those values if they don't suit your purposes? If they say something they've obtained is worth 30gp, and you want it to be worth 10gp...have the vendor offer 10gp and refuse to go higher. It's much, much easier to ignore information given than it is to create information not given.
Because I deal with players who are real, living, people. Even after the game rules are set, they will push and push and push for RAW, even though they know that I'll never give it to them. Then, like many people here, even some people in this very thread, they'll whine about the GM not sticking to RAW. I'd rather just avoid the headache and stress
Now, I've answered your question, you can answer mine. Why can't you use gold piece values already posted on the web?
It’s the same justification - real people who won’t except “this is what someone on the internet said the price should be, and, no, there isn’t a specific real table to use, even though so many rules mention it.”
The one difference - having a real table, and RAW specifically stating “this table is a guideline; the DM controls the prices” would solve your problem and our problems. Your solution just solves your problem… which is why your/the current solution is bad game design and is my nomination for “one thing I would change.”
Every rule in the book is supposed to be a guideline. That statement has had no effect. Really, gp values don't belong in the DMG. RAW has no magic store. Official worlds with magic stores should have those gp values listed in the campaign book.
You wouldn't be telling them "This is what some guy on the Internet said it should be." You'd be telling them "This is where I set the prices."
Not in practice, almost everyone uses:
Magic items
The creating encounters guidelines (same thing except on paper as the encounter builder).
The creating monsters rules
You can just dismiss them as "guidelines", but a lot of the things in the DMG are important to having a balanced game.
You can't balance games by putting gp on equipment. If anything, it gives you just an illusion of balance.
Whats the point of gold if you cant use it on equipment?
Land, buildings, favors, etc.
Ah, yes. What players really want in a game where you explore the world and slay monsters - somewhere you will rarely visit because you are out exploring the world and slaying monsters.
Regarding your “illusion of balance” argument, (a) a Wizards vetted gold value, providing relative costs based on Wizards’ assessment of value, would be a decent starting point to quickly identify how powerful an item is, while (b) still giving DMs leeway to make their own power judgments based on campaign and party. It’s less “illusion of balance” and more “helpful tool to provide quick guidance on balance if you are in a rush.”
I will be honest, with everyone else pointing out myriad ways item prices would make the game more convenient, and your arguments all easily being dismissed as “RAW allows you to ignore this,” it feels a lot like YOU don’t want this in the game, but, from an objective “how best to design a game” position, you are struggling to come up with a way to defend against implementation of a common sense system that wasn’t ever a problem in prior iterations of the game. Heck, you admit that this is a rather useful feature insofar as you think players and DMs can use a third-party guide; it’s just a useful feature you don’t want to be official for… well, still waiting on a reason that survives “RAW gives the DM authority to ignore this.”
Unless you are playing a bunch of murder hobos, land, buildings and resources (wizards’ towers, thieves’ guilds, barracks for one’s army, a library, etc.) would be very desirable.
A magic shop would take us right back to the problems with 3e and the Christmas tree effect. That’s why the game designers didn’t include support for that.
Or Ronin, or sellswords, or vagabonds, or exiles, or players who already have property in a different land, or players who have been granted property for quest rewards, or…..
And, again, I’m sorry - I don’t buy “some DMs were incompetent with magical items, so let’s remove a common sense feature that helps more players than it hinders just to cater to the minority” as good game design. The very fact that countless players keep making their own, inconsistent, lists shows there’s a desire for this and a need for it. It’s clear Wizards’ experiment on this failed. There’s a reason everyone I have ever discussed this with—other than apparently you—thinks this is a lacking that should be rectified.
In the interests of reducing the instances of all of therse ungodly ludicrous, unsightly, and utterly unreadable Mega Quote Chains: Here's how you trim off excess quotes you don't need.
First, click the 'Quote' button. This preloads your quote in the reply editor.
In the reply editor, click the "</>" button labeled Source Code in the top toolbar, above your text. That will bring up a subwindow which shows you the HTML for your reply. That will look something like this:
Within that big block of largely-unreadable text, you will see the line " < blockquote class = "source-quote" >", minus the spaces. Every time you see this line, which will always be its own line of text, it indicates the beginning of a new quote within the godawful chain.
Find the second instance of 'Blockquote Class Source Quote' in your source code, and highlight it. Also highlight everything between it and the first word of the quote you're actually quoting. In this case, it would've been "There are actually price ranges..." from Kotath were I actually quoting him instead of trying to get people to STAAAAAAAAAHP with the incredibly obnoxious passive-aggressive thread-sinking quote chains. But nevertheless. Highlight everything from the second Blockquote Class Source Quote down to what you're actually quoting.
Then, press "Delete". With relish, if you want to do it properly.
Type your reply below the edited quotre, which should look like you're only quoting a single post instead of every post that's ever been made in every thread on the Internet since 1683.
Push "Send".
Enjoy people actually reading your words, instead of seeing a forty-page quote chain of stuff they already read with your one rinky-dink sentence on the end of it, rolling their eyes so hard they leave skidmarks in their sockets, and ignoring you to look for the next time someone posts something of substantive value instead.
Then, for bonus points, add your name to a forum petition to get DDB to update its godforsaken forum code to include a "Quote This Post Only" button that does all of this for you automatically so they're more like forums that actually know what they're doing and don't want people creating wildly unnecessary and annoying giant quote chains to debate the relative lengths of each other's genitalia.
In either case, there is a need for the DM and players to have an idea of what an item (magic or not) is worth to others. There might not be an entire industry based around these objects, but there would be a sense of value. A D&D given baseline value would prevent disagreements between players who think their +1 longsword is worth a life worthy of Kings and DMs who think that it might buy them 3 nights in the stable with leftover stew for supper.
To each their own, I guess. I VERY much prefer no gp value being provided as it makes it possible for the GM to adjust as necessary (for example, maybe they made a mistake earlier and handed out too much gold) and for there to be more motivation when characters negotiate a price.
This is a theme that I don't really understand on these boards so I have to ask - why can't you just ignore those values if they don't suit your purposes? If they say something they've obtained is worth 30gp, and you want it to be worth 10gp...have the vendor offer 10gp and refuse to go higher. It's much, much easier to ignore information given than it is to create information not given.
Because I deal with players who are real, living, people. Even after the game rules are set, they will push and push and push for RAW, even though they know that I'll never give it to them. Then, like many people here, even some people in this very thread, they'll whine about the GM not sticking to RAW. I'd rather just avoid the headache and stress
Now, I've answered your question, you can answer mine. Why can't you use gold piece values already posted on the web?
It’s the same justification - real people who won’t except “this is what someone on the internet said the price should be, and, no, there isn’t a specific real table to use, even though so many rules mention it.”
The one difference - having a real table, and RAW specifically stating “this table is a guideline; the DM controls the prices” would solve your problem and our problems. Your solution just solves your problem… which is why your/the current solution is bad game design and is my nomination for “one thing I would change.”
Every rule in the book is supposed to be a guideline. That statement has had no effect. Really, gp values don't belong in the DMG. RAW has no magic store. Official worlds with magic stores should have those gp values listed in the campaign book.
You wouldn't be telling them "This is what some guy on the Internet said it should be." You'd be telling them "This is where I set the prices."
Not in practice, almost everyone uses:
Magic items
The creating encounters guidelines (same thing except on paper as the encounter builder).
The creating monsters rules
You can just dismiss them as "guidelines", but a lot of the things in the DMG are important to having a balanced game.
You can't balance games by putting gp on equipment. If anything, it gives you just an illusion of balance.
Whats the point of gold if you cant use it on equipment?
Land, buildings, favors, etc.
Ah, yes. What players really want in a game where you explore the world and slay monsters - somewhere you will rarely visit because you are out exploring the world and slaying monsters.
Regarding your “illusion of balance” argument, (a) a Wizards vetted gold value, providing relative costs based on Wizards’ assessment of value, would be a decent starting point to quickly identify how powerful an item is, while (b) still giving DMs leeway to make their own power judgments based on campaign and party. It’s less “illusion of balance” and more “helpful tool to provide quick guidance on balance if you are in a rush.”
I will be honest, with everyone else pointing out myriad ways item prices would make the game more convenient, and your arguments all easily being dismissed as “RAW allows you to ignore this,” it feels a lot like YOU don’t want this in the game, but, from an objective “how best to design a game” position, you are struggling to come up with a way to defend against implementation of a common sense system that wasn’t ever a problem in prior iterations of the game. Heck, you admit that this is a rather useful feature insofar as you think players and DMs can use a third-party guide; it’s just a useful feature you don’t want to be official for… well, still waiting on a reason that survives “RAW gives the DM authority to ignore this.”
Unless you are playing a bunch of murder hobos, land, buildings and resources (wizards’ towers, thieves’ guilds, barracks for one’s army, a library, etc.) would be very desirable.
A magic shop would take us right back to the problems with 3e and the Christmas tree effect. That’s why the game designers didn’t include support for that.
Or Ronin, or sellswords, or vagabonds, or exiles, or players who already have property in a different land, or players who have been granted property for quest rewards, or…..
And, again, I’m sorry - I don’t buy “some DMs were incompetent with magical items, so let’s remove a common sense feature that helps more players than it hinders just to cater to the minority” as good game design. The very fact that countless players keep making their own, inconsistent, lists shows there’s a desire for this and a need for it. It’s clear Wizards’ experiment on this failed. There’s a reason everyone I have ever discussed this with—other than apparently you—thinks this is a lacking that should be rectified.
Likewise, I don't buy "_some_ players want the Christmas tree effect and want every GM to feel pressured to destroy their game using it, so we can't have gp values being listed in campaign setting books where it'd make the most sense because economy is part of campaign setting."
Then, for bonus points, add your name to a forum petition to get DDB to update its godforsaken forum code to include a "Quote This Post Only" button that does all of this for you automatically
Is there such a petition? I'd certainly add my name. Maybe while they're at it, they can remove the Reply button from the bottom of every comment.
If you, like me, usually use a phone to access this site, then you can just select all the text you don't want from your quoted posts and hit backspace.
Is there such a petition? I'd certainly add my name. Maybe while they're at it, they can remove the Reply button from the bottom of every comment.
If you, like me, usually use a phone to access this site, then you can just select all the text you don't want from your quoted posts and hit backspace.
See? Another handy demonstration.
If there is I don't know of it. The subject's come up a few times, but DDB historically hasn't cared about its forum in favor of expanding its presence on social media like Reddit, Discord, and the like. We're an afterthought here and the intent seems to be that we know it.
Highlighting and deleting text in the reply box without digging through the source code sometimes works, but it tends to leave artefacts of previous quotes. It's how you get a single quote under four or five quote headings, because the text was erased but the formatting code for arranging internested quote chains remains. It's still better than the actually factually twelve post deep monstrosity directly above your own post, but it can be dicy at times.
Also my condolences. This website is nigh unusuable on mobile, my sympathies for your struggles.
People who don't like the changes likely complain. People who wanted other changes likely complain. People who like the changes likely never realized they had them all along.
In the original print of the Big 3, you always could play your way and change things however you wished regardless if it was a published example. Many popular streams already figured this out and were perfect examples for others to follow, but is seems that few even considered that a possibility regardless.
Any more reminders of different ways to play are a waste of words. People either already understand it's up to people to play their way or they are not going to understand it or will refuse to accept it.
I once thought WotC should make a better effort to remind people how they can change things in any way they want—I'm certain I have a reply in this thread about that—but after some examples were published, it's not worth the fighting over "official" stuff and the "right way to play". All of it is official. It always was even if never published. The only wrong way was not having fun along with people. That's always been true.
Just get back to playing and stop worrying if it's a printed example. Communicate. That's pretty much the only published requirement, and it's not something any printed words can do for anyone. It's up to the players and DMs to communicate. No sourcebook will ever be a better solution to any issue than table communication.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Is there such a petition? I'd certainly add my name. Maybe while they're at it, they can remove the Reply button from the bottom of every comment.
If you, like me, usually use a phone to access this site, then you can just select all the text you don't want from your quoted posts and hit backspace.
See? Another handy demonstration.
If there is I don't know of it. The subject's come up a few times, but DDB historically hasn't cared about its forum in favor of expanding its presence on social media like Reddit, Discord, and the like. We're an afterthought here and the intent seems to be that we know it.
Highlighting and deleting text in the reply box without digging through the source code sometimes works, but it tends to leave artefacts of previous quotes. It's how you get a single quote under four or five quote headings, because the text was erased but the formatting code for arranging internested quote chains remains. It's still better than the actually factually twelve post deep monstrosity directly above your own post, but it can be dicy at times.
Also my condolences. This website is nigh unusuable on mobile, my sympathies for your struggles.
They likely don't want to make any changes until after the merger.
The problem on my.phone is, whether I'm on the mobile or desktop site (my.phome does both), formatting gets really messed up if I try to delete previous quotes most of the time. It's also really awkward to do, so it just frustrates me. Reply is fine - sending a notification can be handy - but needs to autoquote the post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
change books so they don't do something called rail roading
Any printed adventure needs to do a measure of railroading, because it's objectively impossible to put together a product that can account for anything close to every possible choice people could make. The social contract for playing one involves understanding the plot has a more fixed trajectory unless the DM indicates they intend to run the adventure differently.
Any printed adventure needs to do a measure of railroading, because it's objectively impossible to put together a product that can account for anything close to every possible choice people could make. The social contract for playing one involves understanding the plot has a more fixed trajectory unless the DM indicates they intend to run the adventure differently.
Well, sort of. You can have an 'adventure' that's really closer to a sourcebook that happens to describe in significant detail what one faction is trying to do, and leave it up to the DM and PCs if and how they interact with those things, but the result will have a lot of unused content (describe a place the PCs can go... and then they don't go there) and require significant on the fly adjustments when the PCs decide to poke at an area that was designed for level 6 PCs when they're level 3, or vice versa. Curse of Strahd is sort of that model.
Not in practice, almost everyone uses:
You can just dismiss them as "guidelines", but a lot of the things in the DMG are important to having a balanced game.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.You can't balance games by putting gp on equipment. If anything, it gives you just an illusion of balance.
Whats the point of gold if you cant use it on equipment?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.And real living people can read the manual and realise that RAW is that DM sets the prices.
Why can't I use online resources created by fans?
As I said before, it's always much easier to ignorenl information given than to create information not given.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Food. Another night at the inn. Kind of hard to motivate players with gold they already have 100,000gp and they can spend at most 10gp a day, though.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Land, buildings, favors, etc.
Ah, yes. What players really want in a game where you explore the world and slay monsters - somewhere you will rarely visit because you are out exploring the world and slaying monsters.
Regarding your “illusion of balance” argument, (a) a Wizards vetted gold value, providing relative costs based on Wizards’ assessment of value, would be a decent starting point to quickly identify how powerful an item is, while (b) still giving DMs leeway to make their own power judgments based on campaign and party. It’s less “illusion of balance” and more “helpful tool to provide quick guidance on balance if you are in a rush.”
I will be honest, with everyone else pointing out myriad ways item prices would make the game more convenient, and your arguments all easily being dismissed as “RAW allows you to ignore this,” it feels a lot like YOU don’t want this in the game, but, from an objective “how best to design a game” position, you are struggling to come up with a way to defend against implementation of a common sense system that wasn’t ever a problem in prior iterations of the game. Heck, you admit that this is a rather useful feature insofar as you think players and DMs can use a third-party guide; it’s just a useful feature you don’t want to be official for… well, still waiting on a reason that survives “RAW gives the DM authority to ignore this.”
Unless you are playing a bunch of murder hobos, land, buildings and resources (wizards’ towers, thieves’ guilds, barracks for one’s army, a library, etc.) would be very desirable.
A magic shop would take us right back to the problems with 3e and the Christmas tree effect. That’s why the game designers didn’t include support for that.
Or Ronin, or sellswords, or vagabonds, or exiles, or players who already have property in a different land, or players who have been granted property for quest rewards, or…..
And, again, I’m sorry - I don’t buy “some DMs were incompetent with magical items, so let’s remove a common sense feature that helps more players than it hinders just to cater to the minority” as good game design. The very fact that countless players keep making their own, inconsistent, lists shows there’s a desire for this and a need for it. It’s clear Wizards’ experiment on this failed. There’s a reason everyone I have ever discussed this with—other than apparently you—thinks this is a lacking that should be rectified.
In the interests of reducing the instances of all of therse ungodly ludicrous, unsightly, and utterly unreadable Mega Quote Chains: Here's how you trim off excess quotes you don't need.
First, click the 'Quote' button. This preloads your quote in the reply editor.
In the reply editor, click the "</>" button labeled Source Code in the top toolbar, above your text. That will bring up a subwindow which shows you the HTML for your reply. That will look something like this:
Within that big block of largely-unreadable text, you will see the line " < blockquote class = "source-quote" >", minus the spaces. Every time you see this line, which will always be its own line of text, it indicates the beginning of a new quote within the godawful chain.
Find the second instance of 'Blockquote Class Source Quote' in your source code, and highlight it. Also highlight everything between it and the first word of the quote you're actually quoting. In this case, it would've been "There are actually price ranges..." from Kotath were I actually quoting him instead of trying to get people to STAAAAAAAAAHP with the incredibly obnoxious passive-aggressive thread-sinking quote chains. But nevertheless. Highlight everything from the second Blockquote Class Source Quote down to what you're actually quoting.
Then, press "Delete". With relish, if you want to do it properly.
Type your reply below the edited quotre, which should look like you're only quoting a single post instead of every post that's ever been made in every thread on the Internet since 1683.
Push "Send".
Enjoy people actually reading your words, instead of seeing a forty-page quote chain of stuff they already read with your one rinky-dink sentence on the end of it, rolling their eyes so hard they leave skidmarks in their sockets, and ignoring you to look for the next time someone posts something of substantive value instead.
Then, for bonus points, add your name to a forum petition to get DDB to update its godforsaken forum code to include a "Quote This Post Only" button that does all of this for you automatically so they're more like forums that actually know what they're doing and don't want people creating wildly unnecessary and annoying giant quote chains to debate the relative lengths of each other's genitalia.
Please do not contact or message me.
Likewise, I don't buy "_some_ players want the Christmas tree effect and want every GM to feel pressured to destroy their game using it, so we can't have gp values being listed in campaign setting books where it'd make the most sense because economy is part of campaign setting."
Is there such a petition? I'd certainly add my name. Maybe while they're at it, they can remove the Reply button from the bottom of every comment.
If you, like me, usually use a phone to access this site, then you can just select all the text you don't want from your quoted posts and hit backspace.
See? Another handy demonstration.
If there is I don't know of it. The subject's come up a few times, but DDB historically hasn't cared about its forum in favor of expanding its presence on social media like Reddit, Discord, and the like. We're an afterthought here and the intent seems to be that we know it.
Highlighting and deleting text in the reply box without digging through the source code sometimes works, but it tends to leave artefacts of previous quotes. It's how you get a single quote under four or five quote headings, because the text was erased but the formatting code for arranging internested quote chains remains. It's still better than the actually factually twelve post deep monstrosity directly above your own post, but it can be dicy at times.
Also my condolences. This website is nigh unusuable on mobile, my sympathies for your struggles.
Please do not contact or message me.
No more examples of different ways to play.
People who don't like the changes likely complain. People who wanted other changes likely complain. People who like the changes likely never realized they had them all along.
In the original print of the Big 3, you always could play your way and change things however you wished regardless if it was a published example. Many popular streams already figured this out and were perfect examples for others to follow, but is seems that few even considered that a possibility regardless.
Any more reminders of different ways to play are a waste of words. People either already understand it's up to people to play their way or they are not going to understand it or will refuse to accept it.
I once thought WotC should make a better effort to remind people how they can change things in any way they want—I'm certain I have a reply in this thread about that—but after some examples were published, it's not worth the fighting over "official" stuff and the "right way to play". All of it is official. It always was even if never published. The only wrong way was not having fun along with people. That's always been true.
Just get back to playing and stop worrying if it's a printed example. Communicate. That's pretty much the only published requirement, and it's not something any printed words can do for anyone. It's up to the players and DMs to communicate. No sourcebook will ever be a better solution to any issue than table communication.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
They likely don't want to make any changes until after the merger.
The problem on my.phone is, whether I'm on the mobile or desktop site (my.phome does both), formatting gets really messed up if I try to delete previous quotes most of the time. It's also really awkward to do, so it just frustrates me. Reply is fine - sending a notification can be handy - but needs to autoquote the post.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
change books so they don't do something called rail roading
Any printed adventure needs to do a measure of railroading, because it's objectively impossible to put together a product that can account for anything close to every possible choice people could make. The social contract for playing one involves understanding the plot has a more fixed trajectory unless the DM indicates they intend to run the adventure differently.
Well, sort of. You can have an 'adventure' that's really closer to a sourcebook that happens to describe in significant detail what one faction is trying to do, and leave it up to the DM and PCs if and how they interact with those things, but the result will have a lot of unused content (describe a place the PCs can go... and then they don't go there) and require significant on the fly adjustments when the PCs decide to poke at an area that was designed for level 6 PCs when they're level 3, or vice versa. Curse of Strahd is sort of that model.
The one thing I would change is to roll back the 2024 downgrade.