|
I have a theory about the divide between those who like games with less "crunch" and character options and those who prefer the heavy crunch games:
The first group, which includes myself, plays (played, in my case) to experience a cool, memorable adventure and socialize with friends. The second group plays to craft a cool, memorable character and, very likely, to socialize with friends.
I think yes and no here. On the one hand, 5E character abilities are scaled to be much more balanced with one another. They function on a level that offers a more blurry delineation than the PF divide between classes. On the other, 5E actively encourages building the character as more than an arbitrary set of numbers by tying several skills, languages, and proficiencies to their background. I love character building - in between games, I often come up with characters for fun.
Currently, I'd still say I prefer the 5E rules. Although when I want to build something silly, I go straight for PF. Mechanics-wise, it's the difference between Lord of the Rings and Conan the Barbarian to me ---- both have their place, but PF is better for romps and campiness than serious character building.
In my opinion, 5E is much more of a "threat" to OSRIC games - or would be, if there were a commercially successful one.
5E and PF seem to be targeting different players. As a fan of both companies, I'm hopeful they both thrive.
Off-topic (sorta), and not to make it too political, but whether I prefer PF or 5E, I hope no matter what Paizo continues to thrive. Even though it's looking like my group will be converting to 5E (for the forseeable future, anyway), I will continue to buy material from Paizo - not just because I enjoy the art, iconic characters, fiction, and AP's - but because I like the company. I like what they stand for. Too many companies undervalue what their corporate philosophy means to their customers. And I like that it seems their influence is pushing WotC in a more inclusive direction. (RPGPundit and Zak Smith controversy aside.)
No grapple? BOOO. There's nothing better than grappling some snarky caster type.
You can still grapple that snarky caster type, but you don't need a flowchart to do it. Not experienced with the rules on it, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One minor quibble: AD&D is where we saw non-humans as something that take classes. Before the PHB came out in 1978, Elves were elves, dwarves were dwarves, and none took class levels. Race as class was OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI. All of them. ;-)Also, Holmes, for being labelled "basic", was just a compilation and clean up of OD&D. It pretty much existed because of the issues you point out with OD&D.
Err...
From the original Men and Magic...
Dwarves - Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class and they may never progress beyond the 6th level
Elves: Elves can begin as either Fighting-men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose
Halflings: Should any player wish to be one, he will be limited to the Fighting Men class
Your race and class were separate things in OD&D, even right from the start (when there were only three classes to choose from).
All the best, it's a mistake many make, but class and race only started as the same thing with B/X. Even Holmes had races and classes separately.
I got out the original booklet just to make sure I typed it rightly in the quote above.
If you guys have other questions about OD&D...I can try to answer them...but another thread probably would be better.
It also means I have to go and get the booklets down and then put them back up every time as I'm not currently playing an OD&D campaign.
|
" I can't see a sudden shift back to rules heavy rpgs in the community if ever."
That seems to be the claim here.
Are you honestly saying that D&D in all its versions is as complex as the Hero System or Gurps. I have to seriously question if you ever played any rules heavy system. While D&D in all it versions is neither rules heavy or light. A mix of both imo. When i posted my comment about the community not wanting rules heavy and/or complex rpgs. D&D was certainly not in that category.
I did like the "save ends" part of 4e, and how pretty much everything was a condition that could be saved out of, and how the big baddie monsters had a way of mitigating conditions x amount of times. But that was about all I liked of 4e. After GM'ing RPGA during all of 4e, it was munchkin Central, and really turned me off to the edition. I had high hopes that 4e would steer away from 3.x's 'net munchkins" of organized play, where you'd see the same rediculous characters over and over because "Joey Loophole" was out there and found a way to combine xy and z, and dip in 1 lvl here and here, and now it's just cookie cutter. I think that's when the "character viability" vs. "character enjoyability" first started rearing its head, right at the 3.5 organized play inception.
And when the splatbook floodgates opened for 3.x and 4e, it became a situation where you had to add templates to every monster, becuase the regular MM was a cakewalk. I remember one of the 4e mods I GM'd, it was the first time in the tier that the characters would be fighting a dragon. The table was excited to get to that point. They breezed through the mod, and got to the Dragon. The Ranger and cleric were the only ones going before the Dragon, so I was psyched as the GM to see what this thing could do. The cleric went, made it vuln radiant, then made the Ranger's bow radiant, who proceeded to pincusion the thing to death. I've never seen 4 more dejected players than the other four at the table who didnt get a turn. I even added HP to it to the point that the PC's knew I was fudging. Didn't matter. that's when I knew I would be just a GM, and only at cons to get swag. And that became par for the course at every table I GM'd for RPGA. The Munchkins come out of the woodwork and just smash encounters, and skill challenges are anything but.
I'm really hoping 5e doesnt go down that road. PF is heading towards that slope, which some people enjoy, but i for one am definitely not a fan of the power creep that happens when the next "Guide of Rediculousness" comes out.
|
|
One minor quibble: AD&D is where we saw non-humans as something that take classes. Before the PHB came out in 1978, Elves were elves, dwarves were dwarves, and none took class levels. Race as class was OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI. All of them. ;-)Also, Holmes, for being labelled "basic", was just a compilation and clean up of OD&D. It pretty much existed because of the issues you point out with OD&D.
Err...
From the original Men and Magic...
Dwarves - Dwarves may opt only for the fighting class and they may never progress beyond the 6th level
Elves: Elves can begin as either Fighting-men or Magic-Users and freely switch class whenever they choose
Halflings: Should any player wish to be one, he will be limited to the Fighting Men class
Your race and class were separate things in OD&D, even right from the start (when there were only three classes to choose from).
All the best, it's a mistake many make, but class and race only started as the same thing with B/X. Even Holmes had races and classes separately.
I got out the original booklet just to make sure I typed it rightly in the quote above.
If you guys have other questions about OD&D...I can try to answer them...but another thread probably would be better.
It also means I have to go and get the booklets down and then put them back up every time as I'm not currently playing an OD&D campaign.
I stand corrected :-)
|
Are you honestly saying that D&D in all its versions is as complex as the Hero System or Gurps. I have to seriously question if you ever played any rules heavy system. While D&D in all it versions is neither rules heavy or light. A mix of both imo. When i posted my comment about the community not wanting rules heavy and/or complex rpgs. D&D was certainly not in that category.
" I can't see a sudden shift back to rules heavy rpgs in the community if ever."
That seems to be the claim here.
3.X certainly has more RULES than builder systems, because they have to make dozens of rules because players aren't allowed to build.
|
|
3.X certainly has more RULES than builder systems, because they have to make dozens of rules because players aren't allowed to build.
Character creation in D&D is not completely from the ground up. One rolls attributes. Picks a class that has all you need. Only skills, spells and abilities like a cleric domain power. Or Bard ability require a little more work.
Unless one has either Hero Designer. Or many sourcebooks. Or really good at character creation it takes more time imo. Much more. One has to build the attributes. What skills one takes. One has to buid weapons as well.
Have you been playing for 14 years?For someone who's been playing the system for 14 years? No.Try making an Orc Barbarian who dual-wields large great axes AND is suitable for a solo encounter vs. 4 PCs and you'll end up making him several levels higher and requiring him to have a plethora of magical gear just so he doesn't go down in the 1st round of combat.Adding a few levels is that problematic?
Well I graduated high school in 2000 and started playing 3.0 that summer. Played for about a year and a half then left til 2005 and picked up 3.5 until 4e came out. From then til now it's been a combination of 3.5, 4e, and Pathfinder with sprinkling of Playtest 5e. So yeah about 14 years.
So am I. I never had that problem with DM fiat in 3.x, but a lot of people complain about DM fiat. Like you below.So you said that people were complaining about DM fiat in 3e but don't know what or why? I guess I'm confused.I do not know. I never complained about DM fiat.Really? About what?Can't be that, since an edition that came out around that time did it's best to marginalize the role of the DM as much as possible.It is funny, because a lot of people keeping complaining about DM fiat in 3.X.
I wasn't complaining, just making an observation. I don't really have a problem with fiat. 4e just has less of it because of how the system works. 5E focuses on ruling over rules and that's fine. For 3e and Pathfinder, I've found the latest fiat often occurs because of a lack in clarity where RAI and RAW conflict. From your comment, I got the feeling there might have been more and was curious as to what.
So there is DM fiat with 3.x. According to you.4e isn't rules light, however the rules are pretty clearly defined which cuts down significantly on fiat. As for 5e, fiat is not only a common element within the system but heavily encouraged.Most of the fiat I see is often regarding lack of rules clarity and, to a lesser extent, on specific situation adjudication.Fascinating. Since both 4e and 5e are so rules light this means DM needs to adjudicate all sort of specific situations. DM fiat must be off the charts!
Well yes, there's fiat in pretty much every edition. How much is in part dependent on the DM and the group and part system.
In your opinion, it was a massive upgrade over 2nd edition. In many people's opinion, 5th edition is a massive upgrade over 4th edtion and Pathfinder.
I actually went back and tried out 2E after playing PF/3.x for 12 years.
The best thing 3E done was the introduction of BAB/ascending ACs. We houseruled that into 2E and after playing it again like that the advantages of 3.x over 2E did not seem that great. Hell if they made AD&D 3rd edition and added some basic feats to it you would probably have a better game than Pathfinder IMHO mechanically.
5E is alright if I get bored of it I will go back to houseruled 2E or some clone not 3.x. I am more or less a perma DM though and I am happy to play 3.x but screw running it.
2e is the best edition ever! Why? Because it is the first one I ever played and I have many great memories playing it with my friends.
Now I'll just watch the forums burn. Hehehe.
I started with the Blue Box OD&D - the one that came with the module "In Search of the Unknown." I recall there was also another dungeon in the rulebook. Something about a necromancer's tower, and I think there was a giant crayfish in it.
I switched to AD&D about the time the DMG first came out. Most of my favorite gaming memories are of 1st & 2nd editions. When 3e came out I liked the added character options, but on the down side it seemed to offer fewer world building options than late 2e.
Nothing that I saw in 4e interested me at all, so I was very pleasantly surprised to find that the current edition had the opposite effect - once I read the free Basic Rules I couldn't wait to try playing it. And now that I am playing it, I have not been disappointed.
That said, however, there were some features in 2e that I'd like to see in 5e as well. The biggest one is character options tailored for different kinds of fantasy settings. I want to see classes, sub-classes, spells, races, etc. for Oriental settings, and Arabian settings, and various quasi-historical settings, and fantasy outer space.
So I'm not sure I agree 100% that 2e was the best edition of the game, but I am sure that I very much enjoyed playing it. And if WotC will just give me the tools to use all of the 2e settings (including the Historical Reference ones) with 5e rules, I will be a very happy gamer.
If you have the time to do it. Go and make a 13th level NPC rogue and make it a vampire and get back to me if you can do it in under half an hour. Or even an hour.
My perfect D&D would be some sort of 3.x game with math that works and a hybrid with AD&D.Still waiting for a fixed 3.x game maybe Pathfinder 2.0 will be it as 5E/PF is not it and don't get me started on 4E.
THings from 3.5 I could live withut.
1. Wealth by level.
2. Ability to buy magical items
3. Metamagic
4. Easy PC magic item creation.
5.Wand of CLW that PCs can buy (the wand would be fine in AD&D).
The best part of OSR games is DM empowerment in regards to magic items. No one hour rituals to create them, no go to a store in a town the right size and buy what you like RAW.
I think 3.x was the best D&D in concept, the execution was off IMHO. 2E in the best in implementation.
5E could take that crown but at level 11 the game is starting to feel kind of goofy, save are bad, and I get bored of the whole 6-8 encounter mentality as PCs cake walk the MM. Feels like 3.0 in that regard.
|
|
In your opinion, it was a massive upgrade over 2nd edition. In many people's opinion, 5th edition is a massive upgrade over 4th edtion and Pathfinder.I actually went back and tried out 2E after playing PF/3.x for 12 years.
The best thing 3E done was the introduction of BAB/ascending ACs. We houseruled that into 2E and after playing it again like that the advantages of 3.x over 2E did not seem that great. Hell if they made AD&D 3rd edition and added some basic feats to it you would probably have a better game than Pathfinder IMHO mechanically.
5E is alright if I get bored of it I will go back to houseruled 2E or some clone not 3.x. I am more or less a perma DM though and I am happy to play 3.x but screw running it.
I love running it, because the PCs never know what crazy templated NPCs I'll throw at them.
1. Wealth by level.
2. Ability to buy magical items
3. Metamagic
4. Easy PC magic item creation.
5.Wand of CLW that PCs can buy (the wand would be fine in AD&D).The best part of OSR games is DM empowerment in regards to magic items. No one hour rituals to create them, no go to a store in a town the right size and buy what you like RAW.
For better or for worse, 3.x was by far the most realistic in how most magic and magic items were eventually handled in most campaigns. Magic items are a reality in basically every published D&D ever in any edition, and the idea that magic is this really hard to find thing falls apart pretty fast when the classic party has not one magic user, but two, one using divine magic and one using the supposedly rare arcane magic. I didn't like every aspect of how they implemented it, and think that PF made a number of improvements in that area, but their acknowledgement that it was actually far present in reality that past theory had allowed for was a big step forward in my opinion.
3.x did not create the christmas tree effect, it just exposed what had been present in the core system the entire time while amplifying it to an "impossible to ignore" status. 4E, for all that it tried to formally tone it down, faced the same reality, and in the long run, 5E will as well. The idea that magic in all of it's forms is somehow this rare specimen in any D&D edition has never been one I understood. It's a great theory, but always falls apart sooner rather than later, especially if you play with the published adventures.
It's a tangible part of how the players interact with the game, and thus will usually one of their major focuses in seeing character improvement, regardless of edition. To me, that focus is not worth fighting; I'd much rather find a way to allow the low level stuff to be common enough while retaining the mystery and awe of the truly epic stuff. No edition yet has been able to pull that off officially, nor has the overall community been particularly helpful in that arena, with most people either demanding virtually no player access whatsoever or nothing but easy player access, neither of which is realistic or helpful to the game. Even 5E is going to run into the exact same problems at higher levels. Very few DMs can really pull off the much vaunted idea of making a +1 sword seem like an major upgrade after the first time of doing it, nor will limiting higher level spells to one slot per day last very long because players will find a way get more (no one playing a level 20 wizard is going to want to rely almost entirely on cantrips and spells 3 levels lower than what they are capable of casting; they are going to want to get actual routine use out of their 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells) and both official adventures and DMs tired of constantly fighting it will eventually facilitate it to at least some degree.
One of the side effects of the concentration mechanic that I really like is the increased value of utility items. I'm hopeful the +1s will seem far less attractive than the ability to fly/move silently/heal/etcetera. My first 5E campaign is still a little way off, but the plan is for it to be very low magic.
I'm optimistic that 5E will tell those kinds of stories well - at this stage it feels like it. The abundance of magic items is probably the key feature of PF I don't like - particularly the need to "upgrade". (Well, maybe not the key feature, but second on the list - but after the complexity of PF, it's the Christmas tree effect that really bothers me).
One of the side effects of the concentration mechanic that I really like is the increased value of utility items. I'm hopeful the +1s will seem far less attractive than the ability to fly/move silently/heal/etcetera. My first 5E campaign is still a little way off, but the plan is for it to be very low magic.
I'm optimistic that 5E will tell those kinds of stories well - at this stage it feels like it. The abundance of magic items is probably the key feature of PF I don't like - particularly the need to "upgrade". (Well, maybe not the key feature, but second on the list - but after the complexity of PF, it's the Christmas tree effect that really bothers me).
Maybe shifting the magic to utility items instead of + items will be enough, but that won't really be known until high levels. 5E does seem to be trying a bit more than some of the others in finding that sweet spot, I will grant them that; I'm just not convinced that at higher levels, they did any better any other edition. Utility items lack the excitement that making numbers larger has, and only 1 spell slot per day, no exceptions, for any spell over 6th is going to wear on players sooner rather than later.
I certainly don't think its the norm. Nonetheless, for some players (me being the one I'm thinking of, in this case!) a numerical advantage is much less exciting than a plot advantage. (I'm a fan of the limited high level spell slots too - though that could well be part of the same aesthetic).
I agree I'll need to wait until the game matures before I'll really know. It may well become as baked into the system as previous editions. I'm hoping not though...
I personally find items that merely make an existing number bigger to be absolutely the most boring items in the entire catalog of Magic items. Even (and especially) the vaunted "Big Six".
So do I personally, but the "Big Six" became that way for a reason. A lot of people like them, and like them a lot, in large part because the results aren't reliant on the DM; the players know exactly what they are getting and what they can do with it. Just like with the limited spell slots above 6th, it's going to be hard to convince people that more utility or plot driven magic items are going to be a fun replacement. The only way that will truly happen will be when DMs loosen up the process of acquiring and using magic and magic items without wondering when the DM is going to pull the rug out from under them.
This is one area that DMs need to retain a certain amount of control, but sharing it with the players is essential at the same time. As a player, I don't want my character's development to be limited to items and powers that the DM may or may not decide to allow or make accessible. The DM already controls the world and the response in the world to anything that the character does; limiting character development directly by limiting magic and magic items that much is not going to appeal to a great many players.
I personally find items that merely make an existing number bigger to be absolutely the most boring items in the entire catalog of Magic items. Even (and especially) the vaunted "Big Six".
Which are?
For those of us who do not think magical items are teh ebil!1!
|
|
I personally find items that merely make an existing number bigger to be absolutely the most boring items in the entire catalog of Magic items. Even (and especially) the vaunted "Big Six".
Making saves or hitting your opponent is never boring to me.
"Amulet of natural armour "
I have long since dumped this for a swarmbane clasp. The armor class isn't worth it.
|
|
I personally find items that merely make an existing number bigger to be absolutely the most boring items in the entire catalog of Magic items. Even (and especially) the vaunted "Big Six".So do I personally, but the "Big Six" became that way for a reason. A lot of people like them, and like them a lot, in large part because the results aren't reliant on the DM; the players know exactly what they are getting and what they can do with it. Just like with the limited spell slots above 6th, it's going to be hard to convince people that more utility or plot driven magic items are going to be a fun replacement. The only way that will truly happen will be when DMs loosen up the process of acquiring and using magic and magic items without wondering when the DM is going to pull the rug out from under them.
This is one area that DMs need to retain a certain amount of control, but sharing it with the players is essential at the same time. As a player, I don't want my character's development to be limited to items and powers that the DM may or may not decide to allow or make accessible. The DM already controls the world and the response in the world to anything that the character does; limiting character development directly by limiting magic and magic items that much is not going to appeal to a great many players.
When DMs start wanting that much control, I'd rather go read a novel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally find items that merely make an existing number bigger to be absolutely the most boring items in the entire catalog of Magic items. Even (and especially) the vaunted "Big Six".
I absolutely agree. +x weapons and armor are nice for their utility but just don't spark the imagination the way a Cloak of Manta Ray or Horn of Blasting does. Those are truly "cool" items that often solve a problem or turn the tide of battle in ways that create a memorable experience.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally find items that merely make an existing number bigger to be absolutely the most boring items in the entire catalog of Magic items. Even (and especially) the vaunted "Big Six".I absolutely agree. +x weapons and armor are nice for their utility but just don't spark the imagination the way a Cloak of Manta Ray or Horn of Blasting does. Those are truly "cool" items that often solve a problem or turn the tide of battle in ways that create a memorable experience.
Thia is something old school I'd like to see make a comeback. Far fewer magic items, but the ones that exist have epic names and stories behind them, rather than just +X whatever.
My 5E game has 5th level characters and they've yet to find a magic weapon, but it doesn't seem to be hurting them at all. (In fairness, the party has a Sorcerer, Druid, and Cleric; but the Paladin and Fighter are still effective.)
Actually, the only magical equipment they've found thus far is a quest item with a minor effect. But it felt a lot more special than buying enchantments when they're in town.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally find items that merely make an existing number bigger to be absolutely the most boring items in the entire catalog of Magic items. Even (and especially) the vaunted "Big Six".
I completely agree with these 2 sentences. There's all kinds of varied and unique magic items, but no one ever uses them because they don't give a +x to something. A DM could place them in the loot the players get from killing something, but almost always the players will just sell them for an item of +x.
Don't magic weapons and armor in 5th edition not need the +1 before adding in abilities like flaming or such? I want to say I read that somewhere, but not entirely sure if I did or my brain wants to think I did.
Also, is there somewhere that details special materials like mithral and silver?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "Big Six":
Magic weapon
Magic armour (and sometimes shield) or bracers of armour
Ring of protection
Cloak of resistance
Amulet of natural armour
Ability-score boosters (headband of intellect for a wizard, for example)Different classes have different priorities for these, some may prefer other items, but those are the basic set.
This is more of a problem with 3.x type games. Basically when you give players the ability to buy magic items these ones obsolete the other items and a rational player will want the best bang for their buck (gp).
The Magic item compendium in 3.5 started selling other types of items cheaper than the DMG.
This is why I like AD&D and 5E better than 3E and 4E in this regard. It removes the pressure of buying the most bang for your buck. It also sets the expectation that level=power so finding a +3 sword with special abilities is a no no in 3.x games while in AD&D some of those adventures have things like frost brand swords that are intelligent where you can get them by level 6 or so.
Magic items could have a sell price attached to them but they need to remove the player ability to be able to buy what they like. Also cuts down on power gaming so PCs can't build powerful combos of the perfect item they need. Keen weapons in 3.5/PF for power attack builds, a frost weapon for frostcheese in 4E.
They do have rules for crafting magic items in 5th edition. I believe it is 25gp per day. Uncommon costs 5k to make, Rare costs 50k to make, and Legendary costs 500k to make. So if I recalled that right (may be off by a 0 in the too much region), a +1 sword 1/2 a year. A legendary magic item would take almost 55 years to craft.
I think I am off by by a 0. Or something is off.
|
My 5E game has 5th level characters and they've yet to find a magic weapon, but it doesn't seem to be hurting them at all. (In fairness, the party has a Sorcerer, Druid, and Cleric; but the Paladin and Fighter are still effective.)
This is campaign specific, not game system specific.
I am running a WoTR game and playing in another. In both the only characters with magic weapons at 4th level was the paladin. At 5th, nobody used the second magic weapon we found (only the paladin was using a longsword).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea it takes generations to forge a legendary item. Makes it legendary!!
Of course, that 55 years is if only 1 person is spending the time to make it. Others can help, and I think they add another 25gp to the day's total. No limit on the number of people that can help, that I saw. So, get 20,000 people to all help make that legendary +3 sword and you can get it done in a day.
I do like it better than 2,000gp a day. Mundane crafting, I think, is better in 5th edition as well. 5gp per day per person working on the item. So that mundane suit of plate armor (assuming it still costs 1,500gp. Not sure the cost in 5th edition) would take a single person 300 days to craft. I think that's a bit more reasonable than the 3 years it takes in 3rd/Pathfinder.
More time to make a magic item, less time to make a mundane item. The item crafting rules are one thing I like in 5th edition. Oh, and another thing that I may or may not be remembering right. Someone making a magic item cannot go adventuring while making any progress on it. Also, it seems that anyone who wants to can make a magic item (that doesn't cast the spell like a wand or scroll would), not just spellcasters. So that potion-maker that's in so many fantasy books and such, can be just that, a potion maker. He doesn't need levels of cleric or wizard.
|
|
My 5E game has 5th level characters and they've yet to find a magic weapon, but it doesn't seem to be hurting them at all. (In fairness, the party has a Sorcerer, Druid, and Cleric; but the Paladin and Fighter are still effective.)This is campaign specific, not game system specific.
I am running a WoTR game and playing in another. In both the only characters with magic weapons at 4th level was the paladin. At 5th, nobody used the second magic weapon we found (only the paladin was using a longsword).
Not necessarily. In PF, a certain amount of magical equipment is assumed by each level. Less magical equipment would mean my martials would be functionally useless in a PF game.
Also, it seems that anyone who wants to can make a magic item (that doesn't cast the spell like a wand or scroll would), not just spellcasters. So that potion-maker that's in so many fantasy books and such, can be just that, a potion maker. He doesn't need levels of cleric or wizard.
No,you have to have spell slots in order to craft magic items. From the DMG excerpt of page 128 on Downtime Activities that they shared online:
"The creation of a magic item is a lengthy, expensive
task. To start, a character must have a formula that
describes the construction of the item. The character
must also be a spellcaster with spell slots and must
be able to cast any spells that the item can produce.
Moreover, the character must meet a level minimum
determined by the item’s rarity, as shown in the Crafting
Magic Items table."
Of course, that 55 years is if only 1 person is spending the time to make it. Others can help, and I think they add another 25gp to the day's total. No limit on the number of people that can help, that I saw. So, get 20,000 people to all help make that legendary +3 sword and you can get it done in a day.
In addition what Enevhar quoted, it is important to note that every person contributing to the effort must meet the level requirements. In the example you just suggested, it would require all 20,000 of those people to be 17th level spellcasters.
It would be a lot more reasonable to say you can get 10 of those powerful casters working on a project and that would bring one down to about five and a half years for a item of legendary rarity. That works for some items, but not all of them, particularly many of the one use items. Still it is a easy enough rule for a column of text even if I don't use half the table.
....and this makes it even more legendary and filled with plot and intrigue