D&D 5E Magic Items in D&D Next

In other words, magic items will best adventurers, but so situational rather than universal. In addition, there will be for each of them an aura of mystery and history of their own making them rare and even unique. Basically there is no question of a mundane magical sword +1 too often found after defeating monsters also very interesting in terms of challenge. Unless SM stubbornly keep trying (though not recommended as they might destabilize the whole principle of the flattening of mathematics.)

What do you think?

For my part, I am relatively enthusiasm mainly because it will restore the nobility to the magic and mysterious side it is supposed to maintain. The overabundance of magic items in the game earlier editions tarnished this desired effect of strangeness such as respect or fear that they would normally generated by their supernatural character and legendary. Enthusiasm also as it will cause one less thing that counted on to lend themselves to the performance optimization that is boring. However, this transfer of philosophy about magic items raises some questions in me.

1. What will happen to the art of creating magic items (craft)? In light of what we portrayed Mike Mearls, it is likely that this will become even more inaccessible and abstruse (which I think would be good most of the time). Even the creation of magic items may require very specific esoteric specificities. For example, the crafting of Gorgon armor may need to be soaked in the blood of three of these creatures and to be forged in the midst of a volcanic gas pocket during the time necessary to achieve it (several weeks maybe).

2. If the magic items are rare, the high fantasy style game he will also place? When I speak, high fantasy, I think about the world of Jack Vance where magic abounds in going merchant ship floating in the sky through all the street lights of a city being lit by wisps. To summarize, the game should it necessarily be low fantasy?

3. My last point is not really a question but rather a wish. To make it more unique and fabulous experience to the magic items, I want two things:

a. Advice to their location within an adventure to find that one magic item is original and special. I will always remember when I played MERP, years ago, you could pass whole months of play sessions without finding a single magic item, but also the fascination when it happened. It was a high point in the scenario, a real reward in a hyper-dramatic. It was not commonplace in writing notes for the SM that PCs can find a magic sword by searching the corpses of the robbers gnoll killed. It was more of a after exploring the jungle for weeks and all its perils, you finally manage to find a translucent crystal pyramid and in the center, a demon trapped in temporal stasis holding Kainbûr, the forgotten sword of fallen kings ...

b. That for some magic items, these powers are growing as its possessor up levels or other requirements as related to the narrative, never under the crunch.

Sounds a lot like "If you are playing a level 10+ character in a non-low magic game and you lack a magic item, your DM is probably a jerk"

Anyway, crafting this type of magic items will be weird or impossible now. Generic +X and icy/flamin'/frost items might be the highest PC can craft if some part of items come from charts...

I didn't hear a thing about wishlists or expected character wealth, so this is already sounding like the best approach to magic items we've seen in D&D for 12 years.

I did hear reference to rolling perhaps random histories and things (and generating new abilities), which is also crazy awesome.

It does make me wonder a bit about item building as a character -- that's not something I think we want to take TOTALLY away (what with the dwarves forging magic swords and the elves having mithril and all that), but it is something we could stand to be secondary in comparison to folks discovering awesome treasure.

Kamikaze Midget said:

I didn't hear a thing about wishlists or expected character wealth, so this is already sounding like the best approach to magic items we've seen in D&D for 12 years.

Click to expand...

If you happen to dislike those things, yes. In the context, specifically, of D&D I actually find them very acceptable, but I think they may well be "modulisable", so no biggie.

Kamikaze Midget said:

I did hear reference to rolling perhaps random histories and things (and generating new abilities), which is also crazy awesome.

Click to expand...

Yep, I liked that idea, too. Even if I end up passing on 5e I'll likely steal this bit for 4e.

Kamikaze Midget said:

It does make me wonder a bit about item building as a character -- that's not something I think we want to take TOTALLY away (what with the dwarves forging magic swords and the elves having mithril and all that), but it is something we could stand to be secondary in comparison to folks discovering awesome treasure.

Click to expand...

Other than disagreeing with the last bit, here, I very much agree that crafting is an essential part of the game. Again, though, it could be "modulised", I guess, for the benefit of insecure GMs out there.

I liked this part:


I do something like that - well, exactly like that. Roll to determine the item type; roll to determine its power; roll to determine who made it and why.

That said, my method is very, very crude. I'd like to see what they come up with.

And for fun here's a roll and a random magic item of level... let's say 7:

*roll* +2 Plate Armour of *roll* Awe, made by *roll* Minotaurs for *roll* the Beast Within:
A large suite of +2 plate armour, this was made by minotaurs who worshipped Baphomet. The wearer gains a +2 bonus to checks when he clearly displays his armour and intimidates others with the threat of physical force. When the wearer charges a target, all foes who can see him pull back 10' in terror (+10 vs. Will). (On charge: [Fear] Close Burst 20, foes only, +10 vs. Will, push 2)

GX.Sigma said:

I think that's kinda the point. They're not accounting for magic items when building adventures.

Click to expand...

The point, as has been stated so far, is to not have "a character of level X is assumed to have Y items". That is not the same as completely ignoring items during adventure creation.

Eliminating the former is tricky, but still potentially balanced. But ignoring them entirely? That is inevitably unbalanced.

Anyway, it can't be too hard to adjust a character's effective level based on equipment.

Click to expand...

That's one way they could go in designing the game, but they haven't said anything about this issue. If it's left unaddressed, and pawned off on the DMs to do themselves, I expect it to be very difficult to do.

I've really got mixed feelings for this, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until I see it in play test.

Up to +3 in bonuses (higher for artifacts?)... +'s are still +'s, I'd rather they didn't go that high. When the rogue gets a +3 dagger, he's the weapon master then, not the fighter (especially if all the fighter has is his class +x bonuses to fighting). Getting an item that (with lower stat progression) almost doubles your bonus that's pretty significant... And you can't say that low levels won't have it, because then you're going back to tying magic items to level progression... Up to level 5, you don't have an item, after that characters will have +1's... then at level 10 they will all junk those for +2's, and at level 15 they'll be able to get their hands on +3 items... It doesn't make for "flat math" it just makes for "flatter math" that still will have item expectations so that you aren't laughed at by fellow party members. Why are you still carrying your grandfather's antique sword, instead of using the new shiny +x bonus weapon? I'd only put +'s on the item if there is a reason for it. Why does the mace of smashing inanimate objects make it so much easier to hit the quick and agile goblin? Whereas a heartseeker blade that actually twists in your hand to more directly strike any heat producing creature (not constructs, water elementals, etc..) that makes sense.

Escalating Armor via purchases... Why is the heavy armor wearer the only character that has to level up to get his base stats? If the concept of your class is wear heavy armor and hit things, and you won't be able to actually do half of that for multiple levels? If there are class options, or themes that will give you higher armors at the beginning then this could be a moot point though. Otherwise every other class is equipped with everything they need coming out the door... The fighter though comes out half dressed. This would be like the wizard being able to have 3 different at-will spells, but he'll only know 1. Or the rogue being able to pick locks with the proper tools, but unable to get those tools until a higher level, and still further until he'll get the tools to disarm traps.

These are really negative sounding, but I honestly want to see them in play. Like I said I could see the second one being moot if there are class options/themes/backgrounds that bypass it.

That goes in the direction I've been in since I started GMing.

Nice.

Mearls's article is sounding pretty good to me. Having a system of generating a history for an item (or at least sparking ideas) would be really helpful. Hell, it would have been really helpful dating back to OA and its know history spell. The number of times I had to come up with a quick history on the fly because of that spell... sheesh!

I will come out and say I like items that just provide a plus. I wouldn't mind too much if they appear in relatively mundane ways (albeit for a lot of cash). Limiting the plus to +3 sounds like a perfectly reasonable limit as well. There were very few things that hit that level in 1e. The Holy Avenger and the artifact Sword of Kas were about it for constant bonuses. Some hit that high conditionally, but not for everything. Even the dreaded vorpal sword was only +3.

The most important element of all of this is that a bonus returns to being a bonus rather than a means of keeping pace with the AC of the level-appropriate targets. I whole heartedly support that.

I had hopes that they would do away with the +x items all together. At first look +3 seems like progress, but with the flattened math, the difference between a +1 and +3 will be more significant.

Mike Mearls said:

The bulk of our attention will focus on other items, but we will include the vanilla bonus items in the game to fill that space for DMs who want them. It makes converting material from prior editions much easier, plus if a group wants to use them, who are we to say no?

Click to expand...

You're the game designer, that's who.

D&D is a strange hybrid between story and game, and I want the two to support each other as much as possible. +X items take away from that.

The story teller in me wants to use your nifty +2 dwarven-made demon-hunting sundering rock mace.

The gamer in me realizes that when I find a vanilla +3 mace, I'll switch to that, since it will be better in 99% of fights. (Though I might keep the sundering rock mace in my golf bag of holding just in case I need to smash a tunnel through rock).