D&D 5E Magic Items in D&D Next

Lord Mhoram · Jul 2, 2012

I like this approach, but it does bring back one possibility -

Monty Haul games.

Not that I mind those too much - I'd rather be overpowered than under any day.

I always found that if I underestimated the abilities of the party too often a couple of magic items brought them up to par. And when playing, extra magic items went a long way towards balancing a smaller party going through a published module.

I see +1 and +2 taking the place of +1-+4 in later editions, with the +3 being as common as a +5 is these days (i.e not much).

I love the approach and am very happy with it.

Philousk · Jul 2, 2012

I wonder what are the rules for scrolls and potions that are usually much more common than other types of magic item. I also assume it will be much easier to conceive (craft). As an ability of a theme perhaps?

Crazy Jerome · Jul 2, 2012

Really happy about the +3 cap. That is something I've wanted for ages. It does imply a small amount of expected magic items in some games, but the thing is, it is fairly manageable. Let's say that you want a low-magic game, but still hand out a few items. Assume 20 levels. OK, you delay given out those +1 weapons as long as possible, and then likewise with +2. You never get to +3. So yeah, you had to hand out those weapons, but that's two weapons over the course of 20 levels. And if it really bothers you in a completely low-magic game, you can always just give a blanket +1 to hit at level 10 or so instead, and let the characters deal with it.

Or in other words, making the DM and group account for a +2 bonus over the course of 20 levels, somehow, even if only a tougher game than normal, is a small price to pay for keeping the traditional magic items. When you start looking at +5, +6, +10 over a similar spread, the differences are too great to ignore or finesse.

On the issue of people wanting new equipment more frequently, that's easy to handle. You start with a fairly vanilla +1 weapon, and then later you hand out a slightly better, more interesting one. At some point, you can have them find weapons that aren't necessarily better, but just different. You never know what kind of special abilities will spark interest. The only real drawback there is characters hoarding a golf bag for the special abilities. However, once you've reached the point where a character has a golf bag, any "nice DM" inclinations against breaking, stealing, etc. equipment are pretty much nullified. Be as "Rat Bastard DM" as you want, since you were nice enough to let them have multiples in the first place.

ZombieRoboNinja · Jul 2, 2012

I think they might as well go the rest of the way and get rid of +2 and +3 items. Make "magic" items a blanket +1 to hit/damage (or AC for armor), with any extra bonuses part of the unique item description. (So a "magic crossbow" is a +1 crossbow, but you could have a "seeking crossbow" that still gave +1 hit/damage for being magic, and an extra +2 to hit as a unique bonus.)

The upside of this is that it eliminates the need for the technical-sounding "+1" or "+3" in front of each magic item. (The downside, of course, is that items won't sound as "old-school.")

EDIT: And since they've re-added pre-4e saving throws for spells alongside 4e-style bonuses from implements, if they DO have +3 implements in the game, there should be fairly common magical items with +saves (or at least +saves vs. spells). Otherwise, spells that attack AC will gradually become less accurate than spells with saves, as AC, attack bonuses, and spell save DCs scale and saves don't.

nomotog · Jul 2, 2012

Is it too much to ask for a system where money/gear is not big power factor. I think we are getting close, but they don't seem to be able to go that last step.

dkyle · Jul 2, 2012

nomotog said:
Is it too much to ask for a system where money/gear is not big power factor. I think we are getting close, but they don't seem to be able to go that last step.

First, why should that be desirable? Why is it bad for gear to matter? It's a huge part of fantasy. And those past editions of DnD they're so keen to recapture.

But second, they are going that last step. The system is designed without magic items. It'll be balanced (or at least, they'll attempt to balance it) without magic items. Just ignore their existence, and you've got your wish fulfilled just as effectively as if they didn't publish them at all.

GX.Sigma · Jul 2, 2012

I wonder if the +3 cap is too high for armor. Using the current playtest armor rules:

A Fighter wearing +3 Adamantine armor and a +3 heavy shield is going to have AC 26. If there are rings of protection, probably more.

Attack bonuses (when not assisted by magic) are ability modifiers plus a 'proficiency' bonus of 1 or 2. That's +6, assuming an 18 in the attack stat. Ergo, a non-supernatural combatant can hit our heavily armored friend only on a natural 20. That sounds just about right.

But if the attacker is similarly maxed out, he would have a 20 in his attack stat, and a +3 weapon. That works out to +10, meaning he can hit AC 26 on a 16 or higher (25% chance to hit). In other words, the best possible armor is better than the best possible weapon.

john112364 · Jul 3, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
I wonder if the +3 cap is too high for armor. Using the current playtest armor rules:

A Fighter wearing +3 Adamantine armor and a +3 heavy shield is going to have AC 26. If there are rings of protection, probably more.

Attack bonuses (when not assisted by magic) are ability modifiers plus a 'proficiency' bonus of 1 or 2. That's +6, assuming an 18 in the attack stat. Ergo, a non-supernatural combatant can hit our heavily armored friend only on a natural 20. That sounds just about right.

But if the attacker is similarly maxed out, he would have a 20 in his attack stat, and a +3 weapon. That works out to +10, meaning he can hit AC 26 on a 16 or higher (25% chance to hit). In other words, the best possible armor is better than the best possible weapon.

This may be true with what we know so far, but that assumes the attacks never go up at all. I believe that is has been said that with the flat math attacks will not go up much, they'll just do more damage. That doesn't mean they'll never go up, just slower. And who knows what other tricks a high level character may pick up along the way.