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

Lanefan · Jul 3, 2012

SkidAce said:
I'm not sure rings of protection stacked with armor in early editions.

They did not; and disallowing various types of protective devices from stacking is the quickest way to keep AC in check.

EDIT: Looking at the 1e DMG, Rings of Protection did not stack with *magical* armour (nor with each other) but it seems they did stack with ordinary armour. I guess we must have houseruled they did not stack with any armour at all...

Lanefan

Dragongrief · 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.

I think the easiest way to deal with that is have shields be "effects/powers only" for magic.

That would add 15% to the hit chance. And a 40% hit against someone who has geared up for defense rather than offense sounds about right to me.

Remathilis · Jul 3, 2012

Lanefan said:
They did not; and disallowing various types of protective devices from stacking is the quickest way to keep AC in check.

EDIT: Looking at the 1e DMG, Rings of Protection did not stack with *magical* armour (nor with each other) but it seems they did stack with ordinary armour. I guess we must have houseruled they did not stack with any armour at all...

Lanefan

Rings of protection did not work with magical armor or shield; you took the higher of the two.

Cloaks of protection did not stack with magical OR metal armor. Leather or no armor only.

The two DID stack with each other though. And with Bracers of Armor.

Philousk · 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.

A rogue with 18 in dexterity may have a better AC if he wears a +3 magical mithral chain and a +3 magical heavy shield. Total : 27.

Lanefan said:
EDIT: Looking at the 1e <acronym title="Dungeon Master's Guide" style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(17, 17, 17); ">DMG</acronym>, Rings of Protection did not stack with *magical* armour (nor with each other) but it seems they did stack with ordinary armour.

Indeed, the 1e <acronym title="Dungeon Master's Guide" style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(17, 17, 17); ">DMG</acronym> states that Rings of Protection, Bracers of Defense, Cloak of Protection did not stack with magical armor, but it is possible to wear a pair of Gauntlets of Dexterity (+1 dex if the holder has a dex 14 and up) and increase the thief abilities.

nomotog · Jul 3, 2012

dkyle said:
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.

I find it desirable because when you take the burden of balance off on money, you open up a lot of options. You can have a king and a pauper in the same party, you can let your players sell items for a profit, or maybe go the other way and let your players spend gobs of money on vanity projects all without having a drastic effect on balance.

I don't think they are taking that last step because they still want to use money to balance out the different armors. Also even if they don't expect you to have magic weapons, a +3 is still a rather big bonus and your going to have to take that into account. (Maybe they will add level adjustments to magic items.)

I still think gear should give you bonuses. I just think the bonuses should be in the form of intangibles rather then a flat bonuses to your core power. A dagger that also acts as lockpick is fine, but a dagger that gives you a +3 to attack and damage is not as fine.

billd91 · Jul 3, 2012

Agamon said:
They do. Type stacking wasn't a thing until 3e.

The stacking and non-stacking of modifiers was largely a way to reproduce the quirky stacking rules of magic armor with rings and cloaks of protection (as well as bless and prayer) but in a more systematic way.

Neonchameleon · Jul 3, 2012

Nice to see something being kept from 4e

It's just the formatting that's changing from the way I run 4e - once you're on inherent bonusses you might as well drop the plus for all practical purposes and just use other effects. And I don't fully let PCs identify non-common items always.

Ratskinner · Jul 3, 2012

dkyle said:
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 don't think so, and actually disagree with the premise that it needs done at all. I don't recall having any great issues with it in back in AD&D. I ran and played both high and low magic campaigns, no problem. Having a "ruled in" expectation like 4e or even a covert one like 3e seems to do more harm than its worth by locking in playstyle, IMO.

Now, I do think that they should have a discussion about it in DMG (or wherever) so that groups can tailor their campaigns to their desired playstyle.

jmucchiello · Jul 3, 2012

One flaw with the article "Magic items strictly make you better." FAIL. Magic items should have downsides to go along with their powers. The article talks about a gorgon helmet that grants immunity to petrification and poison and adds a gore attack. So why wouldn't you want this item? Why doesn't it including a berserker reaction in battle? Or perhaps it makes you destroy soft materials (cloth, rope, leather) and edible items stored on your body for 24 hours (they become partially petrified and crumble into dust when disturbed).

That would be magic items made interesting.

dkyle · Jul 3, 2012

Ratskinner said:
I don't think so, and actually disagree with the premise that it needs done at all. I don't recall having any great issues with it in back in AD&D. I ran and played both high and low magic campaigns, no problem. Having a "ruled in" expectation like 4e or even a covert one like 3e seems to do more harm than its worth by locking in playstyle, IMO.

Now, I do think that they should have a discussion about it in DMG (or wherever) so that groups can tailor their campaigns to their desired playstyle.

AD&D doesn't have balanced encounter building rules. It is completely left to the DM (or whatever tables the DM decides to use). So magic items don't "break" anything, because there's nothing to break.

If we don't have encounter-building (or at least adventure-building) rules in 5E that are at least as solid and robust as 4E's, then 5E will have utterly failed at its promise to unite all the editions. Without 1) assuming a magic item progression by level, 2) incorporating a party's magic items into encounter building, or 3) making magic items pure fluff, I don't see how 5E can possibly succeed at the goals that have been stated for it.

Does assumed item progression lock in a particular playstyle? No, I don't think it does. Because "availability of magic items" is not a component of playstyle. That is part of the fluff of a campaign setting. "Balanced encounters" vs. "whatever the DM thinks would logically show up" vs. "whatever shows up on the random tables" is playstyle. And without robust encounter building rules, the "balanced encounters" playstyle is locked out, at least not without forcing the DM to play game designer and suss out game balance themselves. Which is difficult, and therefor what I pay game designers to do for me.

On the other hand, assumed progressions are quite easy to adapt to different campaign fluff preferences. Just apply the assumed bonuses as inherent bonuses. As suggested in 4E. And there you have it: both low and high magic item availability campaign settings are supported equally well.