D&D 5E Magic Items in D&D Next
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
I like most of this in concept ... though I'd like the ability to have only bonused items be mundane, such that a +1 longsword is a masterwork item without any magic. Unique magic items is definitely where I want the system to be. A +1 mace isn't unique; a mace of smiting is.
That said, I think I have to reserve judgment until we see the rules for bonus stacking. Depending on how the stacking rules work, +5 enhancements can be just fine (e.g. if the maximum addition from all sources is +5) or +3 enhancements can break the game (if we're back to 3E's multiple "types" of bonus, all of which can stack, so that +3 adds with a bunch of other items to net +13).
Magic items aren't a game module that can be evaluated in isolation, unfortunately.
That said, I think I have to reserve judgment until we see the rules for bonus stacking. Depending on how the stacking rules work, +5 enhancements can be just fine (e.g. if the maximum addition from all sources is +5) or +3 enhancements can break the game (if we're back to 3E's multiple "types" of bonus, all of which can stack, so that +3 adds with a bunch of other items to net +13).
Magic items aren't a game module that can be evaluated in isolation, unfortunately.
FireLance
Legend
Indeed. For now, the relevant equation (at least for me) seems to be:
Bounded accuracy + the common game assumption that the longer the characters are played, the more magic items they will have => the game gets easier and easier over time UNLESS the DM corrects for the additional power gained from magic items.
Math is math. To me, for groups that are interested in having balanced encounters (I recognize that there are groups who are not) the only difference between this and the "magic item treadmill" is that instead of having a motor, the DM needs to physically turn the crank. (Mind you, even with the so-called "magic item treadmill", the DM can always adjust encounters to make them as easy or as difficult as he wants, whether or not the PCs have the standard amount of gear, but it seems to me that this point is almost always glossed over).
It's just one more reason why I don't particularly like the philosophy of bounded accuracy.
LostSoul
Adventurer
There's another option: the players can choose the level of risk they are willing to face. The DM's job in this case is to provide an interesting setting that contains various levels of risk and some way for the players to learn about that risk; he doesn't need to worry about balancing an encounter for the party. (I doubt there will be much support for how to provide information other than some kind of check. Oh well.)
Blackwarder
Adventurer
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
The article says "We want magic items to make you strictly better, rather than allow you to keep pace with the game," ...
which is strictly impossible, unless you play in Lake Wobegon. The average PC can't be above average.
Such stupidity from the game designers does not bode well, but some of the things that are mentioned in the article do sound promising, such as the random histories and weird powers for magic items.
What we need is a well-defined system for magic item creation that justifies why you are better off making a weird item instead of just a useful one.
As for + items, perhaps the solution is to limit them in other ways. Sure, you can make a plain +5 sword. But it's much cheaper to make a 'straining sword +5', which does 5 damage to the wielder whenever he chooses to use the +5 bonus for a round (or whatever).
which is strictly impossible, unless you play in Lake Wobegon. The average PC can't be above average.
Such stupidity from the game designers does not bode well, but some of the things that are mentioned in the article do sound promising, such as the random histories and weird powers for magic items.
What we need is a well-defined system for magic item creation that justifies why you are better off making a weird item instead of just a useful one.
As for + items, perhaps the solution is to limit them in other ways. Sure, you can make a plain +5 sword. But it's much cheaper to make a 'straining sword +5', which does 5 damage to the wielder whenever he chooses to use the +5 bonus for a round (or whatever).
I don't like +X items. Don't see any need for them. If you've got a flaming sword, you've got a flaming sword, I don't understand why it needs to be +X. The bonus just burdens the system with one more mathematical doodad. Same with armor, neck items, what have you. I don't mind items having levels, so the DM knows around what level the item would be appropriate for a character. But I do not want to deal with +X.
I think the big difference between this mindset and the 3e/4e mindset is that magic items are back in the DMs hands.
Players don't get magic items because they are supposed to, they get them because its a big event. And the DM takes on the responsibility of how the item affects his game when he provides them.
Another worry...
Bounded Accuracy + Magic Items not included in the math = "Encounter by the Rules" are dumb easy
If the young adult White Dragon is supposed to be a challenge for a 4 man party of 10 heroes, giving every hero 2 magic items might throw the battle closer to the curb-stomp variety. If Rick the Rogue has a +1 dragontooth dagger, a circlet of the Pyromancer Flamor, and hide armor the manticore instead of a mundane dagger and leather, the DM might be it for a surprise if the game doesn't warn him or her.
It is probably easy enough to fix with magic items counting as level adjustments or something. But it if it doesn't, the XP values and tables could wind up as wasted book space.
Bounded Accuracy + Magic Items not included in the math = "Encounter by the Rules" are dumb easy
If the young adult White Dragon is supposed to be a challenge for a 4 man party of 10 heroes, giving every hero 2 magic items might throw the battle closer to the curb-stomp variety. If Rick the Rogue has a +1 dragontooth dagger, a circlet of the Pyromancer Flamor, and hide armor the manticore instead of a mundane dagger and leather, the DM might be it for a surprise if the game doesn't warn him or her.
It is probably easy enough to fix with magic items counting as level adjustments or something. But it if it doesn't, the XP values and tables could wind up as wasted book space.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Hero
What if the DM doesn't want that responsibility? What if he just thinks his players will enjoy getting the occasional magic item but he doesn't want to figure out how it affects game challenges on his own, but simply wants the system to tell him what the effect will be?
4E is a great game for a lazy DM like me. I don't need to figure out how much magic items will change gameplay, the system tells me what I need to give out so it works. It's still seems like a unnecessary hoop to jump through, but okay, if i stick with the base assumption, I can just use the levels and XP values of the monsters and build an interesting combat that I know is easy, moderate, difficult or probably impossible for my players.
It doesn't remove the possiblity that in the end my players decide whether the want to tackle these challenges. But if I want to give them some meaningful info that tells them if a challenge is risky or not, I can also use the aforementioned information to guide my narration.
I like bounded accuracy. But it only works really well if they get rid of +x items - or at least give us an idea how that will affect combat challenge.sFirelance said:
Similar Threads
