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

Balesir · Jul 8, 2012

LostSoul said:
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.)

This is a fine mode of play, and it appeals to me, too. But the problems continue from what you identify, here.

As you say, problem (1) is that the system contains no mechanical support for assessing the risk of a specific route or encounter other than "roll agains INT"... AD&D actually did have some (low level) stuff for this; the Cleric's "Augury" spell, for instance. I am setting up to playtest something very similar as a ritual in my 4e game, in fact - I think it could work very well as a ritual, since that doesn't limit it to the Cleric. Problem (2) feeds straight back to [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION]'s point, though; if you don't have a clear mechanism for the DM to estimate how tough a particular challenge is, how the devil is s/he going to give that information to the players?

LostSoul · Jul 8, 2012

In my 4E hack game I dispense with the illusion and just tell the players the level of the hex. Encounters are based on the level of the hex, so that works. Metagaming is explicitly allowed, since I want to challenge the players.

I like the idea of a ritual - that engages the currency of the game. If I were to drop the idea of explicit metagaming (not likely), I'd use that.

The big problem is that "monster" (re: NPC) content needs to be created with more care than has ever been done in the past. How is one to tell the difference between an AD&D gnoll, ogre, or troll? (I'm not sure dead PCs are a good way of gaining knowledge.) Or a 3E kobold Warrior-1 vs. a kobold Sorcerer-20? (My PC in my current 3.5 game has Permanency-ed Arcane Sight to avoid this problem; although he has a minimum of +10 on all Knowledge checks, that's not good enough.)

Problem number 2: I agree. This is why I think that the method that 3E and 4E use should continue. It's easy enough to use 4E in a way that allows sandbox play - tie rewards to risk instead of party level, i.e. set the treasure parcel (roll, if you're so inclined) to encounter level instead of party level - but it's hard to play AD&D in the "Adventure Path" style of balanced encounters.

So while I appreciate what they're trying to do, I don't think it will work for either style of game.

Aberzanzorax · Jul 8, 2012

Read the article, but not this thread.

Just want to say to WotC that I'm loving what they're doing with magic items!

Minigiant · Jul 8, 2012

"Umm... okay I gave everyone +1 armor and +1 weapons. So an ogre is too weak for there to be a challenge.. right? Uhh... Stone Giant is a stronger big giant, right." :heh:

"Ooops. Everyone died. TPK. My bad."

SkidAce · Jul 8, 2012

Minigiant said:
"Umm... okay I gave everyone +1 armor and +1 weapons. So an ogre is too weak for there to be a challenge.. right? Uhh... Stone Giant is a stronger big giant, right."

"Ooops. Everyone died. TPK. My bad."

We learn from mistakes.

Actually not trying to be flippant here. The DM and the players will learn balance suitable to their play style.

If you make a game that is fool proof in designing encounters, you lose something inherent to the play experience.

Having said that, I do like a framework of guidance and expectations. To be on topic, load up on magic items and you should know you may have to alter the encounter. You learn that through DMing.

/semi off topic - "I' always looked at the items by level for 4E as guidelines anyway. If the players didn't have enough...in comparison to who exactly? Releative to our game...no problems.

Li Shenron · Jul 8, 2012

I don't care much for caps.

A +5 weapon is fine for me, as long as it doesn't work all the time... if it works e.g. only against werewolves then it's perfectly acceptable. So is a +10 weapon that works only against werewolves in hybrid form when it's raining and you are not wearing metal on yourself. So it a +20 weapon that works all the time, but it only works once.

I would like to see more situational magic items that works only if certain conditions are met (the DMG can set many examples so that the DMs gauge some balance and can then make up their own circumstances).

But also I think that it would be interesting to see the concept of charges applied more often to magic items other than those which replicate spells. Thus at least if you make the mistake of letting the PCs find an item that's too good, you know they won't have it forever.

dkyle · Jul 8, 2012

Stalker0 said:
Players don't get magic items because they are supposed to, they get them because its a big event.

OK, so they're not expected by level anymore. Fine. But this doesn't preclude including them in the balanced encounter design rules.

And the DM takes on the responsibility of how the item affects his game when he provides them.

So now the DM has to do the game designer's job, and figure out how to balance the game whenever he wants to include magic items? That does not sound like a good thing.

SkidAce said:
We learn from mistakes.

Actually not trying to be flippant here. The DM and the players will learn balance suitable to their play style.

The ability of the DM and players to fix the game does not excuse WotC selling a sloppy, imbalanced game.

My ability to fix my computer does not excuse Dell sending me a broken one.

My ability to fix my car does not excuse Honda selling me a broken one.

If you make a game that is fool proof in designing encounters, you lose something inherent to the play experience.

In what way? How does having well balanced encounter design rules available to the DM "lose" something? Whatever "thing" the DM wants from their play experience isn't removed by having good rules. A DM that wants something else can always do that. A DM can always, when they gain sufficient system mastery, houserule and adjust as needed, to deviate from the well-balanced rules. Well-balanced rules simply give a solid baseline to start from. Without that, a DM must have high level system mastery to do anything well, just to make the system work at all, not just houserule and adjust the system. That is not a good thing.

/semi off topic - "I' always looked at the items by level for 4E as guidelines anyway. If the players didn't have enough...in comparison to who exactly? Releative to our game...no problems.

The comparison is to the expected party power level assumed by the encounter building rules. Obviously, if you deviate from the rules in one place, that can change how other rules work, and effect the balance of the game. But that rebalancing task should only happen because you chose to change things. Not simply because you want to include magic items in your campaign.

billd91 · Jul 8, 2012

dkyle said:
So now the DM has to do the game designer's job, and figure out how to balance the game whenever he wants to include magic items? That does not sound like a good thing.

The DM always does and always will have to do some of the designers' jobs - that's the nature of RPGs. Good suggestions and guidelines are welcome, of course, but let's not forget that players and DMs will inevitably come up with situations, encounters, actions, whatever, that the designers haven't foreseen.

dkyle said:
The ability of the DM and players to fix the game does not excuse WotC selling a sloppy, imbalanced game.

My ability to fix my computer does not excuse Dell sending me a broken one.

My ability to fix my car does not excuse Honda selling me a broken one.

Depends on the end goal. If the primary end goal is to build a game that incorporates fantasy tropes and enables a group to play though exciting adventures, you can do that and have fun with a game that doesn't value mechanical balance. That's not broken. It's just not producing a game that conforms to your desires. Claiming that it requires "fixing" because it's broken isn't true. It requires modification to match your desires, just like I would have to modify a Honda bought at your typical dealer to do all of the weird off-road shenanigans that they pull on Top Gear. In both of our cases, we might have been better served choosing a product closer to our initial desires in the first place. But in neither case are we "fixing" something broken.

Shadeydm · Jul 8, 2012

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
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.

While I can see your point I have to say that to me those guidelines feel more like shackles. I don't want to feel forced to add a +3 sword of boringness to my game just because the system says at level x my player must have weapons with bonus y or else they won't be hitting at the proper rates or will be underpowered. I've seen it in play where players trade in a +1 weapon that has decent daly power for a plain +2 weapon with no power. Partially that is the games telling you chase that crucial extra plus but partially its just how plain boring the magic items were. Furthermore tying how often you could use a particular magic item's power to how many encounters you've completed/milestones you earned just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. 4E style magic items going the way of the dinosaur is blessing to me.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jul 8, 2012

Shadeydm said:
While I can see your point I have to say that to me those guidelines feel more like shackles. I don't want to feel forced to add a +3 sword of boringness to my game just because the system says at level x my player must have weapons with bonus y or else they won't be hitting at the proper rates or will be underpowered.

Well, the rules don't necessarily have to state it as a must to have a +3 weapon. They can just tell me: "Hey, a +3 weapon is worth about 1,000 extra XP worth of monsters" or some such.

I've seen it in play where players trade in a +1 weapon that has decent daly power for a plain +2 weapon with no power. Partially that is the games telling you chase that crucial extra plus but partially its just how plain boring the magic items were. Furthermore tying how often you could use a particular magic item's power to how many encounters you've completed/milestones you earned just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. 4E style magic items going the way of the dinosaur is blessing to me.

Do you think having encounter building rules taking into account magic items will change this? If the +2 is better than the +1 with flavorful special ability, the +1 with flavorful special ability is still the worse choice! Even if you don't need the +2 to "keep up" with some math of the system, fact is that it's a mathematical bonus that will affect your success in combat, and why not improve your odds? After all, combat is the one thing that can end your character's life before you desired it to end (if you ever were so). And dead people can't use flavorful +1 items either.

They could also just as well get rid of stupid +x weapons. But it seems D&D will never go there. That wouldn't remove all problems, after all, the "flavorful" properties of an item can also be powerful, but the implications are much more situation specific than a bonus to a combat dice roll.