D&D 5E Magic items in D&D Next: Remove them as PC dependant?

[Sunseeker]

Magic items should fall into 3 categories.

1) Common and consumable. (Potions)
2) Frequent use, infrequent utility. 1/day do something cool. (Bags of holding, bag of tricks)
3) Powerful, often wearable, and RARE. Roughly 1 strong item every 3-4 levels.

I think there was some attempt to do this in the past, but I feel that almost everything interesting was almost always in the "wonderous" category. I think Wizards could take a hint from their MTG game design for what can qualify as "common" in relative magical power levels. Being common shouldn't mean it's basically worthless, it should just mean it's common. Can any blackmsith worth their salt make a Masterwork weapon? Yes. That means it's common.

Items with truly magical abilities(on use/on hit/ect..) should always be uncommon, but your generic +1 amulet of protection I think, might not be such.

Perhaps they should simply assign everything gold values and then provide a low/moderate/high magic breakdown of where approximate gold values would place an item. +1 amulet of protection might even be somewhat mundane in a high-magic setting, or incredibly valuable and rare.

As an aside: I'd like to see Wizards expand the list of "everyone can use this" utility items. Simple things that restore some HP, refresh an expended power, provide an extra swift action, ect... There's a whole butt-load of items that are very specific to a certain build or a certain type of character and all that really does is create a lot of bloat.

 

[Khaalis]

I have to say I agree with separating magic items from standard progression. I also don't see it being all that difficult.

For items there could be a set of "Magic Levels" such as:
* No Magic
* Utility Magic (potions, non-combat bonus items)
* Low Combat Magic (+1 to +2 items)
* Intermediate Combat Magic (+3 to +4 items)
* High Combat Magic (+5 items)

This list could be made much more detailed by how you want to break up magic items but this is the common basic idea. It can also be used as individual levels of magic or as a progression of magic (i.e. +2 item bonuses shouldn't be attained until level X), etc.

The core math should be set at the assumption of no Magic. Thus all combat math is based purely on character builds vs. monsters based on no magical bonuses. From there the Monster Manual and/or DMG should state the basics of how to quickly modify encounters based on magic level. Depending on the core math it could be something similar to:
* Low Combat Magic: Increase the AC, Saves and Attacks of each monster by 2.

This would support all levels of magic from None to Monty...

 

[delericho]

In general, I would prefer to see magic items removed as being an assumed part of the build. That's definitely one of the more annoying aspects of the post-3e versions of D&D.

However, if the game keeps magic items at all, there will need to be some assumptions over how many items characters will have at which levels (which presumably will not be "none"). Additionally, some items will always be considered much more desirable than others (in 3e it was the "big six"; 4e took that down to a "big three"... but whatever you do, a magic sword will always be better for a Fighter than a magic wand).

So, I'm not sure just how possible it is to keep items out of the assumptions for the builds.

It might be better to embrace this model - have a bunch of item powers not directly associated with a class, and if a player wishes his character to have a "signature item", "Weapon of Legacy", or whatever, have them buy up the appropriate powers.

Thereafter, any items they get in excess of the ones they have bought are considered short-term resources - they either buy them as powers next time they level up, or they can expect to lose them just as quickly as they got them. (This is basically the same way Mutants & Masterminds handles "battlesuit" heroes.)

And, obviously, a PC who doesn't spend powers on items then doesn't have as many magic items... but that doesn't matter, since he's had the opportunity to spend his powers on other cool things instead.

 

[Recidivism]

I have to say I agree with separating magic items from standard progression. I also don't see it being all that difficult.

For items there could be a set of "Magic Levels" such as:
* No Magic
* Utility Magic (potions, non-combat bonus items)
* Low Combat Magic (+1 to +2 items)
* Intermediate Combat Magic (+3 to +4 items)
* High Combat Magic (+5 items)

This list could be made much more detailed by how you want to break up magic items but this is the common basic idea. It can also be used as individual levels of magic or as a progression of magic (i.e. +2 item bonuses shouldn't be attained until level X), etc.

The core math should be set at the assumption of no Magic. Thus all combat math is based purely on character builds vs. monsters based on no magical bonuses. From there the Monster Manual and/or DMG should state the basics of how to quickly modify encounters based on magic level. Depending on the core math it could be something similar to:
* Low Combat Magic: Increase the AC, Saves and Attacks of each monster by 2.

This would support all levels of magic from None to Monty...

Exactly what I want. (Wish I could XP.)
It's simple and straightforward and allows DMs to choose what they want to do within their campaign, or even to change things up in the middle of the campaign without having to do massive amounts of work.

 

[Starfox]

There are other things to spend gold on then magic items. Also, your comment just shows the mind frame that some of us are talking about. You are expecting to walking around and find magic shops so you can spend your gold, magic items should be found, not bought.

Magic shoppes make sense in some settings, less so in others. While I dislike magic item dependency, I also dislike it even when the DM is the sole provider of magic items, effectively forcing the PCs down certain paths because that's the only kinds of items available.

If my fighter is an ax specialist and we finds lots of magic swords but no axes, that's just unfair, and there are no magic shops to trade for an axe in, that's just unfair.

 

[Khaalis]

If my fighter is an ax specialist and we finds lots of magic swords but no axes, that's just unfair, and there are no magic shops to trade for an axe in, that's just unfair.

IMHO, this scenario is purely a failure on the DM's part, not an issue of whether magic shops should exist or not. Part of the DM's job is to make the game fun for the players and make the PCs feel accomplished while telling a joint story. I personally dislike DMs who think its their job to screw over players, which is exactly what is being done in the above mentioned scenario.

If the DM is providing magic items as treasure then it is their job to provide the players with items they can use. That is not to say that every item has to be for a specific character, but handing out "trash" magic that PCs can't use and can't sell (as in your example above) simply trivializes the point of magic items in the game to the point of "why bother" (unless they are specific plot devices). "Hey, its another +1 Greatsword that no one can use and we can't sell. Just leave it, its not worth carrying."

 

[Mokona]

IMHO, this scenario is purely a failure on the DM's part, not an issue of whether magic shops should exist or not.

In order for the DM to know what kind of weapon I want she would need my magic item wish list.

Wish lists are worse than any problem with magic items I ever encountered in any edition prior to 4e. At least in my experience 4e suffered from lots of wish lists.

 

[Andor]

Past a certain level, I do think magic item dependancy is legitimate.

EG: A powerful demon. It flys, it can throw fire, it can only be harmed by magic or blessed weapons.

This is perfectly valid monster design, and matches fantastic tropes and player expectations.

But if your fighter doesn't have either a magic bow, or a magic weapon and some way to fly you aren't going to beat it, even if its a CR5 demon and you're 20th level.

And that's fine too. Plenty of myths call for specifc magic weapons to beat the baddie. Heck even the Hindu GODS had to switch up weapons some times.

So while I agree magic item charts with exponentially escalating costs that lead to daggers worth more than the entire kingdom are just rediculous, at some point it's just fine to either expect the PCs to have aquired some key pieces of kit, or to have the GM need to be aware of the PCs lack of expected resources so he knows better than to put the flying, blasty, immune demon into his game.

Note that it would be perfectly cool to put that demon in without a way to deal with it in the first enocounter. Maybe the PCs need to run away, do research and try dipping arrows in holy water to work around the blessed blade limit.

 

[grimslade]

Magic Items should be, well, magical. A +1 long sword is not very mythic. It's a sharper sword. Stat boosters and generic boni armor and weapons are boring. If you have the bonus ornaments, you have to set up the Xmas tree and account for those boni in the basic math of character progression.
Let's advance the calendar and take the Xmas tree down. Make magic items more wondrous and less flat. Flaming swords, shields that can grant an aura of protection to allies, wands and other foci that alter at-wills or elemental attacks to a different element. Anything but seeing +2 dagger or +1 leather.
If magical crafters have to infuse a little bit of their life force into each magic item, why would anyone create a slightly better sword? The great Dwarven Smith, beloved by Moradin, forges the mighty Cragbairn, hammer of the Highland Peaks, or in game terms warhammer +2. It's a bit of a let down. If Cragbairn could be a weapon that glowed in the presence of giants, and hit with strength of an avalanche, opponent dazed on a crit, and screams "By Moradin, Glory to the Clans!" when a foe is defeated. That's a weapon worthy of a master smith, a weapon of story and legend. It is statistically weaker than a +2 weapon, but is much more significant.
Less pluses, more story!

 

[Khaalis]

In order for the DM to know what kind of weapon I want she would need my magic item wish list.

Wish lists are worse than any problem with magic items I ever encountered in any edition prior to 4e. At least in my experience 4e suffered from lots of wish lists.

I ran games for decades without ever having a "wish list" but still had a clue what would be useful to each player. That's the DM's job IMO.

I think the problem is in the statement of the DM only giving out what the Player wants. If a player wants a very specific item, that should become a part of the campaign and be researched and quested for. Not just randomly dropped by the DM or bought at Magi-Mart (unless you Really want to run a game where magic is so common items can be bought off the shelf).

I agree that 4E went too far with the personal shopping lists. IMHO, the system became like an MMO where the players "expected" items to drop and that it should be easy to get the exact item they want. Also, IMHO, it shouldn't be that way. Magic items should be more rare, hold more wonder. If the party finds a +2 Flaming Longsword (and assuming the DM put it in the treasure because someone in the party uses longswords) the party member who uses it should be excited to be using it, not have the attitude of "Well that sucks, I wanted a magical Keen blade... guess we have to go trade this in."