D&D 5E Wandering "Monsters": Magic Items

[Dungeoneer]

So, in what way is all that gold a reward? This is not me being snarky, it is an honest question. I often play money-less systems like Feng Shui, and a problem there is that treasure is no longer such a big motivation to adventure.

Buying consumables, purchasing your own castle, bribing guards, paying back student loans...

The sky is the limit. It's MONEY.

Someone somewhere (sorry to be so vague, but I can't remembered) described gold as the player's lever to alter the world. That's pretty cool. If you approach gold as something that can merely be used to buy equipment, then yeah, it's boring. But that's thinking in pretty limited terms.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

(IMO)

No magic settings are hard to do in D&D, you loose half the classes if not more, have no healing and no items.


Low magic settings are a range
at it's lowest I would say every PC has 1 non consumable magic item, and it should be a big deal... Ironicly I would never put a +1 sword in a low magic game, but I might put a +3 defender Longsword in by 5th level... I would also make potions and scrolls rare. Magic items for spell casters would be hard to find.

a more general low magic setting would in my mind be a party of 4 or 5 has less then 10 items, and half of them are weak. I would be much more likely to throw a +1 longsword here...

High magic is a range as well
At one end I would be giving bigger and bader items every game.
at the other end it would involve the magic mart... "Look another Craftsman +1 short sword" and yet more good berry's and another bag of potions of X Y and Z...

 

[billd91]

If the GM doesn't adjust difficulties on his/her side of things, then having a +1 weapon or armour just makes encounters easier, which (typically) makes them less interesting, which isn't really a bonus.

I think that's a very contentious assumption. Easier encounters can remove frustration which will also cause disengagement with the game. Magic items also open new types of encounter and new approaches to encounters that didn't exist before. Give the melee monster boots of flying and now he can engage the manticore zinging tail spikes at the party from the air rather than rely on his too often neglected bow. The encounter will be easier, but the melee monster will actually be more engaged than if he were trying to whittle away with his bow.

As far as items that just give a bonus, it has yet to be my experience that making the game easier by a few points here or there leads to disengagement. And here, we can take a lesson from sports too. Unless you're a fan of a team getting blown out, people generally seem to like games in which the offense is highly successful more than games that are defense-driven. Sports writers may have written negatively about the steroid-days of baseball in the late 1990s and the tainted home run competitions, but the fans ate it up. Homers are exciting, big scores are exciting - no score innings not so much. Successful passes and touchdowns are exciting, punts not so much. Three-point shots and dunks are exciting, zone defenses (as effective as they are) not so much. People like achieving success more than the frustration of failure and a modest application of bonuses, relatively easily managed by adhering to a modest number of magic items not directly accounted for in the encounter math, adds to the game by freely increasing the proportion of success over initial expectations. Directly accounting for them just sticks the PC on the treadmill.

 

[SkidAce]

This logic only applies if you assume the DM calibrates all encounters to the PCs' power level. A different approach is to incorporate a range of monsters and hostile groups in any adventure, from the easily steamrolled to the invincible. The PCs can then choose whether or not to engage a given group of foes. Magic items give them the option to engage enemies they might otherwise have had to avoid.

This is the way.

 

[the Jester]

Well, this goes back to the conversation I'm having with [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION].

If the GM doesn't adjust difficulties on his/her side of things, then having a +1 weapon or armour just makes encounters easier, which (typically) makes them less interesting, which isn't really a bonus.

And if the GM does adjust difficulties (via upping the budget for encounters and/or adventures) then the magic item isn't really a bonus anymore (except in story terms), as the GM-side maths has been adjusted to accommodate it.

It seems to me that this relies on two key assumptions: first, that the pcs ALL have a +1 weapon (or armor, or whatever) at the same time (which certainly doesn't hold true in my campaign!); and second, that all encounters are tailored to the party. While those are fine assumptions for some games, they are absolutely not universal.

 

[Mistwell]

Is there something wrong with the pricing of Efreeti Chain in the playtest? Efreeti chain is Rare, which is priced at 500 to 5000 gp. But it seems to be strictly better than plate - it gives the same AC, plus a bunch of other circumstantial buffs. It looks to me like it should be Very Rare (5000 gp to 10000 gp). Or are anti-magic fields ubiquitous enough that you can't really count on keeping that +2?

Yes, I agree. Should be very rare.

Defender sword should probably be Legendary.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It seems to me that this relies on two key assumptions: first, that the pcs ALL have a +1 weapon (or armor, or whatever) at the same time (which certainly doesn't hold true in my campaign!); and second, that all encounters are tailored to the party. While those are fine assumptions for some games, they are absolutely not universal.

my problem is take 2 parties of 10th level (your ed of choice) both are Human fighter, Elven Wizard, Dwarven Cleric and Half elf rouge(thief whatever) both have good above average stats...

group 1 has a +2 greatsword, a +1 holy hammer, 3 +2 daggers, +1 full plate, +1 shadowed leather, +2 chain, and +2 cloth armor, and 2 rings of protection, 4 magic amulates and a dozen potions and scrolls, a pearl of power level 4, and a ring of wizardry 2, and 10 wands (one a cure crit wounds) all of them have 20+ charges left, belt of giant str(+4), gloves of dex(+2), head band of int (+2), and perift of wis(+4).

group 2 has a +1 Defender Longsword, a +1 acid dagger, + 1 scale armor, and bracers of armor (worst in game) a wand of cure light with 9 charges left

those groups have very very different capabilities and could easily mean one could curb stomp an encounter that would TPK the other...

 

[Mistwell]

I can buy it for magic spells because magic spells are an internal part of a character's power -- they're promised resources to use, that the character themselves gains.

Magic items are external, and not an assumed part of a character's power, so a limit makes a lot less sense for me there. It's like saying that PC's can only have 1,000 GP per level, or only stay at 3 different inn rooms or something. These aren't things that need to be mediated strictly by the rules, and it feels arbitrary to me.

I think becoming attuned to a magic item before it will fully function for you has as much or more precedent in fantasy literature as Vancian casting does. Usually it's portrayed as exercising your willpower over the sword, which resists it's new master. Which I suspect is why the optional rule is "max Charisma modifier" of attuned magic items, instead of three.

 

[billd91]

my problem is take 2 parties of 10th level (your ed of choice) both are Human fighter, Elven Wizard, Dwarven Cleric and Half elf rouge(thief whatever) both have good above average stats...

<snip>

those groups have very very different capabilities and could easily mean one could curb stomp an encounter that would TPK the other...

Suppose that the groups have identical equipment, but group 1 is made up of experienced gamers, well-versed in the rules, and group 2 is made up of relative newbies. Those groups have very different capabilities as well and could easily mean one curb stomps an encounter that would TPK the other. How do you handle balance then?

My answer is pretty much the same for either, whether it's equipment, player experience, powerful builds, weak builds, or anything else. The game's a toolkit and can handle groups with those factors (granted, there are problems with mixing radically opposing factors in the game group) with GM involvement and care. If the game's a low-magic game, the opposition should also be relatively low magic - from magic powers to magic abilities needed to kill, and so on. If the group is fully of newbies, don't throw the most complex opponent at them. If they are experienced and well-equipped, dial up the danger.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Suppose that the groups have identical equipment, but group 1 is made up of experienced gamers, well-versed in the rules, and group 2 is made up of relative newbies. Those groups have very different capabilities as well and could easily mean one curb stomps an encounter that would TPK the other. How do you handle balance then?

My answer is pretty much the same for either, whether it's equipment, player experience, powerful builds, weak builds, or anything else. The game's a toolkit and can handle groups with those factors (granted, there are problems with mixing radically opposing factors in the game group) with GM involvement and care. If the game's a low-magic game, the opposition should also be relatively low magic - from magic powers to magic abilities needed to kill, and so on. If the group is fully of newbies, don't throw the most complex opponent at them. If they are experienced and well-equipped, dial up the danger.

I agree equipment is one (of many) way that CR breaks down and needs good advice in the DMG to insure that things run smoothly.

back when 3e was new We ran the sunless citadel for a group of 3 PC (small group) and it was hard but fun... year later in 3.5 I played through it with a group of 4 (so average group) we curb stomped it... yea we had one more player but we also had way better builds and more used to the system, and 3 out of 4 of us where playing classes that didn't exsist last time...

[Sblock=characters] 1st time we played we had a Teifling (LA+1) Rogue 1, a Human Fighter 2, and a Half Elf Ranger 1 Sorcerer 1 as my PCs

2nd time I was a Human Warlock 1/Warblade 1, we had a lesser assimar (LA+0) Archivist 2, an ELan Psion 2, and a changling rogue 2[/sblock]