D&D (2024) 2024 needs to end 2014's passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items & other elements from d&d

[Minigiant]

have no problem with magic items. 5e provides so many built in choices—at least for some classes—I find I don’t care about them quite as much

A although stated that magic items are not needed in the math for combat, 5e's game replicates a style that assumes magic items. This means it does not factor in magic items even thtough it copies a game that should.

For example saves. 5e copies 3e style saves with major save weaknesses but doesn't assume that PCs and monsters have the magic items that boosts saves like in 3e.

Or magic weapons and armor. Without required magic loot, another form of game reward is needed for play. But one isn't given.

And the DM is not told any of this nor aided in the process.

 

[aco175]

I still find that items have a role to play in the game. Mostly since players love them. My table gets all excited if I say there is a random item and someone rolls on the chart to see what it is. There is a big difference between getting a chest of gold and a bag of gold plus a random goodie.

I would be more in favor of an alternative where PCs skip the +2/+1 or extra feat at creation and the DM play a more magic campaign. It does seem that the power creep in the game now is pushing items out further. I know the argument is that it is more player facing choices and his PC over the DM having control and playing with the dials of PC choices. I get that, but also think that items are a bigger part of the game than some think- heck they just came out with a book telling everyone how to use one of the biggest campaign breaking items in the game.

 

[James Gasik]

The original sin of D&D with magic items was the invention of the "+1 weapon." This is not an interesting concept, it's a math fix masquerading as treasure. No one ever wrote a story about the wonders of a +1 weapon. It's a problem when players want magic items not because they're interesting, but because they're needed to make your character viable.
5e made the correct choice to make magic items non-necessary for progression, but they still kept those +X items around, so I do feel they could still do a lot more to make magic items interesting, and give much better guidance for creating, selling, and buying them.

The thing is though, and this is the weird part...if you look at earlier versions of D&D, there wasn't really any need for a math fix. Super low AC's were actually kind of rare, and for warrior types, the bulk of their ability to strike foes came from levels, not magic items.

I have some high level AD&D characters, and the hit chance for some is downright silly, to the point that they almost never miss. So why do I need a +3 magic weapon?

Well, it comes down to three things, as I see it (I'm talking about bonuses to hit here, as bonuses to damage certainly make sense if your foes keep getting tougher and you have no or few innate way(s) to increase damage).

First, not every character was a warrior. If you're a Cleric or a Thief, you're expected to enter melee, but you're just not as good at it. So for these classes, it is kind of a math fix. It's worth noting that in 4e and 5e, this is no longer a factor.

Second, it was a way to "tier" magic weapons. Some enemies need +1 to hit. Others +2. Still others +3, and so on. This is also a relic of the past, as it's not terribly good game design, when you get right down to it. Sure, needing a legendary weapon to tackle a legendary foe makes sense from a narrative perspective, but it just means that at some point, your perfectly good magic weapon has to be traded for the newer better model even if it was mostly working just fine.

And finally....I think pushing warriors into "almost always hits" was intended. When you're attacking twice a turn and all you do as a class is make attack rolls, without a lot of ability to do anything else in combat, missing just feels like a complete waste of a turn. So why not push warriors into the stratosphere for hit chance? Of course, this could have been better modeled if that was the intent, but if the designers had a problem with this, they would have fixed it back in the dawn times, I would think.

 

[Reef]

"Why doesn't the dm make the call?" is a very different topic...

• How does that relate to obvious failures like the PHB not actually including a section to explain attunement & the character sheet not even including an area for recording magic items or current attunement?
• How does that relate to the way that system leans on the implied existence of body slots on dmg141 & elsewhere while not actually naming them or including anywhere on the sheet for them?
• How does that relate to a complete lack of rules for containers other than their capacity?

The trouble described in the OP is obvious & glaring omissions that do little beyond potentially saving someone from saying "we aren't going to use $specificSubsystem/rule this game" not a lack of choices.

Why should the PHB have rules for magic items? Wouldn’t that straight jacket DMs? In this thread, we’ve seen people who want loads of magic items, some who want minimal, and some in between. Some have wanted both, in different campaigns. Lots of talk about maintaining ‘wonder’.

By keeping the rules in the DMG, the DM is free to choose. Ditch Attunement and hand them out like candy. Enforce it to add limits. Change it up to add wonder. By putting those rules in the PHB, you make it one step harder for DMs to adjust that. I’ve seen people already claiming that 5e gives players too much power and entitlement (I don’t agree, but there you go). Putting explicit magic item rules in the PHB would surely make those people even angrier.

As for the lack of Attunement on the character sheets, two thoughts: One, putting it on the sheet hand-ties the DM into using it, whether they choose to or not. Two, does it really need its own section? I mean, maybe it’s just because I come from an era before internet, printers, or even easy access to photocopiers, but we almost always used to just write our own sheets on lined paper. And if we needed to indicate something like Attunement, well, those items would probably just get marked with an asterisk in our equipment list.

And I admit I’m still totally flummoxed why you think there needs to be a whole section devoted to how and where each piece of equipment is carried. Does anyone actually do that? I mean, it seems to be common for a lot of groups to handwave encumbrance completely. I can’t imagine there is a large percentage that not only tracks exact weight, but also mandates itemizing how and where each piece is stored. I don’t doubt there may be some, but enough to make an entirely new official character sheet for? With special container rules?

 

[Horwath]

And finally....I think pushing warriors into "almost always hits" was intended. When you're attacking twice a turn and all you do as a class is make attack rolls, without a lot of ability to do anything else in combat, missing just feels like a complete waste of a turn. So why not push warriors into the stratosphere for hit chance? Of course, this could have been better modeled if that was the intent, but if the designers had a problem with this, they would have fixed it back in the dawn times, I would think.

True,
relatively high precision is making weapon users feel that they can contribute every turn, same as most spells have some effect even on successful save or missed attack.

Even miss with weapons can be made useful somewhat similar to graze mastery.
and with that, modification of Criticals:

Hit: normal damage
Miss by 5 or less: deal 50% attack damage and can't trigger any on hit modifiers(sneak attack, smite, maneuvers)
Hit by 5 or more: add +50% to total damage
Hit by 10 or more: add +100% to total damage
Hit by 15 or more: add +150% to total damage
Hit by 20 or more: add +200% to total damage

this would make attack rolls and attack bonuses more meaningful,
now if you have 70% hit chance, roll of 7 and roll of 19 is completely the same, only 20 is different

with this variant it's:

1: compete miss, 0 damage
2,3,4,5,6; graze, 50% damage
7,8,9,10,11: Normal hit, base damage
12,13,14,15,16: +50% damage
17,18,19,20: "crit", +100% damage.

 

[Shardstone]

Martial classes should just flatout have magic item options built into their classes. Most monsters in T2 and above have either resistance or immunity to non-magic damage. That's why a bunch of classes and subclasses get a 6th level feature to turn their attacks magical.

A fighter gaining a cool magic sword at 6th level, a barbarian, etc etc is thematically appropriate, and the game DOES EXPECT that you have magic items by mid T2. Anyone who doesn't believe that is ignoring the huge amount of monsters that require magic items to hurt, and the abundance of class features based around this concept.

 

[James Gasik]

Martial classes should just flatout have magic item options built into their classes. Most monsters in T2 and above have either resistance or immunity to non-magic damage. That's why a bunch of classes and subclasses get a 6th level feature to turn their attacks magical.

A fighter gaining a cool magic sword at 6th level, a barbarian, etc etc is thematically appropriate, and the game DOES EXPECT that you have magic items by mid T2. Anyone who doesn't believe that is ignoring the huge amount of monsters that require magic items to hurt, and the abundance of class features based around this concept.

Shoot there's monsters in Tier 1 with resistance to nonmagical weapons.

 

[Minigiant]

Martial classes should just flatout have magic item options built into their classes. Most monsters in T2 and above have either resistance or immunity to non-magic damage. That's why a bunch of classes and subclasses get a 6th level feature to turn their attacks magical.

A fighter gaining a cool magic sword at 6th level, a barbarian, etc etc is thematically appropriate, and the game DOES EXPECT that you have magic items by mid T2. Anyone who doesn't believe that is ignoring the huge amount of monsters that require magic items to hurt, and the abundance of class features based around this concept.

The issue is 5e didn't make a system where magic items weren't not "necessary" since it copied editions that required magic items.

 

[Undrave]

No, we prefer to play low / no magic item D&D so I want that to remain. I could see improved guidance for incorporating magic items, but I am really happy with the no need for magic items in 5e

If the game wants magic items to be option, then it should remove resistance to non-magical weapons as a core rule. As long as monsters that can only be hurt by magic weapons exist, then we're only kidding ourself if we saw we can play with no magic items.

I also think it's time DnD admits that GOLD is really just a different kind of XP and that you should be able to use it as an another axis of improvement and customization.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why should the PHB have rules for magic items? Wouldn’t that straight jacket DMs?

Yes. That's why they should be in the PH.