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

[Irlo]

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.

Creatures with resistance to non-magic weapons CAN be hurt by them.

 

[Reef]

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

You want DMs to be limited? Is that right?

I’m sorry, but to me, the fact that the DM has the freedom to customize the feel of their own game is one of the strengths of the hobby. Just in this thread alone, there’s been a huge variance in the desire for the type and scope of magic items. Why should the rules enforce just one style?

I don’t think locking the game down to one specific play style makes for a stronger game. I think the ability to alter the setting, not only within each group, but also from campaign to campaign is a strength. But that’s obviously my own personal opinion.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You want DMs to be limited? Is that right?

I’m sorry, but to me, the fact that the DM has the freedom to customize the feel of their own game is one of the strengths of the hobby. Just in this thread alone, there’s been a huge variance in the desire for the type and scope of magic items. Why should the rules enforce just one style?

I don’t think locking the game down to one specific play style makes for a stronger game. I think the ability to alter the setting, not only within each group, but also from campaign to campaign is a strength. But that’s obviously my own personal opinion.

I think locking that ability to a single actor in a cooperative game doesn't make for a stronger game.

 

[Reef]

I think locking that ability to a single actor in a cooperative game doesn't make for a stronger game.

I’m not trying to enshrine the DM as a dictator. Obviously they need to get the buy-in of the entire group. But I guess I’m just more old-school than I thought.

Someone has to create the setting and the game. That requires a certain amount of latitude.

 

[nevin]

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.

NO and Yes but not just gold. They need to admit that magical items give the DM the ability to scale parties, individual characters and even monsters to make things more even, (or uneven), and quit the whole stupid war on magic items group think.

 

[tetrasodium]

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?

I came close to responding to this point of yours when you first made it earlier but couldn't be sure if the question you made them was serious or sarcastic parody of its point. Your posts since suggest that it was not parody as suspected but it provides such a stellar example of the hostility through omission . Back in 2014 those omissions were almost certainly some form of accident, having them remain untouched nine years later is the result of a choice to keep them & your example shows how the chain of omissions combines to pressure a certain result.

Your assertion seems to be that by not including a section on the character sheet for players to simply have the ability to record magic items they are given & how their attunement slots are used wotc has made life easier for GMs who wish to not use those two sheet elements. The amount of work needed for a GM to say things like "don't use that sheet this game" or "don't worry about attunement this game" is near zero since it only requires the simple statement. Going the other way however is a significant burden.

Spoiler: Here's the burden

• The amount of work for a GM to teach attunement to players is significantly more going by wordcount alone.
• By not having an entry describing it in the PHB the GM becomes the single point of reference for how attunement works if a player forgets or feels they need to double check
• By not having an area on the character sheet to record magic items a player is incapable of doing so if they obtain some without cluttering some other section already used for a different purpose
• By not having anywhere on the character sheet to record attunement the GM must accept that attunement can be treated as a quantum state for PCs . Changing that is not always a simple matter of writing on spare paper because digital sheets are often the norm today.
  • A PDF editor is not something most people have access to & they are not easy to use for the average (or below average) computer user. Even if the GM does adding to a PDF is difficult without blank space because of how PDF works.
  • Even if the GM makes a new sheet with sections that would allow their players to record attunement & magic items it's not a trivial matter to copy or transcribe everything out of one PDF/printed sheet onto another PDF/printed sheet. When the alternative is someone saying "don't use that section" that not simple could even be fairly extreme by comparison.
• The back of a digital sheet like a PDF or some app is often the back of a phone tablet or laptop LCD. Writing on the back of that is an obviously unreasonable and pointless solution.
• By choosing not to include a defined set of body slots or similar on top of the above wotc creates a scenario where a GM who wants their players to record magic items & attunement usage will face difficulties finding a community created sheet that fills the need wotc as the d&d publisher has chosen not to fill over the last nine or so years.

Supporting options rather than trying to pressure one particular choice needs to ask questions like "is one of these more significantly burdened if we design for the other?". Once those types of questions are asked it becomes possible to weigh the level of work involved for each choice if the design favors the other. Obviously from the above wildly disparate workloads your example benefit is one where the answer is yes very much so. The next question the design can ask if supporting choices is desirable would be if supporting the easier choice can be done easily with a brief sentence of advice or sidebar if the more involved choice is supported, again the answer is yes.

If we trace those two questions through magic item choices in the base system & omissions noted in the OP & some of the posts people have made since that pattern repeats again & again to unreasonable levels.

• We know from both darksun & now PF2 that no/low magic can be trivially supported in a system where monster math & such assumes magic items simply by including a sidebar somewhere saying to give x & y bonuses to PCs at this & that level...
  • Going the other way in a system that assumes no magic items would require that the GM modify every monster encounter & possibly skill check DC to offset some or all of the bonus PCs get from magic items. This is so strongly designed against that there is not even a section talking about doing so.
• Since that one was obviously decided in a way that pressures a choice rather than supporting choice... What about the GM applying some limits to how many magic items can be carried based ion weight? This is a total nonissue for a GM who doesn't want to use them because the magic items are simply not there to accumulate or they are & the GM has said "ignore weight/encumbrance"
  • Going the other way you have three different & comparably nontrivial hurdles. The first being that the character sheet itself does not really even have room to record how much any type of item weighs nor does it even have a simple box where a player could record their current or maximum weight carried or total carrying capacity. The second being an encumbrance system that tries to ensure it can't matter with an alternative that is so strict it will always matter without doing so in a way that encourages interesting choices as past equivalents had
• Since that one too was also decided in a way that pressures a choice rather than supporting choice... What if a GM wants to require their players use containers to limit magic item packrattery in a way that encumbrance does not? "ignore that" is once again a trivially low bar that might even be overselling the workload involved by pretending that is even a bar. There is literally two different magical containers designed so the GM can simply hand them out to start ignoring various parts of container & encumbrance rules when those rules existed in a meaningful form in fact.
  • There are no rules for containers other than capacity. Are items in a container like in some video games where it becomes weightless or do they count towards capacity? Do items in a container count full weight towards carry capacity or fractional due to weight bearing and such? How many of a particular container type can a PC carry around?... there are no body slots or equivalent to set the tone and the GM is putting a significant crimp on things just by requiring container use there is a player sure to ask if they can wear two backpacks or more... How many sacks & pouches can they carry & wear? Where can these be worn on a PC & why can't I wear a particular container somewhere that lets me carry more without using my hands?
    • Those are all questions with no answer but a houserule one that I've seen a player try to push back against.

So on & so forth... The design is currently one that very much tries to force the GM into making a clearly pressured choice and that choice is one that could have been trivially provided excellent support through a stray sentence or sidebar had design gone the other way.

 

[Horwath]

You want DMs to be limited? Is that right?

I’m sorry, but to me, the fact that the DM has the freedom to customize the feel of their own game is one of the strengths of the hobby. Just in this thread alone, there’s been a huge variance in the desire for the type and scope of magic items. Why should the rules enforce just one style?

I don’t think locking the game down to one specific play style makes for a stronger game. I think the ability to alter the setting, not only within each group, but also from campaign to campaign is a strength. But that’s obviously my own personal opinion.

or just make magic items default with predetermined prices and crafting rules with requirements in PHB and have DMG an option for "low-magic" campaign.

 

[nevin]

or just make magic items default with predetermined prices and crafting rules with requirements in PHB and have DMG an option for "low-magic" campaign.

well problem with having a low magic game in DND is most classes are high magic by default. Low magic usually means low magical Item occurance which just makes, wizards, warlocks, clerics etc more powerful. The game has never ever been advertised or designed as "low magic".

 

[Reef]

I came close to responding to this point of yours when you first made it earlier but couldn't be sure if the question you made them was serious pr sarcastic parody of its point. Your posts since suggest that it was not parody as suspected but it provides such a stellar example of the hostility through omission . Back in 2014 those omissions were almost certainly some form of accident, having them remain untouched nine years later is the result of a choice to keep them & your example shows how the chain of omissions combines to pressure a certain result.

Your assertion seems to be that by not including a section on the character sheet for players to simply have the ability to record magic items they are given & how their attunement slots are used wotc has made life easier for GMs who wish to not use those two sheet elements. The amount of work needed for a GM to say things like "don't use that sheet this game" or "don't worry about attunement this game" is near zero since it only requires the simple statement. Going the other way however is a significant burden.

Spoiler: Here's the burden

• The amount of work for a GM to teach attunement to players is significantly more going by wordcount alone.
• By not having an entry describing it in the PHB the GM becomes the single point of reference for how attunement works if a player forgets or feels they need to double check
• By not having an area on the character sheet to record magic items a player is incapable of doing so if they obtain some without cluttering some other section already used for a different purpose
• By not having anywhere on the character sheet to record attunement the GM must accept that attunement can be treated as a quantum state for PCs . Changing that is not always a simple matter of writing on spare paper because digital sheets are often the norm today.
  • A PDF editor is not something most people have access to & they are not easy to use for the average (or below average) computer user. Even if the GM does adding to a PDF is difficult without blank space because of how PDF works.
  • Even if the GM makes a new sheet with sections that would allow their players to record attunement & magic items it's not a trivial matter to copy or transcribe everything out of one PDF/printed sheet onto another PDF/printed sheet. When the alternative is someone saying "don't use that section" that not simple could even be fairly extreme by comparison.
• The back of a digital sheet like a PDF or some app is often the back of a phone tablet or laptop LCD. Writing on the back of that is an obviously unreasonable and pointless solution.
• By choosing not to include a defined set of body slots or similar on top of the above wotc creates a scenario where a GM who wants their players to record magic items & attunement usage will face difficulties finding a community created sheet that fills the need wotc as the d&d publisher has chosen not to fill over the last nine or so years.

Supporting options rather than trying to pressure one particular choice needs to ask questions like "is one of these more significantly burdened if we design for the other?". Once those types of questions are asked it becomes possible to weigh the level of work involved for each choice if the design favors the other. Obviously from the above wildly disparate workloads your example benefit is one where the answer is yes very much so. The next question the design can ask if supporting choices is desirable would be if supporting the easier choice can be done easily with a brief sentence of advice or sidebar if the more involved choice is supported, again the answer is yes.

If we trace those two questions through magic item choices in the base system & omissions noted in the OP & some of the posts people have made since that pattern repeats again & again to unreasonable levels.

• We know from both darksun & now PF2 that no/low magic can be trivially supported in a system where monster math & such assumes magic items simply by including a sidebar somewhere saying to give x & y bonuses to PCs at this & that level...
  • Going the other way in a system that assumes no magic items would require that the GM modify every monster encounter & possibly skill check DC to offset some or all of the bonus PCs get from magic items. This is so strongly designed against that there is not even a section talking about doing so.
• Since that one was obviously decided in a way that pressures a choice rather than supporting choice... What about the GM applying some limits to how many magic items can be carried based ion weight? This is a total nonissue for a GM who doesn't want to use them because the magic items are simply not there to accumulate or they are & the GM has said "ignore weight/encumbrance"
  • Going the other way you have three different & comparably nontrivial hurdles. The first being that the character sheet itself does not really even have room to record how much any type of item weighs nor does it even have a simple box where a player could record their current or maximum weight carried or total carrying capacity. The second being an encumbrance system that tries to ensure it can't matter with an alternative that is so strict it will always matter without doing so in a way that encourages interesting choices as past equivalents had
• Since that one too was also decided in a way that pressures a choice rather than supporting choice... What if a GM wants to require their players use containers to limit magic item packrattery in a way that encumbrance does not? "ignore that" is once again a trivially low bar that might even be overselling the workload involved by pretending that is even a bar. There is literally two different magical containers designed so the GM can simply hand them out to start ignoring various parts of container & encumbrance rules when those rules existed in a meaningful form in fact.
  • There are no rules for containers other than capacity. Are items in a container like in some video games where it becomes weightless or do they count towards capacity? Do items in a container count full weight towards carry capacity or fractional due to weight bearing and such? How many of a particular container type can a PC carry around?... there are no body slots or equivalent to set the tone and the GM is putting a significant crimp on things just by requiring container use there is a player sure to ask if they can wear two backpacks or more... How many sacks & pouches can they carry & wear? Where can these be worn on a PC & why can't I wear a particular container somewhere that lets me carry more without using my hands?
    • Those are all questions with no answer but a houserule one that I've seen a player try to push back against.

So on & so forth... The design choice is consistently one, the design is currently one that very much tries to force the GM into making a clearly choice and that choice is one that could have been trivially provided excellent support through a stray sentence or sidebar had design gone the other way.

Well, I appreciate you taking my posts at face value and not assuming any sarcasm, parody, or I’ll intent. I’m sorry you thought that to begin with. And I do appreciate the effort you took responding.

I’m not going to spend the same amount of time, only because I think it’s clear that we both have very different ideas as to what the game should be, and how much effort should be put into what direction. I disagree with a lot of what you wrote, but I don’t have any rebuttal to put forward that would likely change your mind. The fact you couldn’t even conceive that I was serious in my views are probably ample evidence of that .

In any event, you have obviously spent a lot of time thinking through your position (even if I don’t agree with it). I can respect that, bow out, and wish you good gaming in your chosen style.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

You want DMs to be limited? Is that right?

I’m sorry, but to me, the fact that the DM has the freedom to customize the feel of their own game is one of the strengths of the hobby. Just in this thread alone, there’s been a huge variance in the desire for the type and scope of magic items. Why should the rules enforce just one style?

I don’t think locking the game down to one specific play style makes for a stronger game. I think the ability to alter the setting, not only within each group, but also from campaign to campaign is a strength. But that’s obviously my own personal opinion.

But there is a problem with this in that it affects only some classes.

A wizard can play from levels 1-20 without ever needing a single magic item.

The fighter cannot.