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

[Horwath]

In 5e, the "spell casting ability" is probably the best way to represent this concept.

in 5E, best way to describe it would be proficiency bonus, same for all and reliable for encounter design.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Any video game worth its salt can handle this. Even World of Warcraft finally relented and gave you support for two completely different builds!

But D&D isn't a video game and not everybody uses a VTT. 5E owes its popularity in part due to it paring down on the niggly details of 3E and other previous editions.

tl;dr: don't create rules that become unreasonably fiddly unless you use computer assistance.

even shorter; still didn't read: don't assume VTTs

If you're not using a VVT, another piece of paper with the different stats on it will suffice.
Just say you're switching and pull out the sheet with the current stats on it.
Though you'll have to supply your own loadout changing sound effects.

 

[James Gasik]

You can already have three rings in 5E.

If you want to port this item to 5E, you want it to say something along the lines of "this item can wear a ring for you, and it can attune to it for you. For all other purposes you're considered the ring's wearer at all times, as long as you carry or wear the hand."

It would effectively let you attune to 4 items, as long as at least one of these items is a ring (not a burdensome limitation). It would probably rank as one of the most, if not the most, desirable items of your campaign, assuming a healthy sprinkling of magic items of course.

Yeah, I know, it was just an example of an item that lets you use more items than you normally could.

 

[payn]

1st, it was a dumb idea to start with so it's good that the playtest killed it.
There is no real reason to have Cha instead of Con or Int or Wis as requirement for how many magic items you can have.

2nd, OFC that Cha is favorite dump stat of players, we are more or less bunch of antisocial introverts and dumping charisma is just projection.

Oh, god forbid anyone have a need for a stat that isn't their primary or secondary. God...forbid!

 

[Horwath]

Oh, god forbid anyone have a need for a stat that isn't their primary or secondary. God...forbid!

it's not that.

it's the problem that the stat is primary for some classes and complete dump for others.

If it were based on Con which is mostly equal to classes the idea would be reasonable,
with Cha it's just Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer and Warlock get lot's of magic items, rest get one or they gimp their characters.

 

[Minigiant]

1st, it was a dumb idea to start with so it's good that the playtest killed it.
There is no real reason to have Cha instead of Con or Int or Wis as requirement for how many magic items you can have.

2nd, OFC that Cha is favorite dump stat of players, we are more or less bunch of antisocial introverts and dumping charisma is just projection.

Charisma makes most sense.

Charisma is Personality. If attunement is mentally or spiritually linking to a powerful item then thee bigger your Personality, the most you can link to with your mind.

 

[James Gasik]

Charisma makes most sense.

Charisma is Personality. If attunement is mentally or spiritually linking to a powerful item then thee bigger your Personality, the most you can link to with your mind.

Especially if the item is sentient.

 

[Minigiant]

it's not that.

it's the problem that the stat is primary for some classes and complete dump for others.

If it were based on Con which is mostly equal to classes the idea would be reasonable,
with Cha it's just Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer and Warlock get lot's of magic items, rest get one or they gimp their characters.

Oh yes.
This isn't a rule you glue onto an existing game. You design the game with this in mind. That's the thoughline of my comments in this thread.

You have to build your magic item rules with the base rules the same way you design your spell system.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I always saw 5e's resistance vs nonmagical weapon as a protection from peasants for higher level monsters. I am curious how they achieve that now.

 

[CapnZapp]

Unless there is advice, a DM might want to introduce powerful magic items for the sake of flavor, or one of the players falls in love with it and really wants it, or just because magic items look fun − with little clue about how much mechanical trouble the DM is getting oneself into.


I learned about the dangers of magic items the hard way. To be fair, this was during an other edition, not 5e. But it started with making the game fun by granting magic items whose flavors were appropriate − and ended by destroying the game by making all the encounters ridiculous.


The 5e game design needs a clear, accurate, and precise understanding of how powerful EACH magic item is, a default system to present magic items in a stable way, and sound advice for how to manage a game with abundant magic items.

The only way you will understand why this isn't necessarily best for the game (read "WotC's coffers") is when you stop underestimating how the introduction of such advice will impact people's impression of D&D as a complicated and difficult game.

WotC just isn't interested in delving the deeps of this complex question. They (hopefully*) realize that any such system needs to be quite involved to be worth a damn; and they simply don't want the general public to see such stuff anywhere in the PHB or the DMG.
*) I would be sad if they actually believe the shite system where you essentially randomize magic item prices is useful

They're much happier everybody thinks D&D is easy and friendly and just buys the damn game. And to be fair, it is. For many it remains that way for a long time.

Maybe you could set up a patron for some advice people could buy. Third party stuff, that doesn't much impact how people view the game.

Either that, or WotC magically gets new leadership and decides to actually invest in high level play. What I'm saying is that I don't think you should expect any detailed or workable advice unless we're getting an "advanced dungeons & dragons" where an AD&D DMG can discuss the game engine in depth without necessarily scaring away the big public that's interested in purchasing the regular D&D PHB.