D&D (2024) DMG 5.5 - the return of bespoke magical items?

[Distracted DM]

But this is well-known, isn't it. Spells that grant bonuses to hit or to AC remain relevant at all levels, because the scale remains the same. Whereas spells that inflict X dice of damage do not remain relevant at all levels, as the scale for meaningful hp damage changes.

The only version of D&D to have really tackled this issue is 4e D&D.

You're right, ofc. iirc Shield was good in 3e but not GREAT because it didn't scale, and it didn't stack with .. shields. In 5e all this stuff stacks, and bounded accuracy means it stays very relevant. Every front-liner in my games wants the Shield spell one way or another, though it's usually through a ring or ioun stone of spell storing.

Monster gets a lucky hit on 23+ AC warrior? Not anymore, Shield!

 

[Ancalagon]

I think once it would be happenstance. Twice would be a suspicious coincidence that loses a tad trust. The thirst time it would be unfair action on the DMs part. People live in this world their whole lives without that sort of interruption. To say that millionaire adventurers and thats what they are by about fifth level, can't get two months free even if they try hard is patently ridiculous. That world would lack verisimilitude.

alas, this kind of thinking is not common.

This is why level 7 traveling on a busy road between 2 large cities will encounter monsters that would make the road impassable, for example.

There are a few campaign types that are naturally "rushed". Buuuut there are many other types where it's not so plausible.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But this is well-known, isn't it.

It is as well-known as the 5.0 DMG being a toxic dumpster fire was back in, say, 2018. In other words, people will angrily and loudly assert that this is not only not true, it is the precise, diametric opposite of true.

And then go on to complain about silvery barbs in another thread.

Spells that grant bonuses to hit or to AC remain relevant at all levels, because the scale remains the same. Whereas spells that inflict X dice of damage do not remain relevant at all levels, as the scale for meaningful hp damage changes.

I mean, it's not just that. It's also that some of the earliest buff spells are also extremely powerful, like the oft-mentioned shield. Getting mage armor effectively at-will for yourself only is trivial, but that's also an AC bonus. Getting to boost your AC by the equivalent of +10 Dexterity, but only when you need it and know that it would matter, is quite a bit more powerful...yet those two spells are of identical level.

That part, the "mage armor is dramatically weaker than shield even though both are 1st level spells that improve AC," is the part that is fiercely contested.

The only version of D&D to have really tackled this issue is 4e D&D.

I'm aware.

 

[pemerton]

It is as well-known as the 5.0 DMG being a toxic dumpster fire was back in, say, 2018. In other words, people will angrily and loudly assert that this is not only not true, it is the precise, diametric opposite of true.

Fair enough. I don't claim to have a good knowledge of the 5e discussion landscape, out of a few threads on these boards.

I mean, it's not just that. It's also that some of the earliest buff spells are also extremely powerful, like the oft-mentioned shield. Getting mage armor effectively at-will for yourself only is trivial, but that's also an AC bonus. Getting to boost your AC by the equivalent of +10 Dexterity, but only when you need it and know that it would matter, is quite a bit more powerful...yet those two spells are of identical level.

That part, the "mage armor is dramatically weaker than shield even though both are 1st level spells that improve AC," is the part that is fiercely contested.

I do think this is a bit more contentious, isn't it? Mage Armour creates a lasting "floor" of AC for the PC. In effect, a spell slot gets traded for armour proficiency.

Shield creates an emergency "ceiling" - a spell slot gets traded for a one-off hit negation.

I think it's pretty hard to say, in an objective fashion, which of these is better. Though I'm happy to accept that, as PCs gain levels and other options open up, Shield remains strong in a way that Mage Armour may not, if the character obtains other ways of establishing a base level of protection.

 

[Ancalagon]

A magic item can be the most amazing, wonderful thing, but if it doesn't do what the player needs it to do, it's meaningless. Which is why I feel that letting players have at least some agency with regards to treasure can be a good thing!

This is a valid point... but it's a bit more... complicated than that, I feel.

Sure, don't give your fighter a wand of wonder (... ok some players would love that, but let's suppose this particular player is not the type). If they don't like the item, don't see a use for it, it's mostly useless.

But this is not a "binary choice". There are plenty of items that are not "useless" but still aren't the most optimal choice either.

If the party tank feels under-protected and I give them an alchemy jug, I'm being a bit of a jerk. BUUUT I don't have to give them a shield of shield casting! A shield +1 would help too, and would not be so over powered.

 

[Ancalagon]

While I like making magic items, wouldn't it be easier to instruct DMs on giving out items the players want? Maybe even... asking the players what they want? Is there in there at all?

I think it's cool asking players what their one "dream" item is, and make it happen... buuut at the same time, if that dream item is a vorpal sword, they might not get to use it for most of the campaign.

On the other hand, what I fear is a repeat of the 3.x /PF1e situation, where there was a subsection of magical items that were "optimal", and your priority as a player was to get those. The great other items were sold because they weren't the "right" stuff.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'd rather never give any plain +x items. I find those to be the most boring things D&D has ever done and I'm including the Champion and Dodge/Mobility as feat prerequisites.

 

[overgeeked]

“. no longer are the items the PCs get uniquely in the control of the DM,”

DM: “LOL.”

It always comes back to that. The referee is the one controlling the game, not the book, not the designers at WotC.

 

[Ancalagon]

Yep. I've never liked the "curated" magic items so the PCs get something "they can actually use".

yuuup because of the "optimal kit" notion I mentioned above...

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think it's cool asking players what their one "dream" item is, and make it happen... buuut at the same time, if that dream item is a vorpal sword, they might not get to use it for most of the campaign.

On the other hand, what I fear is a repeat of the 3.x /PF1e situation, where there was a subsection of magical items that were "optimal", and your priority as a player was to get those. The great other items were sold because they weren't the "right" stuff.

I ask the players what kind of things they'd like for their characters and tailor treasure between that, what I think they might have fun with and things that exist in place of having heaps of gold that might require ~shudder~ logistics.

I just absolutely hate random loot and the boring maintenance by math items because it so rarely provides anything fun or usable and instead pushes my scythe wielding badass to be sword and board goober #173.