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

[Micah Sweet]

Or I could just give them an item that would be fun.

All of @the Jester 's ideas sound like fun to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

but what is the point?
so next session you can waste 2hrs on trying to sell the item at the 1st mage guild?
just give sack of gold instead.

The point to me is to make and then live in a world that makes logical sense, and deal with what you get and the results of your choices.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I try not to think of my campaign as a video game, or as a backdrop that revolves around the PCs and their desires.

Okay. The criticism still stands. The items are meant to add flavor and color and consistency, but all they really do is get chucked in a bag as uncomfortably awkward currency. They might as well have been a tapestry, or a set of jewelled earrings, or an illuminated manuscript. All of those things would be at least as flavorful if not moreso, while being (a) much more likely to get overlooked by looters and (b) much less likely to just be chucked in someone's pack and sold at the nearest town so the party can get something useful.

As I've said three or four times now, I am not saying that it's bad to add groundedness or that having the occasional flavorful but pointless weapon or armor is a problem. My point is that you can very easily meet a reasonable standard of groundedness, while still having mostly items that are actually exciting for the characters. I gave multiple examples.

You can do your consistency work and world building with any items, and you can have good reasons why normal expectations (e.g. "dwarves like axes, ruined dwarf fortress should have magic axes") are not going to apply in some cases (e.g. "this fortress fell to an orc siege, and all the magic axes had been in the hands of its defenders; other, less-favored weapons were left behind because dwarves are stubborn and sometimes foolishly traditionalist.")

 

[Emerikol]

Does the DMG talk about how PCs making magic items that perfectly suit their needs will alter mechanical power levels?

I think this is why I don't worry overmuch about CR. I never worried about "expected" magic item levels and I always created adventures suitable to there general level and ability. My group was high skill so any CR WOTC would use would be too weak with magic items or not but I gave out a fair number of magic items.

And I do feel for brand new DMs who struggle with challenges. I'm just old enough and experienced enough to eyeball it for my groups. I tend to not go overly hard early on with a totally new group but that is really rare.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's much easier to carve out that time in a sandbox. Adventure path play is where this is a bigger problem IMO.

And most folks play paths rather than sandboxes. Which was my point.

Those are (essentially) adventure paths. Not the only way to play a game.

Not the only way, sure. But by far the most common? Yes.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think this is why I don't worry overmuch about CR. I never worried about "expected" magic item levels and I always created adventures suitable to there general level and ability. My group was high skill so any CR WOTC would use would be too weak with magic items or not but I gave out a fair number of magic items.

And I do feel for brand new DMs who struggle with challenges. I'm just old enough and experienced enough to eyeball it for my groups. I tend to not go overly hard early on with a totally new group but that is really rare.

Who should the tools be designed for?

The people who don't need them and can figure stuff out by eyeballing and adjusting based on their developed intuition and years of experience?

Or the people who have no idea what they're doing and may blindly stumble into badly detrimental consequences because they don't know any better?

I think the choice is crystal clear. The tools should be designed to work well for folks who don't yet know. Folks who DO know can be trusted to make their changes safely...or to learn from their mistakes without just giving up.

I've seen more than one person abandon being a DM or even a D&D player because, regardless of which side of the screen they sat on, they had a campaign blow up in their face due to rookie mistakes, and decided, "well, gave it the old college try, guess this stuff isn't for me."

I'm not, at all, saying we should ignore the needs, preferences, and ideas of long-term, experienced players. That would be foolish. But I am saying that when designing tools for helping DMs do their jobs easier, simpler, faster, overall better...those tools should favor the needs of the newbies over the needs of the old hands.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again: I consider this argument deeply disingenuous.

The adventure doesn't actually START until the Fellowship is formed. That's literally the "party formation" scene. Everything prior to that is us getting the backstory.

Your definition of "the adventure" is not mine. Take the Rivendell example. The Hobbits (and later Strider) certainly engaged in adventure prior to getting there.

In The One Ring and the 5e-based equivalents to it, there are long stretches of in-game time spent away from the Wild, back home or in a sanctuary (like Rivendell). Those stretches are part of the game.

 

[Emerikol]

Okay. The criticism still stands. The items are meant to add flavor and color and consistency, but all they really do is get chucked in a bag as uncomfortably awkward currency. They might as well have been a tapestry, or a set of jewelled earrings, or an illuminated manuscript. All of those things would be at least as flavorful if not moreso, while being (a) much more likely to get overlooked by looters and (b) much less likely to just be chucked in someone's pack and sold at the nearest town so the party can get something useful.

As I've said three or four times now, I am not saying that it's bad to add groundedness or that having the occasional flavorful but pointless weapon or armor is a problem. My point is that you can very easily meet a reasonable standard of groundedness, while still having mostly items that are actually exciting for the characters. I gave multiple examples.

You can do your consistency work and world building with any items, and you can have good reasons why normal expectations (e.g. "dwarves like axes, ruined dwarf fortress should have magic axes") are not going to apply in some cases (e.g. "this fortress fell to an orc siege, and all the magic axes had been in the hands of its defenders; other, less-favored weapons were left behind because dwarves are stubborn and sometimes foolishly traditionalist.")

The fact is even if you rolled entirely randomly, which I don't, you would have plenty of desirable magic items. The reason I don't roll randomly is that my dungeons are thematic and as such the items tend to follow the theme. If one of my groups really had their hearts set on a particular item, they'd make that a quest and go through the appropriate measures to find it. Naturally, if I've banned that item, I'd give an in game clue that their quest is pointless but in most cases they can pursue their item and find it.

I think one aspect of verisimilitude is that even a higher level dungeon is going to have a lot of lower level magic items. No dungeon is going to have +3 swords everywhere. They will have a lot of +2 and +1 swords as well. So it is inevitable that some of the stuff found is just like a tapestry or some artwork. I have those things too by the way. It's just realistic within the fantasy context for that to be true. At least, as I see the fantasy world. Obviously you can contrive a lot of different ways but I take a fairly standard old school Greyhawkian view even though I do my own worlds.

But realize the net of what we are saying is that I do drop plenty of good stuff for PCs. So this may be a viewpoint or theoretical debate.

 

[Emerikol]

And most folks play paths rather than sandboxes. Which was my point.


Not the only way, sure. But by far the most common? Yes.

I wouldn't say that. A path where you go from 1st to 20th? Absolutely not. I've never ran that sort of campaign. I realize the concept is popularized because of Paizo but I still wouldn't say a continuous unbroken path is normal by any means.

 

[Emerikol]

Who should the tools be designed for?

The people who don't need them and can figure stuff out by eyeballing and adjusting based on their developed intuition and years of experience?

Or the people who have no idea what they're doing and may blindly stumble into badly detrimental consequences because they don't know any better?

I think the choice is crystal clear. The tools should be designed to work well for folks who don't yet know. Folks who DO know can be trusted to make their changes safely...or to learn from their mistakes without just giving up.

I've seen more than one person abandon being a DM or even a D&D player because, regardless of which side of the screen they sat on, they had a campaign blow up in their face due to rookie mistakes, and decided, "well, gave it the old college try, guess this stuff isn't for me."

I'm not, at all, saying we should ignore the needs, preferences, and ideas of long-term, experienced players. That would be foolish. But I am saying that when designing tools for helping DMs do their jobs easier, simpler, faster, overall better...those tools should favor the needs of the newbies over the needs of the old hands.

Did you perceive I was arguing against any of that? In fact if you read what I said, I was saying exactly that. I do think though that a DM has to learn or his campaign will struggle. So some guides on how his group might go off the beaten path power wise would be a good idea. I like that 5e assumes nothing about magic items. At minimum that makes the party too powerful but never too weak which for newby DMs is a good thing.