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

[ezo]

My groups expect a similar experience. They understand when they go into an enemy stronghold they are invaders to that enemy. Surprise and getting as far as possible are key to success, because if they have to withdraw, things will not be the same when they return--often much harder--but sometimes they will find the enemy gone... and their opportunity lost.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's what strongholds, domains, and armies are for.

Ah, yes. Optional rules, and things that can apply to anyone and thus must be portioned out with a bias toward non-casters. Gotta love when the stuff that makes non-casters rise to the occasion is something a lot of groups will completely ignore or which push the DM to play favorites, while the stuff that does that for casters is hard-coded into their class structure and work perfectly fine unless the DM is actively antagonistic. Really emphasizes just how much these classes are peers, dunnit?

For real though, I hope you can see how this answer is not satisfactory. It is an admission that casters have a built-in advantage, which must then be counteracted by either inserting wholly optional rules, or by having the DM actively work against the game's design, showing favor to one side in order to level the playing field.

Why couldn't we instead have a game that doesn't require the DM to level the playing field, and instead allows them to let the chips fall where they may, so that skill (and, if necessary, luck) are the determining factors, rather than DM favoritism?

Agreed. It absolutely could go other, less obvious ways. But I still think tendencies matter, and weight what's likely accordingly.

Okay. That's fair. I appreciate, though, that we can agree that over-zealous pursuit of anything--balance, verisimilitude, "feel", etc.--can have negative consequences for a game. That's a surprisingly difficult point to get any agreement on these days.

I don't know. I think a lot of this concern is psychological and based on what individual players want out of the game.

Everything about game design is psychological. You are trying to elicit particular experiences. By definition, player psychology is the concern.

I'm sorry I missed your point then. I don't see the relevance in discussing the popularity of adventure paths.

Should we design a game that is a natural fit for the most common approach, while still offering well-structured methods for the stuff that isn't as popular?

Or should we design a game that is totally agnostic about playstyle, trying to pretend that vague, noncommittal rules will serve all parties well?

The latter certainly serves all tastes equally, but it does so by being equally unhelpful. I would much, much rather a game commit to a particular set of design goals, while recognizing that those goals are not universal and thus offering tools and advice for moving in other directions. That's why I support novice levels, and both tools and advice for wandering monster tables, and a section on hex-grid mapping, etc., even though none of those things have any direct utility for me. They have indirect utility, because they support tastes that are not mine, but that are both traditional and appreciated today.

Baking in as the core premise an idea that only really works in a sandbox environment, when the substantial majority do not use a sandbox environment, is not conducive to an effective product. That absolutely is not, and must not ever be, an excuse to leave sandbox players high and dry; it is instead a matter of setting priorities, and of examining which approaches are easier or more difficult to implement through opt-in vs opt-out design. Ultra-lethal low levels are best as an opt-in, because low levels are also expected to serve the needs of new players being gently introduced to the game (and it is neither fair nor reasonable to DMs to demand that all of them, new or otherwise, put on kid gloves for new players.) Well-constructed encounter building guidelines are best as an opt-out, because just as there are no book-ninjas holding you at knifepoint unless you use errata or whatever, there are no book-ninjas holding you at knifepoint unless you build encounters in any predefined way: you can elect to make any kind of combat you want, but you cannot elect to gain more information about how difficult a fight will be than what the game actually provides.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The caster can also be fully replaced by an NPC with zero loss of functionality. I've played in parties where this was the case - we all brought warriors or healers or scouts into the field and had to recruit an NPC to be our artillery.

No, they absolutely cannot.

An NPC caster has to be making decisions, major impactful ones. A meatshield does not.

An NPC caster has prodigious power at their fingertips, even at low levels. A meatshield does not.

I think you may have a mistaken idea of what I meant by "fully replaced by an NPC." I mean something like how Ranger pets work--NPCs that just sit there and defend themselves unless given orders. Because that's all the meatshield needs to do. Stand there, defend yourself, don't do anything unless ordered. Their task is 100% perfectly fulfilled by doing that.

This simply is not true of an NPC caster. An NPC caster has to actually evaluate, has far, far more bells and whistles, dials and levers, etc., etc. It's simply not possible--there is no spellcaster simple enough to do that with. Not even an Agonizing eldritch blast blade warlock.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You know, the phrase "team member" applies some semblance of roles within a team. Pick your term: cavalry, scout, cataphract, archer, pikeman, artillierist, engineer, striker, tank, controller; roles are a thing in teams. It's not like anyone's asking a fighter not to fight, just to fight where it does the most good. For the team.

It's also much different in 5e than 1e. Compared to 1e, 5e casters are far from glass cannons.

Rather than warriors having 3x-4x a caster's HP, 5e warriors have more like 2x caster hp. So not glass, maybe tin.

By the same token, 5e Casters are much less cannons than 1e casters. At all levels, 5e casters are less lethal, whether you are talking magic missiles vs kobolds, fireballs vs trolls, or anything vs dragons. They are also less able to unleash a rain of destruction, having far fewer high level spell slots and no automatic spell scaling. So not cannons, maybe ballistas.

Conversely, 5e casters have cantrips and more spell flexibility so while each 5e spell is less impactful, 5e casters are able to have some impact all the time as cantrips are so much more damaging than a dart or dagger. The highs are less high, the lows are less low.

Which means 5 warriors contribute a greater percent of combat power than 1e and are not required to be "meat shields" standing 5ft in front of a caster at all time.

The loss of potency is nowhere near as large as you imply for casters. Yes, it is reduced (especially compared to 3e), but it absolutely is not nearly that dramatic.

By comparison, non-casters have gotten absolutely nothing even remotely equivalent to what casters have gotten in bringing them closer together. Not even close. As long as you aren't exclusively fighting singular "boss" enemies 100% of the time (and almost no group does that!), casters can easily still do far more damage than non-casters and still have spells left over for utility.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ah, yes. Optional rules, and things that can apply to anyone and thus must be portioned out with a bias toward non-casters. Gotta love when the stuff that makes non-casters rise to the occasion is something a lot of groups will completely ignore or which push the DM to play favorites, while the stuff that does that for casters is hard-coded into their class structure and work perfectly fine unless the DM is actively antagonistic. Really emphasizes just how much these classes are peers, dunnit?

For real though, I hope you can see how this answer is not satisfactory. It is an admission that casters have a built-in advantage, which must then be counteracted by either inserting wholly optional rules, or by having the DM actively work against the game's design, showing favor to one side in order to level the playing field.

Why couldn't we instead have a game that doesn't require the DM to level the playing field, and instead allows them to let the chips fall where they may, so that skill (and, if necessary, luck) are the determining factors, rather than DM favoritism?


Okay. That's fair. I appreciate, though, that we can agree that over-zealous pursuit of anything--balance, verisimilitude, "feel", etc.--can have negative consequences for a game. That's a surprisingly difficult point to get any agreement on these days.


Everything about game design is psychological. You are trying to elicit particular experiences. By definition, player psychology is the concern.


Should we design a game that is a natural fit for the most common approach, while still offering well-structured methods for the stuff that isn't as popular?

Or should we design a game that is totally agnostic about playstyle, trying to pretend that vague, noncommittal rules will serve all parties well?

The latter certainly serves all tastes equally, but it does so by being equally unhelpful. I would much, much rather a game commit to a particular set of design goals, while recognizing that those goals are not universal and thus offering tools and advice for moving in other directions. That's why I support novice levels, and both tools and advice for wandering monster tables, and a section on hex-grid mapping, etc., even though none of those things have any direct utility for me. They have indirect utility, because they support tastes that are not mine, but that are both traditional and appreciated today.

Baking in as the core premise an idea that only really works in a sandbox environment, when the substantial majority do not use a sandbox environment, is not conducive to an effective product. That absolutely is not, and must not ever be, an excuse to leave sandbox players high and dry; it is instead a matter of setting priorities, and of examining which approaches are easier or more difficult to implement through opt-in vs opt-out design. Ultra-lethal low levels are best as an opt-in, because low levels are also expected to serve the needs of new players being gently introduced to the game (and it is neither fair nor reasonable to DMs to demand that all of them, new or otherwise, put on kid gloves for new players.) Well-constructed encounter building guidelines are best as an opt-out, because just as there are no book-ninjas holding you at knifepoint unless you use errata or whatever, there are no book-ninjas holding you at knifepoint unless you build encounters in any predefined way: you can elect to make any kind of combat you want, but you cannot elect to gain more information about how difficult a fight will be than what the game actually provides.

I pretty much agree on all your points. It makes sense to lean your mass market, big tent game toward the most popular choices as a default (which in general won't be what I like, but that's not the point). I do think, however, that WotC's current offering simply doesn't provide enough mechanical variation to give players an idea of some of the different playstyles you can support and use to play D&D the way you want. I didn't use or like all the variant rules included in the 2014 DMG, but I loved having them in there to inspire players to do their own thing, and I will happily pay extra for a bigger book with more options, even if it's baseline assumptions don't match my preferences.

I get heated when I feel my preferences are being attacked, especially since I know what I like isn't very popular anymore. Feels like I'm being piled on sometimes (my issue, not yours). I'm sorry about that, and that goes for other posters with whom I've locked horns recently.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The loss of potency is nowhere near as large as you imply for casters. Yes, it is reduced (especially compared to 3e), but it absolutely is not nearly that dramatic.

By comparison, non-casters have gotten absolutely nothing even remotely equivalent to what casters have gotten in bringing them closer together. Not even close. As long as you aren't exclusively fighting singular "boss" enemies 100% of the time (and almost no group does that!), casters can easily still do far more damage than non-casters and still have spells left over for utility.

This is one of the reasons I support Level Up. For my money they've really come a long way towards closing that gap between casters and non-casters.

 

[pemerton]

Everything about game design is psychological. You are trying to elicit particular experiences. By definition, player psychology is the concern.

I think it's Luke Crane who described game design as mind control.

 

[Emerikol]

<snip>


Okay. That's fair. I appreciate, though, that we can agree that over-zealous pursuit of anything--balance, verisimilitude, "feel", etc.--can have negative consequences for a game. That's a surprisingly difficult point to get any agreement on these days.

<snip>

I think there is a fantasy trope where at some point a wizard has to exceed in innate power a fighter. A man with a sword can only go so far and if you bring magic down to that level you make magic boring and if you bring martial prowess up to magical levels you make it wuxia. So as a goal, I don't consider it a good one for games I'd like to actually play. Some of this imbalance is handled by magic items, domains, etc... but it's not an imbalance I even care about honestly.

Traditionally D&D has had fighters dominate powerful at low levels. They were about equal at mid-levels. They fell behind at the highest levels. But fighters have always been useful even at high levels. Some classes not so much but the fighter has always been a bulwark of any group and fun to play at any level. I would have made the thief a subclass of fighter in earlier editions. Their skill package is just a different one from the rangers.

 

[kigmatzomat]

The loss of potency is nowhere near as large as you imply for casters. Yes, it is reduced (especially compared to 3e), but it absolutely is not nearly that dramatic.

Casters got significantly nerfed in 5e. Justifiably I will add. They were ridiculous.

Let's start simple with magic missile. Od&d casters got 1 missile at first but autoscale, 5e get 3 and only 3 without upcasting. Let's assume the 5e will upcast through career....

Let's consider a prime magic missile target: kobolds.
Kobolds in 5e have 5hp (2d6-2) vs ODD 2.5hp (1/2 d8)

Each od&d magic missile can slay a kobold while it takes two 5e missiles. So at 1st level, 5e slays 1 & injures another while the ODD slays one. Then at 6th level the ODD slays 3 while an upcast-as-3rd slays 2 and injures a 3rd. At 11th ODD slays 5 while upcast-as-5th slays 3 and injures a 4th.

So even upcasting, the 5e caster is falling behind.

Let's take a common fireball target example: troll. A 1e & 2e troll was 33hp (hd6+6), 3e was 68hp (6d8+36) and a 5e troll is 84hp (8d10 + 40).

That 1e fireball is ~50% of hp, the 5e fireball is 33%. At 10th level that 1e fireball is roughly 101% of trolls hp, so dead. The 5e fireball, upcast to a 5th slot is 41%. Go to a 5e 9th slot for giggles and its 60% of a troll.

Lets go back to the magic missile, which is 14% of an 1e troll at 1st level or 12% of a 5e troll with a 1st level caster.

Now scale up. 6th level ODD caster does ~13hp (40%) while a 6th level 5e caster using a 3rd level spell slot does 17hp (20%). Up to 11th level, ODD caster ~22hp (66%) and 5e caster using a 5th slot does 24hp (30%)

16th level? ODD 32hp/95% vs 5e 35hp/40% with an 8th level slot. Well, probably not as there's likely something better but still, scaling example of an ODD caster essentially slaying an uninjured troll with a 1st level spell slot which is simply un-possible in 5e.

Then there's concentration. In earlier editions, spells layered and persisted. You want to use up your spell slots casting 4 buffs and speed run a dungeon? Go for it. Not possible in 5e because of concentration.

Let's talk save differences. In earlier editions fail once and be affected the whole time. Most 5e spells are save every round. An ODD caster could Hold Monster and just completely ignore that creature until everything else was mopped up. 5e that buys you a round or two to set up a group auto-crit.

Assuming it doesn't have a Legendary to nope out of Hold Monster entirely.

And then high level spell slots. A 20th level 3e caster had 4-6x 9th level spells/day, and similar 6th, 7th and 8th. In 1e & 2e, a 20th mage got 2x 9th and up to 4x 6th level. Meanwhile 5e characters get ONE of each 8th and 9th spell slots and no more than 2x 6th & 7th.

That means after burning half their upper level spell slots, an earlier edition casters still retains had more high level options and unlike a 5e caster, didn't need to upcast any spells to deal meaningful damage (i.e. kill a troll with a 1st level spell).

And yes, 5e casters don't have to pick spells for their slots, but at higher levels where you have a finite number of prepared spells, exactly how many of a 20th level caster's ~25 prepared spells will be allocated to higher level spells where they have only 1 or 2 slots? If a 1e caster can prepare and cast both Wish and Meteor Swarm while a 5e caster prepares both Wish and Meteor Swarm but can only cast one of them then the 5e caster has less flexibility. Sure, they can upcast, but the 1e casters don't need to because everything upcasts for free.

Which is actually why high level casters would hold spells despite having a number of them, they were too good to waste. 1e fighters actually carried most fights so the mage-zooka could nuke a balrog or a troll village or whatever. 5e cantrips let the casters contribute a bit every round.

So again, 5e casters got significantly nerfed. Justifiably. They were ridiculous in earlier editions. The spells are de-valued and there's the illusion of rapid recovery to encourage people to use them more with the knowledge they have cantrips to fall back on.

Fighters in 5e at least got all attacks at full bonus, some self-healing, a mini-haste, core class abilities for AC/blindsight/blocking. Subclasses provide bonus damage, movement, crit chances or spells without having to multiclass and lose attacks. plus 5.5e adds weapon mastery maneuvers.

5e paladins are just glittery fun smite machines with an eterna-buff, don't haven't be totally straight laced, always welcome, no notes.

Warriors also have to deal with hp inflation but at least the notably less powerful mages now have enough hp you can leave them alone for 12 seconds to go fight that ogre. (1e magic users might have 50hp at 20th level)

 

[Distracted DM]

This is one of the reasons I support Level Up. For my money they've really come a long way towards closing that gap between casters and non-casters.

Frankly after running it a lot for almost two years, fighters and berserkers are scarier than any other class in that book. I can't send an adult dragon in tooth and claw against one of them 1v1 because they can burn through its LRs in one turn.