D&D General Weapons should break left and right

[Lanefan]

For me, and this is purely my own preference, I detest buying magic items. It's so pointless. The party buys magic items that give the most bang for the buck. So, the DM just adjusts the monsters to the new math because the DM doesn't want the party steam rolling encounters. Which means the party buys more items that give more bang for the buck and the treadmill just churns.

I really, really wish there was a way to just not have magic items for sale. I think my next campaign will be that way. Magic items can be made, but, never for sale, they are just too rare.

I'm not talking about common magic items, they aren't the problem. But, it's so incredibly boring to see the same five or six magic items get bought every single campaign.

You need to a) randomize what's available at any given time and b) limit the number; this to reflect the idea that what comes on the market isn't predictable and there isn't that much of it.

Not sure how you hand out magic items in the adventures you run, but if you use any sort of random creation or rolling for them, after a few adventures you can give yourself some idea of the sort of things that might be on the market simply by keeping an eye on what the PCs are selling off. If the PCs are selling these things it's a good bet other parties are selling vaguely similar things, though probably not exactly the same. Then there's the random factors of:

--- items commissioned but never picked up, being sold by their creators to recoup the expense of making them
--- estate sales and the like
--- retiring adventurers cashing in by selling their adventuring gear, including many of their magic items

End result: whenever a party gets to a town or city and asks me for a "shopping list" I quickly roll to give myself an idea of how many items are available (that they're likely to learn about, assuming they ask around), tell my spreadsheet to randomly generate that many items, and print out the list. I then curate the list a bit, mostly to remove cursed items, and that's what's available for them to buy. Takes me maybe 30 seconds plus however long the printer takes to do its thing.

Sometimes someone lucks out and can buy exactly what the character wants. Most of the time, though, most of the items for sale are ignored.

 

[GrimCo]

All of which boils down to preference and what you wanted out of the game. I didn't think building or running encounters was particularly easy, it depended on what was chosen. I like the stealth rules from 2014 better. I could go on, I don't see a reason to.

A game can meet all of it's design targets but if those design targets aren't what I want then it's not a good game for me. Whether or not the game was good or bad relied on what an individual wanted out of the game and everything you just wrote it subjective opinion.

Ok, this explains it. We are talking about two different things. You are measuring how good design of a game is for you personally. I'm talking generally, not how good is for me personally. Good design is one in which mechanics give good support for play style intended by the designers. 4e has good design for it's intended play style, same as PF2. In the same time, it's bad for me and for you, cause it's not play style we like and it's not what we are looking for from the game. On the other hand, while 5e is great game for me and my group, from pure design point, it's mediocre. It's mechanics don't give great support for any one style in particular, for some styles it's actually crap ( in depth team based tactical combat), for some it doesn't even have any dedicated mechanics but it also doesn't have any mechanics that hinder it actively ( social conflicts and court intrigues). No game can be great at all, but it can mediocre for bunch of things. That's 5e. Ok, not great, not terrible for bunch of things.

 

[Horwath]

For me, and this is purely my own preference, I detest buying magic items. It's so pointless. The party buys magic items that give the most bang for the buck. So, the DM just adjusts the monsters to the new math because the DM doesn't want the party steam rolling encounters. Which means the party buys more items that give more bang for the buck and the treadmill just churns.

Do not give/sell items that give +X to AC/DC/attacks/saves.
that removes a lot of treadmill effect.

concentrate on items that gives ability to do new things, not just better that you can already do:
something that you can do Prof bonus per Long rest. Staff that give you Fireball Prof bonus per Long rest.
Or gloves that give you advantage on Medicine and Cure wounds Prof bonus per Long rest.
maybe it gives a feat.
IE: boots that give Mobile/Speedy feat while you are attune to them.

Here is my idea for casters and extra spells known/prepared:

D&D 5E (2024) Thread 'Runestaffs; (somewhat) new kind of items for 5.5E'

Jul 18, 2022

Runestaffs would be items for spellcasters that would add to "spells known" number for spellcasters.
It would give versatility within certain theme for spellcaster that uses the runestaff.
every staff would give 2 cantrips and 2 spells from level 1 to level 5, similar how cleric domains work.

Item:
Runestaff, rare, requires attunement by spellcaster,
Provides spells known from the items list,
Every spell(except cantrips) must be cast with casters spell slots.
Staff provides for Somatic and non costly Material components that are consumed with casting while in hand.

type of runestaffs...

• Horwath
• Replies: 9
• Forum: *Dungeons & Dragons

• 

it gives versatility but not direct power as you need to use your own resources(outside cantrips) to use the magic item.

I really, really wish there was a way to just not have magic items for sale. I think my next campaign will be that way. Magic items can be made, but, never for sale, they are just too rare.

problem is, if it can be made, it has a price.
unless only the maker can use the item.
that can be a cool setting rule.
IE: if you want to make a magic sword for yourself, the hot steel must be quenched in fresh blood of at least Large Dragon.
You define how "fresh" the fresh blood must be.

I'm not talking about common magic items, they aren't the problem. But, it's so incredibly boring to see the same five or six magic items get bought every single campaign.

well, people use what us useful.
maybe we need more creative and useful items.
In what ever house that I went there was a fridge, a freezer, a stove of some kind, microwave, washingmachine, hair dryer, etc...
OFC, if PCs can buy items, they will first stock up on the basics and then if there is gold left, maybe some unusual things.

If I will battle whatnot in melee combat my whole career, then I want the best weapon and armor that I can get my hands on.
I want to make my job as easy as possible, and have best chance of surviving said job.

 

[Horwath]

You need to a) randomize what's available at any given time and

never randomize.
while it sounds logical, it just uses your time without any payout for anyone.
especially if you spent time to create a custom, cool item.
at best it will be vendored if found as loot as a glorified platinum bar, at worse if for sale, simply ignored.

just save yourself time and dont bother with items that no one in the party can use in any decent capacity.

b) limit the number; this to reflect the idea that what comes on the market isn't predictable and there isn't that much of it.

limiting is always a good idea to keep the reins on how much items are in circulation.

 

[GrimCo]

If I will battle whatnot in melee combat my whole career, then I want the best weapon and armor that I can get my hands on.
I want to make my job as easy as possible, and have best chance of surviving said job.

Yup. Fighting stuff, killing others and avoiding being killed yourself is fundamental part of D&D game play. Given option, players will always gravitate to items that make them better at it. It's same in real life, you want best tools you can get to do your job in easiest, most efficient way.

 

[Staffan]

But, that's the problem. 3e had the wealth by level tables, as did 4e, and people did nothing but bitch about it. It's "dictating" a specific playstyle, goes the argument. So, sure, while I totally agree that that level of transparency should be in the game, I also know that that ship sailed years ago and add this to the pile of things WotC will not touch with a ten foot pole.

The problem with wealth-by-level in 3e and 4e was that this wealth directly correlated with personal power by way of magic items. 13k gp (level 6 WBL) gets you a +2 stat booster (4k), +1 armor (1k), +1 saves (1k), +1 weapon (2k), and +1 deflection (2k) plus assorted bits and bobs like a wand of cure light wounds, the masterwork weapon/armor you need before magicking them up, maybe a backup weapon of a special material, and such. If the coolest thing you could spend your gold on would be a castle and its upkeep, you wouldn't need to specify how much treasure PCs should find and have.

One of the 3e designers described 3e as a point-based system bolted onto a class-based system, only with the character point being called "gold piece".

 

[AlViking]

Ok, this explains it. We are talking about two different things. You are measuring how good design of a game is for you personally. I'm talking generally, not how good is for me personally. Good design is one in which mechanics give good support for play style intended by the designers. 4e has good design for it's intended play style, same as PF2. In the same time, it's bad for me and for you, cause it's not play style we like and it's not what we are looking for from the game. On the other hand, while 5e is great game for me and my group, from pure design point, it's mediocre. It's mechanics don't give great support for any one style in particular, for some styles it's actually crap ( in depth team based tactical combat), for some it doesn't even have any dedicated mechanics but it also doesn't have any mechanics that hinder it actively ( social conflicts and court intrigues). No game can be great at all, but it can mediocre for bunch of things. That's 5e. Ok, not great, not terrible for bunch of things.

There is no way to measure how good a game is "generally". It always comes back to personal opinion. Being designed to support a narrow style of play does not necessarily make it good design. I'm not saying 4e was good or bad, for some people it was good and for some people it was bad. Just like every edition of D&D. I can just as easily say that 5e was best because it supports a wider audience because it leaves certain aspects of play that don't require detailed rules up to the DM and group while leaving niche design choices up to third parties.

Is my stance objectively true? No! But I'm not making that claim. There is no way to say one version is "best" without subjectively deciding what is important and what metrics to choose while also deciding how those metrics are measured. I could do make up metrics for pretty much every version of the game and call that version "best", that doesn't make it so.

 

[M_Natas]

There is no way to measure how good a game is "generally". It always comes back to personal opinion. Being designed to support a narrow style of play does not necessarily make it good design. I'm not saying 4e was good or bad, for some people it was good and for some people it was bad. Just like every edition of D&D. I can just as easily say that 5e was best because it supports a wider audience because it leaves certain aspects of play that don't require detailed rules up to the DM and group while leaving niche design choices up to third parties.

Is my stance objectively true? No! But I'm not making that claim. There is no way to say one version is "best" without subjectively deciding what is important and what metrics to choose while also deciding how those metrics are measured. I could do make up metrics for pretty much every version of the game and call that version "best", that doesn't make it so.

You can objectively see if a game achieves its design goals or not. If the design goals by itself are worthwhile is a different beast to slay.

For example "The Campaign for North Africa" like 99,9999% achieves its design goals of being a very real to life strategy and battle simulation - like no Board Game ever achieved this level of detail in wargaming or even tried to achieve that.
And for the 5 people in the world who want to spend 1500 hours playing one match of that game, this is probably the perfect game. For the rest of the world it is unplayable.
But for the Design Goal of achieving the most sorrow board Wargame, Campaign for North Africa succeeded. If this goal to create such a game was good or bad, that's a different question.

For example, Design Goal Classbalance.

D&D 4e has objectively a better class balance than 5e, because all 4e classes (as far as I know, I'm going on hearsay here) are basically the same. 4e achieved that goal of class balance.
Was that Goal worthwhile? For most players it doesn't seem like it was.

 

[AlViking]

You can objectively see if a game achieves its design goals or not. If the design goals by itself are worthwhile is a different beast to slay.

For example "The Campaign for North Africa" like 99,9999% achieves its design goals of being a very real to life strategy and battle simulation - like no Board Game ever achieved this level of detail in wargaming or even tried to achieve that.
And for the 5 people in the world who want to spend 1500 hours playing one match of that game, this is probably the perfect game. For the rest of the world it is unplayable.
But for the Design Goal of achieving the most sorrow board Wargame, Campaign for North Africa succeeded. If this goal to create such a game was good or bad, that's a different question.

For example, Design Goal Classbalance.

D&D 4e has objectively a better class balance than 5e, because all 4e classes (as far as I know, I'm going on hearsay here) are basically the same. 4e achieved that goal of class balance.
Was that Goal worthwhile? For most players it doesn't seem like it was.

I disagree because it will always depend on your criteria and how you measure. I can't think of anything else to add.

 

[Remathilis]

I disagree because it will always depend on your criteria and how you measure. I can't think of anything else to add.

All we've done is argue that Nietzsche was wrong about the objective truth.