D&D 5E 15 Petty Reasons I Won't Buy 5e

[Majoru Oakheart]

What part of +1 to hit is not mathematical? It affects the probabilities of an action succeeding, it affects how effective that action is (the damage bonus assuming they've kept it, plus affecting creatures that aren't vulnerable to normal weapons), and those are probabilistic effects. Saying that something that alters them isn't mathematics doesn't make any sense. It may be the bonus is too small to be noticeable but it's certainly there and also certainly needs some testing to see how much difference it actually makes - both through probability analysis and actual play. Remember, in theory not every table is employing magic items, and if they're writing adventures on the assumption that they're present (or for that matter absent) then it does have implications for how easy and/or hard a party of characters will find the combat.

It doesn't alter the math enough to be significantly overpowering to the game.

They've said the game and all adventures assume no magic items. The original poster was saying "You can't have magic items that affect the math of the game while simultaneously assuming no one has any."

Over the duration of an encounter where you fight 10 enemies who each have 30 hitpoints, having one person in the party with +1 to hit and damage isn't going to significantly affect your chance of winning. That's my point.

Besides, my point was that the items aren't ABOUT the math. That's not why you want them....because once again if ALL items are +1, then you look for the one with the cool effect you want.

 

[Bluenose]

It doesn't alter the math enough to be significantly overpowering to the game.

Are you sure?

They've said the game and all adventures assume no magic items. The original poster was saying "You can't have magic items that affect the math of the game while simultaneously assuming no one has any."

So presumably the characters who do have them - and make no mistake, the adventures hand them out - will find the game easier. How much easier is something I'd like to know, because I like to challenge the players skills.

Over the duration of an encounter where you fight 10 enemies who each have 30 hitpoints, having one person in the party with +1 to hit and damage isn't going to significantly affect your chance of winning. That's my point.

OK, but what if they've all got +1 weapons and 1 armour? Should I make the encounter harder to account for that, and how much>

Besides, my point was that the items aren't ABOUT the math. That's not why you want them....because once again if ALL items are +1, then you look for the one with the cool effect you want.

Mine is that regardless of magic items not being about the mathematics, that's exactly what their +1 bonus affects. And I suspect that the cool effect is going to be relevant a lot less of the time.

 

[Uchawi]

I am less worried about the bonuses, and more worried about the effect like belts of giant strength. I hope they have magic items like staff of the magi that a fighter can pick up and use, so there is not a double standard of taking away martial ability through magic, but a fighter not having access to things to make them more magical. And without considering magic as assumed in the game, the biggest worry is they used as an excuse to skip any of the balance issues. I guess we will find out.

It is similar to the statements with 3E that system mastery was a design feature, to create a smokescreen when considering issues behind complex choices for classes breaking the game.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

They've said the game and all adventures assume no magic items. The original poster was saying "You can't have magic items that affect the math of the game while simultaneously assuming no one has any."

To clarify, my point is that whether the game assumes no, some, or many magic items, it should comment on what happens when a DM's campaign ignores those assumptions. Simple enough to provide at least rough guidelines on how to treat parties where say, everyone has a +1 weapon and +1 armor vs. a +2 weapon and +2 armor vs. a +3 weapon and +3 armor.

But given the 5e's team's seemingly lackadaisical attitude toward magic items, and the bizarrely angry reaction to any form of wealth/loot guidance that a certain segment of the DM population have, I'm not expecting 5e to include even rough guidelines on the topic. After all, unhelpfully vague, misleading, or nonexistant magic item guidelines are one of D&D's long and honored traditions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To clarify, my point is that whether the game assumes no, some, or many magic items, it should comment on what happens when a DM's campaign ignores those assumptions. Simple enough to provide at least rough guidelines on how to treat parties where say, everyone has a +1 weapon and +1 armor vs. a +2 weapon and +2 armor vs. a +3 weapon and +3 armor.

But given the 5e's team's seemingly lackadaisical attitude toward magic items, and the bizarrely angry reaction to any form of wealth/loot guidance that a certain segment of the DM population have, I'm not expecting 5e to include even rough guidelines on the topic. After all, unhelpfully vague, misleading, or nonexistant magic item guidelines are one of D&D's long and honored traditions.

Don't forget the long sister tradition of ridiculing, berating or insulting those who, despite the near-total lack of guidelines, violate some unspoken "okay" amount of magic items/money (I've been guilty of accusing people of being "Monty Haul" myself)!

 

[gyor]

Wizards, its wizards now not mages, can be fantastic healers with a dip in a Cleric or Bard.

Seriously Healing Word and Cure are both 1st level spells, that get more powerful when slotted in a higher slot so a 19 level wizard/ 1 level Cleric can cast 9th level Cure and Healing Word Spells.

 

[Cybit]

Are you sure?

Yes.

So presumably the characters who do have them - and make no mistake, the adventures hand them out - will find the game easier. How much easier is something I'd like to know, because I like to challenge the players skills.

Eh, I am pretty sure the first few adventures probably won't hand them out like candy, and if they do (or players ply their DM with alcohol and said DM gets very happy and kind with alcohol), they are not gamebreaking due to their +X limits.

OK, but what if they've all got +1 weapons and 1 armour? Should I make the encounter harder to account for that, and how much?

There are some guidelines, but it's not super brutal. The way the dice roll even slightly will probably be a much bigger driver than +1 weapons

Mine is that regardless of magic items not being about the mathematics, that's exactly what their +1 bonus affects. And I suspect that the cool effect is going to be relevant a lot less of the time.

FWIW, the cool factor is easily more relevant in 5E than it has been in 3E or 4E from my experiences; the magic weapons are used more for their cool factor than their actual + bonuses.

 

[sidonunspa]

Are you sure?

So presumably the characters who do have them - and make no mistake, the adventures hand them out - will find the game easier. How much easier is something I'd like to know, because I like to challenge the players skills.

OK, but what if they've all got +1 weapons and 1 armour? Should I make the encounter harder to account for that, and how much>

Mine is that regardless of magic items not being about the mathematics, that's exactly what their +1 bonus affects. And I suspect that the cool effect is going to be relevant a lot less of the time.

1 pip on a d20 = 5%.....

so roughly a
Common magic item +1 = +5% to your die roll..
Worse case... a +2 bonus = a +10% to your die roll.

Not a huge mathematical variance

looking over the AC's on monsters in the play-test packets and what they have said we can assume they posted AC by 1 or 2 points...

without counting temp boosts (bless) or advantage

you can get a +5 from stat, +6 from class, +2 from magic item... for a total of +13 to hit... giving you a 50% chance to hit an AC of 23

d&d math based off the d20 is easy...

again, we have not seen all the rules.. but a +2, with what we have seen so far, is not "the sky is falling!"

 

[Bluenose]

Eh, I am pretty sure the first few adventures probably won't hand them out like candy, and if they do (or players ply their DM with alcohol and said DM gets very happy and kind with alcohol), they are not gamebreaking due to their +X limits.

The adventures they've published so far, Tyranny of Dragons et al, are handing out numbers that suggest a couple of permanent items for each party member within the first five levels.

There are some guidelines, but it's not super brutal. The way the dice roll even slightly will probably be a much bigger driver than +1 weapons

Over a hundred rolls? Two hundred? A few people will show results significantly better than average, but less and less as the number of rolls increases. For most people, the results will be in-line with probability.

FWIW, the cool factor is easily more relevant in 5E than it has been in 3E or 4E from my experiences; the magic weapons are used more for their cool factor than their actual + bonuses.

Perhaps, but then 5e hasn't been that challenging a game in my experience.

1 pip on a d20 = 5%.....

so roughly a
Common magic item +1 = +5% to your die roll..
Worse case... a +2 bonus = a +10% to your die roll.

Not a huge mathematical variance

looking over the AC's on monsters in the play-test packets and what they have said we can assume they posted AC by 1 or 2 points...

without counting temp boosts (bless) or advantage

you can get a +5 from stat, +6 from class, +2 from magic item... for a total of +13 to hit... giving you a 50% chance to hit an AC of 23

d&d math based off the d20 is easy...

again, we have not seen all the rules.. but a +2, with what we have seen so far, is not "the sky is falling!"

It's not though just one +5% on to hit rolls, it's other bonuses too. Damage rolls, less affected by creatures that resist non-magical attacks, higher AC form magic armour/shields, and I imagien a variety of other effects - D&D magic has always been good at that. And incidentally, I dispute that it's a 5% increase in accuracy. An increase from hitting 50% of the time to hitting 55% of the time mean you hit 10% more often - 50 to 55 - and as the target number increases each point on your bonus becomes more valuable. When you need a 20 to hit, that +1 weapon makes it 19 and you hit twice as often - 100% more - than you would without it. It's equally less valuable at lower levels, but then I'd expect enemies that are easy to hit to often be ones that you're not as likely to lose against.

 

[sidonunspa]

It's not though just one +5% on to hit rolls, it's other bonuses too. Damage rolls, less affected by creatures that resist non-magical attacks, higher AC form magic armour/shields, and I imagien a variety of other effects - D&D magic has always been good at that. And incidentally, I dispute that it's a 5% increase in accuracy. An increase from hitting 50% of the time to hitting 55% of the time mean you hit 10% more often - 50 to 55 - and as the target number increases each point on your bonus becomes more valuable. When you need a 20 to hit, that +1 weapon makes it 19 and you hit twice as often - 100% more - than you would without it. It's equally less valuable at lower levels, but then I'd expect enemies that are easy to hit to often be ones that you're not as likely to lose against.

And thus..... not a big deal....