D&D (2024) 2024 needs to end 2014's passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items & other elements from d&d

[Reef]

That was a very big problem in the 3.5 era. It was assumed that players would achieve a certain level of wealth and have particular items regardless of build. GMs assumed it was like the old days and that magic items were a luxury for the players. It doesn't work that way in 3E, and I'm glad it does work that way now in 5E. Avoiding this is of utmost importance, however magic item economies are done.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure avoiding the magic item Christmas Tree effect was a huge selling point for 5e. They went out of their way to avoid the number stacking craziness of the 3e era.

It sure as heck was a selling point for me and my group, who were sick to death of the magic weapon treadmill.

“Congratulations! You are now the owner of a +3 Longsword, which is ever so slightly better than the +2 Longsword you currently have. Feel free to sell the old one at the nearest Ye Olde Walmart!”

 

[Yaarel]

The reason for the disconnect between magic items and the rest of the game is, the math of the game engine is set without magic items. Any magic items make the player characters strictly better than the expected math. Thus magic items can be disruptive. The DM must prepare to handle the disruption if granting magic items.

Earlier editions set the math of the game engine with the assumption of magic items, which created a "christmas tree" where the magical adornments were more powerful than the character oneself, or a "conveyor belt" of required magic items while advancing.

Many players wanted to end this dependence on magic items. Thus 5e sets its math without them.

 

[payn]

The reason for the disconnect between magic items and the rest of the game is, the math of the game engine is set without magic items. Any magic items make the player characters strictly better than the expected math. Thus magic items can be disruptive. The DM must prepare to handle the disruption if granting magic items.

Earlier editions set the math of the game engine with the assumption of magic items, which created a "christmas tree" where the magical adornments were more powerful than the character oneself, or a "conveyor belt" of required magic items while advancing.

Many players wanted to end this dependence on magic items. Thus 5e sets its math without them.

Right, BA puts a lot of emphasis on hit points over ever increasing AC/hit #s. So, getting a magic sword that adds 1D6 fire damage is not a big deal at X level because its reflected in HP scale. Adding a +X sword, however, throws off BA.

Though, the bigger issue for me is defensive items. Needing a +X cloak of resistance/ring of protection/etc so that the character can actually survive encounters is a bummer.

 

[Yaarel]

In the context of 5e, there are as many magic items or as few, as the DM is willing to handle.

 

[tetrasodium]

The reason for the disconnect between magic items and the rest of the game is, the math of the game engine is set without magic items. Any magic items make the player characters strictly better than the expected math. Thus magic items can be disruptive. The DM must prepare to handle the disruption if granting magic items.

Earlier editions set the math of the game engine with the assumption of magic items, which created a "christmas tree" where the magical adornments were more powerful than the character oneself, or a "conveyor belt" of required magic items while advancing.

Many players wanted to end this dependence on magic items. Thus 5e sets its math without them.

Oh there's no doubt about the reason. The problem is the impact of wotc trying to have it both ways while forcefully pretending otherwise at every turn where one or the other is in the spotlight

 

[Amrûnril]

It seems odd to say the developers are trying to remove magic items from the game while at the same time noting that they've devoted over 100 pages to them. One can dispute whether magic items should be a standardized part of level advancement or an orthogonal, campaign-dependent axis of progression, but describing the latter approach as an attempt to remove magic items is not an accurate representation of the developers' goals and statements.

 

[tetrasodium]

It seems odd to say the developers are trying to remove magic items from the game while at the same time noting that they've devoted over 100 pages to them. One can dispute whether magic items should be a standardized part of level advancement or an orthogonal, campaign-dependent axis of progression, but describing the latter approach as an attempt to remove magic items is not an accurate representation of the developers' goals and statements.

Kinda removes any justification for maintaining the kinds of roadblocks for them that were described in the OP eh? They need to do better.

 

[Yaarel]

Oh there's no doubt about the reason. The problem is the impact of wotc trying to have it both ways while forcefully pretending otherwise at every turn where one or the other is in the spotlight

At least during the playtest for 2014 and related commentary afterward, the designers were straightforward about why the 5e math is the way it is. As far as I know, most players appreciated being no longer dependent on magic items.

At the same time, there are many players who are accustomed to many powerful magic items from previous editions, and especially the ability to use gp to purchase whatever magic items the player wishes.

5e is a case where the game really does the need the DM to make magic items work.

I would say, the official adventures and in the DMs Guide the official randomly powerful treasure tables "strongly encourage" the DM to figure out how deal with powerful magic items. But even here, the DM can decide these powerful magic items arent happening.

In my own games, I never use random magic item tables. I also rarely grant a magic item that wasnt used against the player characters first. I find it unlikely, that a powerful magic item would just be sitting somewhere in a pile waiting for player characters to collect it. Normally, the item will be in use before the player characters arrive.

In 5e, magic items really are up to the DM.

 

[Osgood]

I certainly agree that attunement should be better explained, but I don't know that it was intentional nor that the default assumptions about magic item prevalence need to change. DMs should be free to decide what they want to do, and have the game's mechanics work just fine with low magic is pretty important to that.

Others' experiences may vary, but in both 3E and 4E, where fairly high magic items where pretty much required to keep up with the monster math, we had some rough experiences at my table. Players bemoaning not having every magic item slot filled by mid-level, pouting over not having the right ability-boosting items readily available at ye olde magic shoppe, or tossing +1 longswords looted off enemies into the "sell pile" without a second thought got pretty annoying to most of us.

That said, for others, that's part of the fun of D&D, so there's nothing wrong with a game that can accommodate either style of play. I just think to do that, the underlying math needs to assume your characters can survive even if they don't have gauntlets of ogre power and a +2 sword or whatever.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

@tetrasodium I think your use of "passive-aggressive" and prescribing motivations to the design quite undermines any point you're trying to make.

It doesn't help that your responses to anyone who - even slightly - disagrees with your premise come across as... passive aggressive.