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

[Minigiant]

Again, there is ZERO evidence 5e was designed to be magic-item-less

The designers said it. And they wrote that in XGTE.

I have a hard time believing feats and magic items save the game from rocket tag.

In fact, I am firmly convinced it is these very optional rules that, in the hands of a competent minmaxer, turn the game into rocket tag.

Rocket tag where the heroes win, that is; routinely trouncing even the most absurdly overstuffed combat encounters (compared to the rulebook guidelines)

Am I wrong?

Magic items and feeds don't save the game from the base rocket tag tendencies.

Magic items and then later feats are adjusted traditional methods to curb the natural rocket attack tendencies of D&D where one side just,as you said, trounces the other.

 

[Mistwell]

The designers said it. And they wrote that in XGTE.

They did not. It was just quoted from XGTE that they said outright magic items are expected to be in the game. "The D&D game is built on the assumption that magic items appear sporadically and that they are always a boon." That's exactly what I've said all along - the designers expect they will be there, but because their distribution and quantity is random based on tables, they didn't design the math around them because they'd have no way to judge what the math needs to accommodate. But they absolutely acknowledge magic items will 1) be in your game, and 2) their appearance will be sporadic, and 3) they will be a benefit to the party.

It then ALSO tells those players, "Magic items can go from nice to necessary in the rare group that has no spellcasters, no monk, and no PCs capable of casting magic weapon. Having no magic makes it extremely difficult for a party to overcome monsters that have resistances or immunity to nonmagical damage. In such a game, you'll want to be generous with magic weapons or else avoid using such monsters." So your claim WOTC never tells people the game changes meaningfully if they have no spellcasters AND no magic items is false - they do tell them.

AND the new version of the game appears to have removed resistance or immunity to non-magical weapons. So any issue which could have arisen from that part of the issue was already resolved.

New players and DMs have no reason to go into the game thinking a total lack of both spellcasters and magic items is the norm or expected to function well without adjustment. At no point does the game suggest to players or DMs this is how the game functions. Nor is there any meaningful number of players complaining, over a decade period of time, that they do this and the game crashes for them. It's just not a common problem. It's not something which must be solved. It was a hypothetical issue which never arose. People who want to do that either play another game, like the 5e version of Lord of the Rings which intentionally adjusts 5e to accommodate those assumptions, or another game, or they adjust 5e to work for them - either through differing player tactics, or a DM adjusting challenges. And there's no great number of people out there saying this is some issue which is in need of fixing.

Now that we've definitively established that, and I said I was asking for the last time for the evidence you never produced, I guess we're done here?

 

[mamba]

It's telling that you choose helmet gloves and chest armor rather than something less clear cut like say... Any of these

• Amulet, Brooch, Medallion, Necklace, Periapt, Scarab
• Headband, helmet
• Cloak, Cape, Mantle
• Etc

I had helmet in my list, and I doubt anyone is wearing a cape and cloak at the same time either. The only ones where you might get different opinions on is rings, necklaces and amulets. I still do not need the DMG or PHB to prescribe what slots there are, I can simply say one each, or two for rings if I feel like it

They are individual issues related to a complicated problem.

didn’t see it when I wrote it, and you insisting that they are is not changing that now either

Ithe part you are overlooking is where the impact on the check from magic items causes the DC ladder to lsg behind PC skills.

the DC is what the DC is, it has nothing to do with what the players have access to, that only increases their chances of succeeding, not how difficult something is in the first place

 

[James Gasik]

But... in a campaign where you the level 17 fighter is functionally worthless with your non-magic weapon... Magic Weapon might be the best spell in the game.

So why isn't your wizard casting it?

I'm assuming he likes dealing with the enemies all by himself, in which case: why are you fighters sticking around? Go find someone that wants to play D&D as a team activity!

Concentration. Most of your best spells require it, including fun high level spells. If you're forced to not use spells in order to make sure that the Fighter has a magic weapon for 1 hour at a time, it's a little more than "I don't feel like it". It's more like "I may need to be doing other things".

 

[tetrasodium]

I had helmet in my list, and I doubt anyone is wearing a cape and cloak at the same time either. The only ones where you might get different opinions on is rings, necklaces and amulets. I still do not need the DMG or PHB to prescribe what slots there are, I can simply say one each, or two for rings if I feel like it

didn’t see it when I wrote it, and you insisting that they are is not changing that now either


the DC is what the DC is, it has nothing to do with what the players have access to, that only increases their chances of succeeding, not how difficult something is in the first place

I think that you are grasping too far. The DMG even disagrees with you where it says this on PG141 to ensure stacking will occur despite your claims otherwise.

Spoiler

MU LTIPLE ITEMS OF THE SAME KIND
Use common sense to determine whether more than
one of a given kind of magic item can be worn. A charac
ter can't normally wear more than one pair of footwear,
one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one
suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak.
You can make exceptions; a character might be able to
wear a circlet under a helmet, for example, or to layer
two cloaks.

I think that even contradicts your "I doubt anyone is wearing a cape and cloak at the same time either" claim
Even in 3.x when slots existed it was common for players point at movies tv shows & things like pictures from renfest with a person wearing hat helmet headband & crown or multiple crown/tiara hoping for an exception to have their hopes shut down by having the gm point out that cape and cloak use the same slot. Now in 5e the dmg invites the players to use their own judgement while talking about exceptions. The section in question is so lacking in mechanics that the only "useful" purpose it serves anyone is to make it more difficult for the GM to limit stacking if they choose to use magic items for a purpose other than "always a boon"

What you are forgetting while asserting how complicated problems you are nonissues while needing to break them down into isolated unrelated trivialities is that we are discussing an edition that still has not seen fit to include a section on the character sheet for magic items after nine years.

 

[Yaarel]

co still has not sees fit to include a section on the character sheet for magic items after nine years.

Re the character sheet.

For me, it is more useful to have a list of ACTIONS. I can divide this up into: always-on traits, at-will actions, per short rest, per proficiency, and per long rest. Similarly, of moves and reactions.

Most of these actions are from species, background, class and feat. If a magic item happens to grant such an action, I can add that to the Action list.

Also, I place the name of the magic item at a Body Slot, or add it to general equipment being carried around.

 

[cranberry]

I liked the focus on magic items in earlier editions. But it makes sense to no longer emphasize it in 5E now that the PCs gain magic-like abilities as they level up.

The issue with the old way, imo, is that it was challenging to evenly distribute magic items in a even or fair way.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would imagine that you will find the answer in the magic weapon spell page. Specifically the part where it is a concentration spell once designed for self buffing gish types who feel cool buffing their own weapon even if they are not also able to buff the weapon of a second or third PC. Casting magic weapon makes old school shadowrun hackers and heal bot builds look like spotlight hogs.

I am not sure what to say. You are clearly writing passively-agressively, but what is your argument here?

That magic weapon isn't as essential to non-magic campaigns as I'm arguing? That all the castings of the spell is hogged by "self buffing gish types"?

But... if all those "who feel cool buffing their own weapon" really can, you know, buff their own weapon... doesn't this mean you agree with me?

Somewhat lost here.

 

[CapnZapp]

you can still be working as a team, but that doesn't mean the casters should be perpetually obligated to act as an enabler to the martials by casting magic weapon every fight, plus only one caster can concentrate on the spell per one martial (barring a niche application of the twinned spell metamagic), and if they're casting magic weapon they can't be concentrating on any one of the other concentration spells that exist that would otherwise be far more effective than making the martial reach their intended base effectiveness.

When you say that you could "otherwise" be "far more effective", you are again completely consumed by the idea magic items are everywhere. If you can be "far more effective" despite another party member (and we could be talking a high-level fighter here) sitting on their hands, I will be impressed. My experience is that a caster will often feel hard-pressed to replicate the kind of hurt a weapon user can dish out.

Not to mention the fact that if your fighter buddy is fighting the monsters that means you're not. Which does wonders for survivability.

Just saying. Anyway - that magic users spend their concentration helping out a fighter buddy is clearly assumed by WotC to be a reasonable alternative. Just because you feel it is out of the question doesn't make it so.

And yes, this means that any time a caster casts Fly or Haste on their fighter buddy doesn't mean they have necessarily betrayed their kind to those "perpetually obligated to act as an enabler".

If you don't feel it is fun as a caster to hand the spotlight to your fighter friend, that's okay. But is very clearly one application 5E invites you to try.

More to the point, I'm pointing to this spell since it clearly validates the claim that 5E doesn't (strictly) need magic weapons. (And if there are other ways you could get round immunity to non-magical weapons you like better than Magic Weapon, feel free to discuss as if I suggested those instead) Not saying it's the most fun way of playing the game. Saying it is a functional way of playing the game, even if neither you nor I would seriously consider it.

Thanks for reading.

 

[CapnZapp]

Magic items and then later feats are adjusted traditional methods to curb the natural rocket attack tendencies of D&D where one side just,as you said, trounces the other.

Can't say I've heard the argument "need items and feats to make the game less lopsided" before. Heard its complete opposite countless times.

I feel magic items and feats help players trounce the other side.

The complaint I've seen before is the complete opposite: "adding them in makes the game so easy encounter guidelines go completely out the window and I must spend considerable time boosting the challenge level"

---

Anyway. Unless I'm mistaken you're trying to argue 5E doesn't work without magic items. I would say this is the only time it comes close to its envisioned balance point, and that the more feats and magic items you add the more work it is by the DM to keep some semblance of balance.

What I could agree to is, perhaps, that this train has left the station. There are very few subclasses that don't use magic, so if most players can simply circumvent a "no items" campaign ruling, then yes, I would agree that those few subclasses left out could be considered "broken", as in really bad. And that I dislike this push to include magic everywhere in the game. But that's another topic...