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

[CapnZapp]

It doesn't matter if a player is clear on when a PC can use two magic items together when the GM is faced with the problem of trying to make it clear when the PC can not use two items together.

Why are you assuming this is a problem, if I may ask?

Have you ever considered this might be much less of a problem in 5E than in, say 3E?

 

[CapnZapp]

Common aspects of mid and high levels requires magic items of a social agreement of spellcasters handling it

If I can assume you meant to say "or" instead of "of" (my emphasis), this is a good argument the lack of magic items doesn't necessarily break the game, since you can either work around them, or ask your spellcasters.

And just to state the obvious: if nobody has access to, say, resurrection, then the group just has to (learn to) live with perma-death and the (perhaps unfamiliar) practice of rolling up new characters mid-campaign.

And even that isn't a given. Maybe the DM thinks ahead and introduces a powerful monster or divine being that offers to bring back fallen heroes to life in exchange for, say, a small errand.

Either way, game is not broken.

 

[CapnZapp]

I explained it before.

If you run 5e without magic items, you are more or less agreeing that the DM has to be an expert to replace the holes magic items filled and a social contract that your game will not play like normal D&D and put characters in different or additional roles less a large percentage of the monsters removed.
.

I could argue if you run 5e with magic items, you are more or less agreeing that the DM has to be an expert to parry the increased abilities and complexities and a social contract that your game will not play like normal D&D and put characters in different or additional roles less a large percentage of the monsters removed.

I'm not convinced which is harder: play the game with loads of items and play the game with zero items. Open the flood gates and you have the problem where fighters have +3 armor with +3 shields. Is this problem (do I remember it correctly if the maximum AC possible is AC 49? ) really easier to solve than the problem where fighters have no magic weapons?

I absolutely understand it is easier for you, but that doesn't make everything you're not used to "broken".

 

[Horwath]

I'm not convinced which is harder: play the game with loads of items and play the game with zero items. Open the flood gates and you have the problem where fighters have +3 armor with +3 shields. Is this problem (do I remember it correctly if the maximum AC possible is AC 49? ) really easier to solve than the problem where fighters have no magic weapons?

both are hard to balance and needs lots of work from DM, but I am certain what is more boring.

 

[James Gasik]

I agree to all of this. But the argument you "need" your concentration for Banishment or Stinking Cloud, so sorry fighter, you can just stand there and be a sack of hit points, is not a compelling argument for "the game doesn't work".

Now I can't remember if you made this claim, so I'm just saying.

For one thing, perchance the DM realizes no magic items makes the game harder, so perhaps you don't actually need to cast those concentration spells just as much as you're used to? Maybe in this campaign there actually is leeway to spend your concentration on your fighter buddy.

Maybe not, but there's a difference between "game is broken regardless of my choices" and "my choices is what breaks the game".

I think that the game's difficulty can vary wildly based on the choices of the people who play and run it. WotC gives us some guidelines for how it works best, but I've seen enough different experiences shared online to know that those guidelines only go so far.

I've heard the following claims made by different people. Now, I'm going to assume that nobody has some weird secret agenda here and is lying about what they've seen.

*D&D is easy mode, nobody can die ever or be challenged without house rules.
*D&D is busted if you don't force adventuring days with 6-8 encounters.
*D&D classes are balanced against each other.
*D&D classes aren't balanced against each other.
*D&D classes aren't balanced against each other...and that's a good thing because balance sucks!
*D&D casters are too good.
*D&D runs just fine in a low magic game without magic items.
*D&D has problems without the right magic/magic items and/or feats.

There's more, but you can see each of these opinions shared on any given day here on ENWorld. What often isn't shared, however, are the precise reasons these problems can or do not exist.

Generally this comes down to DM playstyle, player skill or lack thereof, character optimization or lack thereof, party optimization or lack thereof, presence or lack of optional rules modules, and what rules are used at the table.

I've now played 5e with three different DM's in home games, I've played under various DM's in Adventure League, I've played official modules, and third-party modules. I've played and GM'd D&D in general since 1989 or so, as well as other games (not making any claims of being an expert, just that this ain't my first rodeo).

My observations are as follows:

*Playing a martial when enemies that are resistant to your weapon attacks is miserable.

*Not being able to access decent elemental damage (like, weapon attack damage, not 1 fire from a torch or 1d6 from an alchemic item) as a martial, even with something that should exist, like fire arrows, is problematic against certain foes.

*Classes don't always have good ways to shore up the weaknesses of other party members. A Rogue being an ace at climbing does little to help a Wizard, nor does being good at sneaking help a Strength Fighter. Being able to cast Fly doesn't help the party navigate the third dimension, etc..

*Characters do have glaring weak points that can only be alleviated by having another character with the right abilities on hand, or optional rules elements (feats, multiclassing, magic items).

*There do exist spells that can shore up weak points others have, by affecting groups of enemies, applying hard control, inflicting elemental damage, granting bonuses to bad saves, resistances, immunities, and the ability to undo the various terrifying things that can happen to you in D&D, like being turned to stone. But these often have opportunity costs and are only available to specific classes (Greater Restoration and Heroes' Feast are good examples, as is anything that requires concentration and locks you out of using other spells while maintaining them).

*There exists many magic items that can solve any and all of these problems, but their availability is completely in the DM's wheelhouse, and there's not a lot of real guidelines to tell a less experienced DM when/how/why they should make such solutions available to the players.

In another thread, someone pointed out that one of the reasons they rejected WotC's approach in 4e was because the game told you how to play- what classes to bring, and what your character was expected to do.

WotC was very careful not to do this with 5e, but I think they may have overcorrected. If none of these observations are true for you and the games you've played, fantastic! But they can be true for others, which is no reason to dismiss their existence, or resist the idea of WotC offering more guidance with regards to troubleshooting.

I mean, it's like when your make and model of car has a defect that only affects 7% of drivers. You may have never had this issue or noticed it, and odds are you never will. That's no reason for the car company to not offer a recall, is it?

 

[Minigiant]

I could argue if you run 5e with magic items, you are more or less agreeing that the DM has to be an expert to parry the increased abilities and complexities and a social contract that your game will not play like normal D&D and put characters in different or additional roles less a large percentage of the monsters removed.

I'm not convinced which is harder: play the game with loads of items and play the game with zero items. Open the flood gates and you have the problem where fighters have +3 armor with +3 shields. Is this problem (do I remember it correctly if the maximum AC possible is AC 49? ) really easier to solve than the problem where fighters have no magic weapons?

I absolutely understand it is easier for you, but that doesn't make everything you're not used to "broken".

I think my point is that playing 5e with a curated list of magic items or rolling magic item treasure tables and knowing when to low-ball the results (roll +3 armor give out +3 padded) is the best way to run 5e

However you have to be a veteran of a previous edition or an expert of 5e to know this.

Running 5e with or without magic items blind will not create the base expected experience of D&D. Because D&D has always had its mechanics based around a curated list of magic items or a flood magic item treadmill. And 5e is no exception.

 

[James Gasik]

I could argue if you run 5e with magic items, you are more or less agreeing that the DM has to be an expert to parry the increased abilities and complexities and a social contract that your game will not play like normal D&D and put characters in different or additional roles less a large percentage of the monsters removed.

I'm not convinced which is harder: play the game with loads of items and play the game with zero items. Open the flood gates and you have the problem where fighters have +3 armor with +3 shields. Is this problem (do I remember it correctly if the maximum AC possible is AC 49? ) really easier to solve than the problem where fighters have no magic weapons?

I absolutely understand it is easier for you, but that doesn't make everything you're not used to "broken".

Oh absolutely, a magic item can make it very difficult to challenge a party. One of my 5e characters is a Fighter/Rogue who managed to get a Broom of Flying and a Robe of Eyes from Storm King's Thunder. An encounter with invisible Duergar assassins was completely upended when I pointed out to the DM that I could see invisible enemies, and thanks to advantage, my passive Perception was easily able to foil their Stealth. Not to mention (given the lack of guidance for the limitations of the Broom) the mobility of being able to fly.

On the other hand, if I hadn't had the Robe, our Cleric would have been ganked on the surprise round (it was only my question of how the Duergar got so close that reversed this fate) and our adventure could have ended with that encounter- so it kind of cuts both ways.

Which is why guidance for magic items is so important. To know what to make available to the players, when, and why. Now if your point is, you think using magic items can be more problematic than not, that's a very old debate that I don't think there's a clear answer to.

Gary Gygax warned against cutting casters too many breaks, and against "Monty Haul" campaigns. But he also added a plethora of fantastic treasures to the game, some of which clearly exist as rules patches (intelligent magic weapons, class-specific items, random tables weighted to support some classes more than others, bags of holding, murlynd's spoons, portable holes, helms of underwater action, winged boots, Daern's Instant Fortress and many more). DM's have, then, for years, effed around and found out what happens if you aren't careful with magic items, and presumably, figured out what they needed to do to run games with fewer or even no magic items.

The DMG could well afford to include some of this wisdom in more detail.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think my point is that playing 5e with a curated list of magic items or rolling magic item treasure tables and knowing when to low-ball the results (roll +3 armor give out +3 padded) is the best way to run 5e

However you have to be a veteran of a previous edition or an expert of 5e to know this.

Running 5e with or without magic items blind will not create the base expected experience of D&D. Because D&D has always had its mechanics based around a curated list of magic items or a flood magic item treadmill. And 5e is no exception.

I would have agreed if you didn't make it appear 5E was just another edition.

Assuming we can agree 5E really is different from previous editions I can agree to the above.

In previous editions "no items" would have borked the game, but it really doesn't actually break 5E.

 

[CapnZapp]

both are hard to balance and needs lots of work from DM, but I am certain what is more boring.

Sure. This statement doesn't claim one is broken, so fair enuff.

 

[CapnZapp]

I've heard the following claims made by different people. Now, I'm going to assume that nobody has some weird secret agenda here and is lying about what they've seen.

*D&D is easy mode, nobody can die ever or be challenged without house rules.
*D&D is busted if you don't force adventuring days with 6-8 encounters.
*D&D classes are balanced against each other.
*D&D classes aren't balanced against each other.
*D&D classes aren't balanced against each other...and that's a good thing because balance sucks!
*D&D casters are too good.
*D&D runs just fine in a low magic game without magic items.
*D&D has problems without the right magic/magic items and/or feats.

There's more, but you can see each of these opinions shared on any given day here on ENWorld. What often isn't shared, however, are the precise reasons these problems can or do not exist.

Not disagreeing here, but just to add:

The fact the above is real should not be used by any publisher to evade responsibility for maintaining a certain baseline.

Not balancing a spell or monster cannot be excused with "some groups don't mind".

The game (and especially such a widely used game) is always much better off with balance. Let those that don't care for it ignore it, rather than allowing those who do suffer the lack of it.

Another way of saying this is that if you don't care about balance you're equally happy with or without it; but if you do care, only a balanced game makes you happy. Ergo, balance makes the game better or at least equally good for everybody.