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

[Willie the Duck]

Couldn't disagree with the OP more. I despised the "magic item shopping," "Christmas Tree effect," and "golf bag" of magic items that reached its zenith in 3.x. The game has moved steadily towards make such powers and 'magic' a part of character class abilities and growth.

Man, I'd love if 5e was that game.

I mean, compare it to, say, BX, and it is. All those little modular paragraphs describing what you can and can't do that used to be mostly in the spell and magic item section are now in the spells, magic item, class features, and feats sections -- the last two governed by character building, and the first codified as players getting to choose their spells known (rather than all or mostly finding scrolls and spellbooks in dungeons).

Whether that's the case 3e-->5e, I don't know. probably in large part it is a matter of perspective. You don't need* a certain amount of magic loot to compete at any given level, but I guess the same can be said of 3e... you just take on CR X encounters at level Z instead of the level Y you otherwise would if you had all the magic bells and whistles ECL and NPC loadout suggested was normal.
*with some interesting choices, perhaps, if you can't get a magic weapon

 

[CapnZapp]

Absolutely. I agree with you that it wouldn't work well. But the point of Bounded Accuracy was that a particular DM could do it if they really wanted to and the numbers would allow for the attempt. But you are right that I don't think anyone actually would do that and that as I mentioned, most DMs would turn that 1000 villages vs 1 dragon into a narrative scenario where they narrate the villagers fighting in the background doing stuff while the "party vs dragon" fight is the one that actually gets played out at the table.

My point is that the numbers don't really allow one dragon to do diddly squat.

Yes, it feels nice to be a mighty hero and together with your stalwart companions defeat the monster that's menacing the entire valley.

But the entire valley isn't really menaced by a single dragon numbers-wise.

The game is predicated on five hero actions per turn. Increase the number of hero actions to 20 or 40, and the dragon is toast in round #1 even if the heroes are considerably lower level (and some might even be regular militia).

Assuming, of course, the DM plays ball and has the Dragon use fun playable tactics. (The game assumes a relatively small battle area and monsters that want to rumble)

This post isn't about quibbling over specific stats. It's saying in the most general of terms that even the theoretical idea of playing out 1000 villagers vs the dragon is a very shaky notion. It's better to just assume and accept the game does not lend itself to simulating anything.

It does cinematic fantasy hero combat (meaning the heroes act like marvel characters, the monsters act like silly action movie monsters, nobody thinks too deeply about tactics or death or even why you're fighting at all). Full stop.

 

[CapnZapp]

At higher tiers − 9-12, 13-16, 17-20 − I encourage players to think about leadership roles, including working in or founding a Wizard School, building a Fortress, a Thieves Guild, and so on. My own campaigns have a need for Mass Combat when the lower Tier students, rookies, and recruits, defend the home or even go on mission.

You do realize lots of players want high level to simply allow them to keep doing what they're already doing, except with ever-cooler abilities and facing ever-more fearsome foes?

I think it's nice if a DM gets help if a player is interested in building a wizard tower or whatever.

But it should not be the only thing or even the main thing about high level.

As long as the game offers twenty levels, all of them should be amply supported by monsters and scenarios and fun balanced class abilities.

 

[the Jester]

The game is predicated on five hero actions per turn. Increase the number of hero actions to 20 or 40, and the dragon is toast in round #1 even if the heroes are considerably lower level (and some might even be regular militia).

Assuming, of course, the DM plays ball and has the Dragon use fun playable tactics. (The game assumes a relatively small battle area and monsters that want to rumble)

So... a dragon has no chance unless the dm plays it like a smart dragon?

Remember, a village isn't going to want to attack a dragon if each inhabitant knows that it will kill half of them with one breath before it even comes into range of their attacks. Nobody wants to be the sacrificial lamb.

Dropping rocks from above, hit and run, burning down their homes- these are all pretty bog standard dragon tactics that let it do immense damage without exposing it to much in the way of return fire. "Fun playable tactics" is a very artificial way to run a deadly and smart monster with basically ranged WMD capabilities, at least if that means stand in the middle and slug it out.

 

[CapnZapp]

So... a dragon has no chance unless the dm plays it like a smart dragon?

This is exactly the discussion I am not interested in having (for the umpteenth time).

All DMs are different. The key question is: do your monsters use the exact same tactics against the heroes as the valley full of NPCs?

Most DMs will have the dragon barge in and simply assume the heroes will all die before it.

If it does that over a reasonably sized settlement, full of civilians, but with some trained warriors, some militiamen, the occasional NPC spellcaster, and so on. The game simply doesn't expect more than roughly half a dozen enemy actions. It is not equipped to handle many low level attacks. It is not built for it.

Whatever the results you get, I can assure you they are not intentional. That's not what the rules are for. It is not a good basis for drawing conclusions.

Best is to accept that if you significantly deviate from "5 heroes vs a dozen monsters" you void all warranties.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I like magic items in my D&D (it is one of the most fun aspects of the game). I didn't like how 3rd edition handled them though

 

[DEFCON 1]

My point is that the numbers don't really allow one dragon to do diddly squat.

Yes, it feels nice to be a mighty hero and together with your stalwart companions defeat the monster that's menacing the entire valley.

But the entire valley isn't really menaced by a single dragon numbers-wise.

The game is predicated on five hero actions per turn. Increase the number of hero actions to 20 or 40, and the dragon is toast in round #1 even if the heroes are considerably lower level (and some might even be regular militia).

Assuming, of course, the DM plays ball and has the Dragon use fun playable tactics. (The game assumes a relatively small battle area and monsters that want to rumble)

This post isn't about quibbling over specific stats. It's saying in the most general of terms that even the theoretical idea of playing out 1000 villagers vs the dragon is a very shaky notion. It's better to just assume and accept the game does not lend itself to simulating anything.

It does cinematic fantasy hero combat (meaning the heroes act like marvel characters, the monsters act like silly action movie monsters, nobody thinks too deeply about tactics or death or even why you're fighting at all). Full stop.

To me it looks like we are talking about two separate things here, because I do not disagree with what you are saying. I think you are spot on from a party vs dragon gameplay perspective and agree that the rules do no "simulate" things well at all. But that perspective you bring up doesn't (at least from what I'm seeing) hit upon or deal with the question that was being posed that I've been trying to respond to of "Why do we have Bounded Accuracy, and is it good or bad to have it?"

I'm not seeing how your points relate to Bounded Accuracy specifically, which might mean I just might be missing your point. So it makes me think we're more speaking past each other on two different topics than having differing sides of the same one?

 

[tetrasodium]

Nope, but so what?

Spoiler: erm....

The game known as d&d needs to have monster & combat math/mechanics designed around the idea of a DM running the game with players playing PCs not "a particular dm" using d&d as a randomization engine for writing a novel .

Already answered that one. It's a game not a book author support system.

WotC made BA for a reason, one of which was this (even if no one uses it, which I freely admit to as well.) Some people like it, some people such as yourself don't. But again, so what? If you want to complain about BA, that's cool. That's your right. But if others say they like it, or if they say "Well, this is the way the game has already been built, designed, and published so there's not much anyone can do about it at this point, is there?"... that's their right too.

Spoiler: working as designed is not exactly a 'reason'

Designing the game around an idea that looks less like an effort to meet the needs of gamers playing the game than one pitched from senior management members who don't play d&d & don't want to fits the project management/programming meme to a T.

To me it looks like we are talking about two separate things here, because I do not disagree with what you are saying. I think you are spot on from a party vs dragon gameplay perspective and agree that the rules do no "simulate" things well at all. But that perspective you bring up doesn't (at least from what I'm seeing) hit upon or deal with the question that was being posed that I've been trying to respond to of "Why do we have Bounded Accuracy, and is it good or bad to have it?"

I'm not seeing how your points relate to Bounded Accuracy specifically, which might mean I just might be missing your point. So it makes me think we're more speaking past each other on two different topics than having differing sides of the same one?

It's not that people are talking about a different thing. You are grasping at straws to defend bad design with little more than working as designed to stop discussion about that design, it isn't a "separate thing" when people point out that your efforts to pressure silence through defeatist championing of acceptance have significant cracks in the sandy foundation they are built on.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I mean, compare it to, say, BX, and it is.

But the argument is that it's okay to take away all the fun magic items from the 3x days because those abilities are being made part of the character and... no.

Like objectively no.

Powers from prestige classes have been integrated into characters, but none of the magic items made it in. I'm not getting a punch like the ring of the ram, or getting to become Spiderman like I did when I got the cloak of the arachnid (or however the drunken wordplay for it went in 3e). All the stuff from magic items is still bound up in magic items, just with no reasonable way to get them anymore.

And +X doesn't count. It never counted. +X items are the plain wheat germ of loot.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It's not that people are talking about a different thing. You are grasping at straws to defend bad design with little more than working as designed to stop discussion about that design, it isn't a "separate thing" when people point out that your efforts to pressure silence through defeatist championing of acceptance have significant cracks in the sandy foundation they are built on.

As far as I can tell... you have not stopped talking about bounded accuracy. So if I've been "pressuring you" to stop, I have been doing an absolutely horrible job at it.

In point of fact... I have specifically said in most of my posts that you are free to say whatever it is you want. Which you have been. My only response has been that you can't pressure us to remain quiet so that you can complain freely without anyone telling you why they think you are wrong.

So feel free to keep saying you think BA is bad for the game! Go right ahead! I'm not stopping you. Not at all. And no one else is stopping you either! The only thing I'll do is that if I see something you say that I disagree with, then I'll perhaps respond to tell you why. Maybe I will... maybe I won't. Depends on what you say, how you say it, and how strident you believe your response is the only "truth" there is.

And if that bothers you that I'd dare to disagree? Nothing I can do about that.