Mod Note:
You don't come across any better using language like that towards another user.
Be better. You are done, as you certainly won't be posting in this thread again.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D (2024) 2024 needs to end 2014's passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items & other elements from d&d
- Thread starter tetrasodium
- Start date
Mod Note:
You don't come across any better using language like that towards another user.
Be better. You are done, as you certainly won't be posting in this thread again.
Mod Note:
Okay, we get that you don't like it. However, you come across as ascribing motives or personal characteristics to people and designers, which is a problem.
I just relieved someone else of the need to reply to this thread. Be better, please, and don't join them.
Older Beholder
Hero
Personally, I like 5E's take on magic items.
Like most things in 5E, the game lets you play how you want.
Don't want to use magic items... you can do that without issue, just don't hand any out.
Want to keep things in check... use attunement slots, moderate how many items are in the game.
Want a Monty Hall game... ignore attunement slots and go for it!
There's just so much diversity in play, I don't see the passive aggressiveness you're talking about.
None of these things are seen as better than any other.
Playing without an emphasis on magic items was never much of an option in previous editions (at least among people I played with). It's more of a realistic option now, but that doesn't mean that you can't play with lots of magic items if that's fun for you.
I'm happy to drop a Ring of 3 Wishes into a level 1 game, or run a character to level 12 without a single magic weapon. It's all good.
Like most things in 5E, the game lets you play how you want.
Don't want to use magic items... you can do that without issue, just don't hand any out.
Want to keep things in check... use attunement slots, moderate how many items are in the game.
Want a Monty Hall game... ignore attunement slots and go for it!
There's just so much diversity in play, I don't see the passive aggressiveness you're talking about.
None of these things are seen as better than any other.
Playing without an emphasis on magic items was never much of an option in previous editions (at least among people I played with). It's more of a realistic option now, but that doesn't mean that you can't play with lots of magic items if that's fun for you.
I'm happy to drop a Ring of 3 Wishes into a level 1 game, or run a character to level 12 without a single magic weapon. It's all good.
4e did it right.
Assume 3 slots are filled.
Remove attunement and allow double ups for very high magic games
Only assume 1 magic slot and have the rest be "masterwork" for low magic games
Have all 3 slots be masterwork for no magic games.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Why WOTC or Paizo or anyone else could not figure this out is beyond me.
Assume 3 slots are filled.
- Weapon. A magic weapon or magic focus
- Armor A magic armor or robe
- Neck A magic amulet, cape, or cloak
Assume nothing else.
Add Arms, Feet, Head, Waist, Rings,and Misc magic items for high magic games.Remove attunement and allow double ups for very high magic games
Only assume 1 magic slot and have the rest be "masterwork" for low magic games
Have all 3 slots be masterwork for no magic games.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Why WOTC or Paizo or anyone else could not figure this out is beyond me.
Horwath
Legend
That sounds like a MAGIC weapon, no matter how you flavor it.what if you've been able to reforge and enhance that boot camp sword with the powdered scales of a silver dragon and the diamond heart of a frost golem into the mighty 'Glacier's Edge'
what i'm saying is we need rules for crafting mechanics/prices as much as we need prices for outright purchases
And not to disagree, a approve on how you presented the materials requires for crafting that MAGIC sword.
but since all requirements can be obtained, some more difficult than others and there is a skill present that can be paid for and you can pay someone to kill a dragon or a frost golem, I mean, what are adventurers for than to die in hope of a payday., you can place market price on all magic weapons.
Horwath
Legend
not really, partially at best.
number treadmill was too much and magic weapons we not that interesting as you usually only had one extra property pass the +X bonus.
5E did better to halve that +6 to +3 max bonus.
Now +X needs to be removed of capped at +1 max.
agree.
max of +1 to attack, AC, saves and DCs from magic items. And every of those items must use attunement slot.
add +Xd6 instead of +1 attack&damage and +X damage reduction instead of +X AC. This would not require attunement.
yes.
but I would have magic ring even in low magic settings because for reasons...
Horwath
Legend
agree, cantrips and extra attack(s) should really scale at levels 5,9,13,17.
Horwath
Legend
Kalmi
Explorer
The original sin of D&D with magic items was the invention of the "+1 weapon." This is not an interesting concept, it's a math fix masquerading as treasure. No one ever wrote a story about the wonders of a +1 weapon. It's a problem when players want magic items not because they're interesting, but because they're needed to make your character viable.
5e made the correct choice to make magic items non-necessary for progression, but they still kept those +X items around, so I do feel they could still do a lot more to make magic items interesting, and give much better guidance for creating, selling, and buying them.
5e made the correct choice to make magic items non-necessary for progression, but they still kept those +X items around, so I do feel they could still do a lot more to make magic items interesting, and give much better guidance for creating, selling, and buying them.
