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

[Minigiant]

Could you explain to me what doesn't work without magic items?

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.
.

 

[tetrasodium]

here is the full quote


tell me where my summary is not exactly what you wrote here

The colorfully highlighted bit is the part that inverts the meaning from what you described in post 302. Actually quoting and not seeing the relevance of the below highlighted section is a nice touch demonstrating why the 5e dmg141 method is an such a failure when it comes to supporting the gm in locking down stacking when the GM wants to use magic item stacking in a way that needs it.

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.

The GM simply saying no, they use the same slot leaves no room for the arguments you attribute to me describing in 302, There is no room for it because it did not try to insert "common sense". Here is the rule to show why that would be the case.

Spoiler: body slots rule text

BODY SLOTS
Each item’s description has a Body Slot entry that describes
what part of the body it must be worn on to function. A normal
humanoid creature has twelve body slots, enumerated here with
some examples of the kinds of items that might be worn there (for
nonhumanoid creatures, see Size and Shape, below).
Arms: armbands, bracelets, bracers.
Body: armor, robes.
Face: goggles, lenses, masks, spectacles, third eyes.
Feet: boots, sandals, shoes, slippers.
Hands: gauntlets, gloves.
Head: circlets, crowns, hats, headbands, helmets,
phylacteries.
Rings (2 slots): rings.
Shoulders: capes, cloaks, mantles, shawls.
Throat: amulets, badges, brooches, collars, medals, medallions,
necklaces, pendants, periapts, scarabs, scarfs, torcs.
Torso: shirts, tunics, vests, vestments.
Waist: belts, girdles, sashes.
Each body slot can accommodate only a single active magic
item (except for the rings body slot, which allows two active rings,
worn one on each hand or both on the same hand). Additional
magic items could be worn in the same body slot, but only the
first-worn item confers its magical abilities upon the wearer.
Some body slots are described as a matched pair of body parts
(such as arms, feet, or hands). If an item uses one of these body
slots, it takes up both “halves” of the body slot even if worn on
only one of the pair. For example, a glove of storing takes up the
entire hands body slot, even though it’s only one glove. Similarly,
items that come in pairs must be worn together in order to func-
tion—wearing a single gauntlet of ogre power has no effect.
The Magic Item Record Sheet on page 286 indicates all the valid
body slots on a character. Feel free to photocopy this page for your
personal use; it can provide a useful visual aid to remember what
your character is wearing and where.
Some items—particularly those that have a limited number
of uses per day—indicate that they must be worn for a certain
length of time before they can be used. This attunement period
prevents characters from treating them as disposable tools to be
donned and stowed repeatedly throughout the day.

The rule is pretty clear, but it covers both scenarios where stacking items on a slot could come up. No they use the same slot [and won't fit] / no they use the same slot [and it doesn't matter if they both fit at the same time]

 

[mamba]

WOTC: Magic items are not required. The CR systems based on PCs not having magic items.

not required is not the same as forbidden, which is why the adventures include them

Same WOTC: Puts Magic Items in every adventure.

1. There was only reward system included: Magic Items.
2. There was only two methods for growth horizontally: Feats and Magic Items.
3. Some monsters require magic items or a social agreement of spellcasters handling buffing martials or building for offence
4. Common aspects of mid and high levels requires magic items of a social agreement of spellcasters handling it

all good reasons for including them...

I understand that the CR does not take them into account, but that does not mean you (or the adventure) cannot. If the encounter math did take them into account, you would be back to requiring a certain magic item progression

 

[mamba]

The colorfully highlighted bit is the part that inverts the meaning from what you described in post 302. Actually quoting and not seeing the relevance of the below highlighted section is a nice touch demonstrating why the 5e dmg141 method is an such a failure when it comes to supporting the gm in locking down stacking when the GM wants to use magic item stacking in a way that needs it.

that is not inverting the meaning, the players still did try to squeeze in more items than you had slots with some weak arguments. The only difference is that in 3e you could point to the slots and say 'see, sorry, but them's the rules', conveniently ignoring that you could override them if you wanted to. In 5e on the other hand the text offers you essentially the same slots, but tells you outright to use common sense, so your 'excuse' has been taken away. You can still rule exactly the same as you did in 3e.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't hate games without magic items.

My argument is and always has been:

• The DM tools for 5e were half-butted (because WOTC were forced to rush the DMG and didn't personally care for some stuff that would go into it).
• WOTC pretended that the DMG wasn't an unenthusiastic, disorganized, and/or rushed mess until they decided to print a new DMG in 2024.
• The Magic items system, due to it both being a DM side feature and deemed optional, was poor and caused for many new DMs as it does not explain its eccentricities onto the 5e skeleton if the DM wanted to run something off the base assumption.
• Running magic items was common so running off the base assumption was common.
• Not running magic items was the base assumption but the system was itself based on a system that ran magic item, adding more confusion

Or in laymen terms. WOTC didn't give themselves enough time to do magic items right but they pretended they did until they had another DMG to sell

This I agree with, or, as I used to phrase it, "WotC wanted to eat the cake while still having it".

 

[CapnZapp]

that's fair, but i think a good many of us agree that the issues caused by a lack of magic weapons shouldn't ought to be solved by the dependence on the abilities of another class/character.

That's fair, but there's been a bit of too much conflating this desire with "it's broken".

TL;DR: You might not like these solutions, but the game DOES offer solutions (for when the fighter never gets a magic weapon). In other words, it's not "broken". It may be "not to your liking", but that's a different thing.

I should add that, since I'm not a complete newbie DM, if I really were to host a game with zero magic weapons, I would probably take a page from 3rd edition (just like I've been forced to do as regards magic item pricing) and make available a 5E version of something like THIS.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's what I'm saying.

Unless you ban 50-75% of the content, official 5e as printed doesn't work without magic items. But magic items themselves warp the game so you are using a tool that gives you more work as a DM to offset some of the extra work the base game gives.

Are you both agreeing with me while simultaneously contradicting me here?

What content are you claiming you need to "ban" to make it "work"? I was saying "official 5e as printed" definitely does "work" without magic items. That means you can purchase the three core books and play a scenario that hands out absolutely no magic items and expect to successfully complete that scenario.

It doesn't mean you will necessarily have fun while doing so, especially if your wizard player is not a team player and feels it appropriate to go off casting Fireballs with no regard for the fighter player facing monsters with immunity to non-magical weapons.

But that doesn't fit my definition of "not working".

 

[CapnZapp]

I am not opposed to slots, I just see no need

Something like this, yeah.

Slots, and other 3Eisms, should be much more carefully examined before they're unthinkingly carried across into 5E.

 

[CapnZapp]

Now hold on, this has nothing to do with "dazzling everybody" or selfishly not supporting the Fighter. I, for one, would love to throw buff spells on my martials! However, often a Wizard player has to use their concentration on higher priority effects. It's one of my main gripes about concentration- the mechanic in it's current form was made to prevent people from layering spells, but often what it does is prevent me from using buffs on allies. I'd love to give my Fighter Enlarge, Haste, Fly, and Magic Weapon. But I can only do one. And by doing that, I can't hold enemies at bay with Hold Person, Hypnotic Pattern, Sleet Storm, Stinking Cloud, Wall of Fire, Evard's Black Tentacles, Banishment, and a host of other effects, which can potentially be far more effective in helping the group secure victory than letting the Fighter deal his full damage to a foe!

My current list of prepared spells is Mage Armor, Shield, Mirror Image, Misty Step, Web, Dispel Magic, Fireball, Sleet Storm, Slow, Protection from Energy, and Confusion. If I could put Magic Weapon on there (probably by removing Misty Step or Mirror Image), I'd be down to Dispel Magic, Fireball and cantrips for my contribution to battle, all to ensure one weapon used by my allies is magical (given that my party has a dual-wielding Ranger and a multiclassed Monk without Ki-Empowered Strikes, that wouldn't even ensure that all their attacks could deal full damage!).

There may be a circumstance where that's the best play, but so far, it really hasn't been for me. And this has nothing to do with selfishness or seeking glory- my party needs me to do certain things (like provide Protection from Energy while the Cleric is maintaining his Spirit Guardians), and I can only do so much at once.

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".

 

[CapnZapp]

Instead of the magic weapon spell being designed for the needs & limitations of a primary caster (nicely described by @James Gasik in post 306) it is designed in severe conflict with a number of those. A Gish PC like EK AT valor bard or similar through some multiclass combo is going to have a different set of needs & limitations imposed by their lower casting attribute that would ultimately result in many of the listed concentration spells shifting into nonstarter choices. Extending from that for the gish build is going to be the almost certain reduced spell slot count, that too will make spreading around the spell they can't spread around for reasons of both concentration and spell slot availability. Also... Buffing the party has never really been the role of a gish for many reasons

I think you're saying gishes can't be expected to buff parties?

But as long as the gish can magic-weapon his own weapon, he's carrying his own weight as far as this discussion is concerned.