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

[Yaarel]

The "attunement points" thing that has been getting discussed for a while seems to have largely been a thing where items use a given number of points based on item power rather than just 2014 style 1 slot per 1 item.

I explained it earlier when I first linked to the example yesterday in this post & didn't realize it needed explaining again so quickly. We may be talking about attunement of magic items rather than spells, but it's not so complicated that it doesn't make a good example of an item responsible for nothing other than variable capacity of some form. In a nutshell ongoing spells affecting a character in that game use a given amount of the player's capacity. A belt is needed to equip the memory chips & determines how many individual memory chips it can hold. The important part is that they don't really do anything else.

Explaining "chips" by self-referentially referring to "chips" (and "memory"), is less helpful to me, who has nothing to do with that other game. It would help more to explain the idea in terms of 5e mechanics.


Generally, I am skeptical regarding the use of "points" for attunement. Any character optimizer will min-max the points to achieve the most powerful expenditure possible. Example, normally, spending all the points on a single extremely high level magic item will almost always be far more powerful than lots of low level items. Predictably it would break the game.

In various contexts, I use spell points, including psionic points. If it would be possible for a low level character to spend all of the points to cast a single high slot spell, it would break the game.

As a DM, I require a hard ceiling, that makes it impossible to use a magic item whose level and tier are higher than appropriate. (A DM can override this ceiling, but the default game engine math cannot.)

For me, referring to a maximum tier of attunability is appealing.

 

[Mistwell]

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.
.

They are removing entirely the "Resistance to non-magical weapons" thing. Aside from that, I am not sure why any monsters would need to be removed to work?

 

[tetrasodium]

Explaining "chips" by self-referentially referring to "chips" (and "memory"), is less helpful to me, who has nothing to do with that other game. It would help more to explain the idea in terms of 5e mechanics.


Generally, I am skeptical regarding the use of "points" for attunement. Any character optimizer will min-max the points to achieve the most powerful expenditure possible. Example, normally, spending all the points on a single extremely high level magic item will almost always be far more powerful than lots of low level items. Predictably it would break the game.

In various contexts, I use spell points, including psionic points. If it would be possible for a low level character to spend all of the points to cast a single high slot spell, it would break the game.

As a DM, I require a hard ceiling, that makes it impossible to use a magic item whose level and tier are higher than appropriate. (A DM can override this ceiling, but the default game engine math cannot.)

For me, referring to a maximum tier of attunability is appealing.

I did link to a "helpful" self described "guide" as well when you asked me to expect again. At a certain point we need to admit that the context that something came up in is also relevant when that context is pointing out how a. Idea is lacking but could be made better like so...

Again why is there this drive to investigate and discuss a rebuild of the attunement system wotc randomly uses and barely supports when any such rebuild needs to be rooted in how monsters and magic items both are significantly redesigned?

 

[Yaarel]

Again why is there this drive to investigate and discuss a rebuild of the attunement system wotc randomly uses and barely supports when any such rebuild needs to be rooted in how monsters and magic items both are significantly redesigned?

I see no need to change any magic item.

I do see a need to accurately assign the amount of power of an item to an appropriate level.

This is akin to figuring out how much a magic item should cost, but it is about figuring out which level it belongs to.

There is no change in the item itself − only a more accurate assessment of how much it is worth.

 

[Yaarel]

@tetrasodium

I agree with some of the points of your original post. 5e 2014 tries to have it both ways. On the one hand, it says, magic items are completely unnecessary − see the math ignores them. On the other hand, it says, magic items are everywhere, in every official adventure, and much of the DMs Guide is random tables for them. What seems to be missing is a systematic and rational way for a DM to "safely" introduce magic items into the game.

I feel 2024 can benefit from a more comprehensive approach to magic items. I am looking at an approach that is "modest" and "safe". One that makes it clear that the game assumes the presence of magic items, but is as nondisruptive as possible. Then it should be easy for a DM to introduce the prescribed number and tiers of magic items without worries. It should be easy for an other DM to remove these magic items by replacing them with innate magic, extra feats, nonmagical masterworks, or technology. Oppositely it should be easy for yet an other DM to increase the quantity and leveling tier of magic items.

So when talking about any default magic items for 5e, I am look for a middleway, something low-key, solid, and incremental, rather than for some mathematical powderkeg or total absence.

 

[Minigiant]

They are removing entirely the "Resistance to non-magical weapons" thing. Aside from that, I am not sure why any monsters would need to be removed to work?

That's the point.

This is a topic about 2014's passive aggressive attitude to magic items.
5e is 3e with new math formula. 3e was based around PC and NPC magic item Christmas trees in combat, exploration, and social encounters. Again 5e copied 3e's base. So it needed magic items (or a skilled DM who knows how to replace them} to work in its best ways.

The playtest for the 2024 version of 5e is more or less implanting the "vital" aspects magic items into the adventurers and monsters.


Classes are getting the skill bonus, damage swaping, resource restoring, and speed boosting items as class features.

 

[Mistwell]

That's the point.

This is a topic about 2014's passive aggressive attitude to magic items.

"Passive aggressive" is a poor description for this concept. And removing that resistance isn't a a change to magic items, it's a change to monsters, right?

5e is 3e with new math formula. 3e was based around PC and NPC magic item Christmas trees in combat, exploration, and social encounters. Again 5e copied 3e's base. So it needed magic items (or a skilled DM who knows how to replace them} to work in its best ways.

I disagree with pretty much every single thing you just said. It's closer 1e and 2e for magic items than 3e. It's not based at all on the Christmas tree model given only three attunements and fixed slots, and nothing about exploration and social is dependent in any way on magic items. Combat only was aided by them if you didn't have spellcasters to compensate for those creatures which had resistance to non-magical weapons.

The playtest for the 2024 version of 5e is more or less implanting the "vital" aspects magic items into the adventurers and monsters.

The only change it made was to remove resistance to non-magic items.

Classes are getting the skill bonus, damage swaping, resource restoring, and speed boosting items as class features.

No? Not at all?

 

[Minigiant]

I disagree with pretty much every single thing you just said. It's closer 1e and 2e for magic items than 3e. It's not based at all on the Christmas tree model given only three attunements and fixed slots, and nothing about exploration and social is dependent in any way on magic items. Combat only was aided by them if you didn't have spellcasters to compensate for those creatures which had resistance to non-magical weapons.

I said 5e is based on 3e. Not just the magic item model. The fighter is just bonus attacks and feats. Almost every other class but bard and warlock is the 3e versions with new math. The monsters are many their 3e versions with new math.

5e copied 3e.
But my 3e ranger had 3 magic swords, a magic dagger, 2 magic armors. a couple wonderous items, and who knows how many potions.

Simply taking the magic items out of 3e's Hit/AC math doesn't make magic items not important to 3e. But that's what 5e attempted.

No? Not at all?

The Monk is punching force and can restore ki points.
The Fighter can use a heal as a skillbonus or movement.
The barbarian and rogue are getting status effect. The barbarian is getting a skill bonus and they toyed with a planeshift.
The ranger and paladin are getting rituals.

Things that were in the purview of DM balanced Magic items are being converted to Class Features.

If Paladins weren't strong already,they might have just given them all holy avengers, angel wings, and a helm that casts tongues.

 

[CapnZapp]

Having to swap character stats when swapping a magic item is a chore.

I do this anyway for the AC of most of my characters, such as for when the spells Mage Armor and Shield may or may not be in effect, along with other variables.

Perhaps an adjustment to the character sheet helps. There can be places for various temporary "special" bonuses that additionally have a location for the overall result while the temporary bonus is in effect.

Example, the "typical" AC is in the main space for it. But there would also be several "special" spaces where one can add alternate ACs depending on each magic item that may or may not be in play.

Yes.

For many, the game's numbers are sufficiently variable already.

The idea you might want to track and carry along more magic items than you can use at any given time comes across as, how should I describe it?, superfluous? excessive? trying too hard?

If you can't beat the game with one set of (attuned) items, goes this reasoning, maybe we just play the game at a lower ambition-slash-difficulty setting, rather than bother with the idea to switch out gear. Something like "had the game deemed it necessary for us to work with four attunement items, well, then it would have given us four attunement slots."

Doesn't mean you're wrong for putting in extra effort. Just that maybe the game doesn't cater to this category of "extra energy customers"? (Not arguing against something as simple as a redesign of a character sheet here; more discussing in general)

Regards

 

[CapnZapp]

That's nothing a VTT macro can't handle.

Any video game worth its salt can handle this. Even World of Warcraft finally relented and gave you support for two completely different builds!

But D&D isn't a video game and not everybody uses a VTT. 5E owes its popularity in part due to it paring down on the niggly details of 3E and other previous editions.

tl;dr: don't create rules that become unreasonably fiddly unless you use computer assistance.

even shorter; still didn't read: don't assume VTTs