D&D 3E/3.5 5E Feats Compared to 3E Feats

[ccooke]

It creates additional work for the DM having to balance for rules skewed far in favor of the players. What would be the point of switching from 3E where this was exceedingly prevalent to yet another game system that creates major balance problems? I hope I doesn't get included myself. I hope they keep things very toned down. Monster Manual was not built to handle PC groups with +3 armor.

If the DM decides to hand out lots of +3 items, then that's the DM's choice. The DMG should make it clear, and then provide instructions on how to balance it.

The Monster Manual was designed to cater for the default 5e game, in which magic items will be rare and intentionally breaking bounded accuracy. That is, a PC with a +1 sword should be able to notice that they have an important and powerful weapon. Having a magical weapon should be special.
But that's not everyone's game, and the DMG should cater for people who want something more like previous editions. Given their level of execution on the PHB and MM, and the fact they've previously said that guidelines for DMs who use more magic items will be in there, I am currently reasonably confident that they'll include something that works.

That way, everyone can be happy. They won't be, of course - we're talking about gamers here - but the potential is there

 

[Celtavian]

If the DM decides to hand out lots of +3 items, then that's the DM's choice. The DMG should make it clear, and then provide instructions on how to balance it.

The Monster Manual was designed to cater for the default 5e game, in which magic items will be rare and intentionally breaking bounded accuracy. That is, a PC with a +1 sword should be able to notice that they have an important and powerful weapon. Having a magical weapon should be special.
But that's not everyone's game, and the DMG should cater for people who want something more like previous editions. Given their level of execution on the PHB and MM, and the fact they've previously said that guidelines for DMs who use more magic items will be in there, I am currently reasonably confident that they'll include something that works.

That way, everyone can be happy. They won't be, of course - we're talking about gamers here - but the potential is there

Why did you emphasize "intentionally breaking bounded accuracy"? Are you missing the entire point? If they make certain magic item standard, it will turn the game into a cakewalk not worth the time of a DM to play.

They should not be looking to break bounded accuracy. It makes the game boring and easy. If the two-hander fighter gets his +3 magic weapon and is able to use his -5/+10 damage on every hit, he makes powerful enemies like dragons and solars look like a joke. He makes even weaker enemies look like a stupid joke that doesn't even need to be told. If the game slants too far in favor of the players to the point the DM has major problems creating challenging encounters, running the game gets boring. It should be avoided.

A +3 weapon will make the game so easy as to make it not worth running. I've been looking at monsters. They seem strong at low level. Excessive magic items with bonuses will make them weaker and weaker if they make +3 items the default. Seriously, a fighter or paladin with a +3 shield, +3 plate armor, +3 ring of protection, and defensive fighting has an AC of 30. That would make the game trivial even at high level. I don't want to see it as a DM.

 

[ccooke]

Why did you emphasize "intentionally breaking bounded accuracy"? Are you missing the entire point? If they make certain magic item standard, it will turn the game into a cakewalk not worth the time of a DM to play.

They should not be looking to break bounded accuracy. It makes the game boring and easy. If the two-hander fighter gets his +3 magic weapon and is able to use his -5/+10 damage on every hit, he makes powerful enemies like dragons and solars look like a joke. He makes even weaker enemies look like a stupid joke that doesn't even need to be told. If the game slants too far in favor of the players to the point the DM has major problems creating challenging encounters, running the game gets boring. It should be avoided.

A +3 weapon will make the game so easy as to make it not worth running. I've been looking at monsters. They seem strong at low level. Excessive magic items with bonuses will make them weaker and weaker if they make +3 items the default. Seriously, a fighter or paladin with a +3 shield, +3 plate armor, +3 ring of protection, and defensive fighting has an AC of 30. That would make the game trivial even at high level. I don't want to see it as a DM.

The existence of some +3 items does not make +3 items the default.
In 5e, the default is extremely rare magical items, and the DM is entirely in control of how to enforce that.
The existence of +3 items means more flexibility for DMs and more playstyles that 5e can accomodate.

The reason I emphasized the way magic items break bounded accuracy is because that's exactly the point of them. Now, while the groups I play in like the default, there are groups out there who like to go for a very different feel. For those groups, if the advice in the DMG is good, they can replicate an item-heavy, lots-of-plusses style of game without breaking the system. That's good, for them.

For those of us who prefer magic items to be big, rare and important, +3 items serve to make for better stories. I'll give you an example:

A campaign has spent a year or so discovering a terrible threat to the world, finding its weaknesses and eventually questing for a weapon that can destroy the big bad. After a long build-up and much sacrifice, they finally reach their goal and have it - a +3 sentient greatsword. Together, they meet the challenges set by the sword, proving their worth.
Now the campaign speeds towards its final confrontations, and at this point the party have a weapon so strong makes a clear and visible difference. They blast through challenges that would previously have been difficult, clearing their way towards the last fight - which has, of course, been geared to still be difficult even with their new weapons.

What 5e gives us is the ability to make once-per-campaign events like this actually feel and play differently. I'm really looking forward to using stuff like this, even if I only have a place for it in maybe half of my campaigns.

 

[Eejit]

A +3 weapon will make the game so easy as to make it not worth running. I've been looking at monsters. They seem strong at low level. Excessive magic items with bonuses will make them weaker and weaker if they make +3 items the default. Seriously, a fighter or paladin with a +3 shield, +3 plate armor, +3 ring of protection, and defensive fighting has an AC of 30. That would make the game trivial even at high level. I don't want to see it as a DM.

Default is zero +X weapons or armor, the game's math doesn't assume any. Magic item availability is entirely the decision of the DM.

 

[NaturalZero]

For those of us who prefer magic items to be big, rare and important, +3 items serve to make for better stories.

...

What 5e gives us is the ability to make once-per-campaign events like this actually feel and play differently. I'm really looking forward to using stuff like this, even if I only have a place for it in maybe half of my campaigns.

Having a +3 to your math is seems like a pretty bad way to make a fight play differently or make a magic item feel magical though. Having a few extra +s to hit is something that completely fades into the math of the game. Having a sword shoot out fire, talk, fly through the air, attract lightning bolts, or radiate daylight feels far more magical and actually effects play by giving the player options. Turning a +12 hit into a +15 doesn't give you a sense of magic or change what a character is actually doing, playwise.

IMO, having +x items was completely unnecessary and just serves to mess up the math without good reason. The Sword of Awesome that shoots firebolts, causes earthquakes and attracts thunderstorms is far more magical than the +3 sword, both in feel and gameplay actions.

 

[ccooke]

Having a +3 to your math is seems like a pretty bad way to make a fight play differently or make a magic item feel magical though. Having a few extra +s to hit is something that completely fades into the math of the game. Having a sword shoot out fire, talk, fly through the air, attract lightning bolts, or radiate daylight feels far more magical and actually effects play by giving the player options. Turning a +12 hit into a +15 doesn't give you a sense of magic or change what a character is actually doing, playwise.

IMO, having +x items was completely unnecessary and just serves to mess up the math without good reason. The Sword of Awesome that shoots firebolts, causes earthquakes and attracts thunderstorms is far more magical than the +3 sword, both in feel and gameplay actions.

Yes, a +3 item should have a distinct personality. It should have more properties than just a flat +3.
Hell, +3 items are "Legendary" according to the Basic DM rules. From the DMG previews we've seen, there are tables for random properties to apply to magic items and a Legendary item will have a few of those.

But there's another thing that I think you are missing, here.

+3 items in 3e and 4e vanished into the system math.

In 5th edition, a +3 weapon means you have 15% better accuracy than the system expects you to have. For whoever holds it, it's going to feel like a massive power boost - easier to hit and doing a lot more damage. It breaks all the expectations of bounded accuracy - and for set-piece end-of-campaign stuff, that's great.
I would be less likely to use +3 armour in general... except it's a natural thing that might fit the end of one of my campaigns, in a year or so. No way to tell if the story will go in that direction this far in advance, but if things go that way it'll make for an interesting finale session

 

[kalani]

+3 weapons - these are legendary weapons, each with their own unique history and abilities.
+3 armor - these are legendary suits of armor, renown throughout the world (or at least the kingdom), and known for their legendary defensive properties.

Most of these items should be recognizable on sight by anyone with knowledge of History, or Arcana - and may even be well known amongst the common people, if only as gossip. Such items should be recognizable with a successful DC 5-10 Intelligence (Folklore) check, while accurate knowledge of its histories and abilities may require a DC 10-20 Intelligence (Arcana or History) check.

Examples of items for the purposes of relevance include

• Dragonlance: Rabbitslayer, The Brightblade, Dragonlances, etc
• Forgotten Realms: I do not know this setting, so cannot comment (sorry FR fans, no offense intended).
• Lord of the Rings Glamdring, Durin's Axe, Orcrist, Narsil.... Sting, Morgul's Blades, Black Arrows and the like may only represent +1 or +2 items - but even these are of reputable note
• Game of Thrones: Valarian Steel weapons would be +1 to +3 by dnd standards

If you are allowing players to collect +3 items, all the power to you - but if I was you I would tie them together and if the items do not have a legend associated with their use, make one..

For example - The Armor of Achilles.: Most people believe Achilles to be nigh invulnerable. Legends tell of him gaining his invulnerability due to having been dipped into the River Styx as a child. As with most myth and legend, the truth is usually less sensational..... Achilles wore a suit of legendary defensive items collectively known as the "Armor of Achilles". The Armor of Achilles consists of a +3 ring of protection, +3 shield and +3 Plate armor - making him all but invulnerable to any but the most powerful of foes.

Don't allow legendary items to become mundane.
Play up their legendary status. If, for any reason you decide to allow your PCs to acquire multiple legendary items, weave the hero into the legend and have new "stories", gossip, myths and legends form as a result of the PC having collected (and combined) the power of their various legendary items.

 

[ccooke]

+3 weapons - these are legendary weapons, each with their own unique history and abilities.
+3 armor - these are legendary suits of armor, renown throughout the world (or at least the kingdom), and known for their legendary defensive properties.

If you are allowing players to collect +3 items, all the power to you - but if I was you I would tie them together and if the items do not have a legend associated with their use, make one..

For example - The Armor of Achilles.: Most people believe Achilles to be nigh invulnerable. Legends tell of him gaining his invulnerability due to having been dipped into the River Styx as a child. As with most myth and legend, the truth is usually less sensational..... Achilles wore a suit of legendary defensive items collectively known as the "Armor of Achilles". The Armor of Achilles consists of a +3 ring of protection, +3 shield and +3 Plate armor - making him all but invulnerable to any but the most powerful of foes.

Don't allow legendary items to become mundane.
Play up their legendary status. If, for any reason you decide to allow your PCs to acquire multiple legendary items, weave the hero into the legend and have new "stories", gossip, myths and legends form as a result of the PC having collected (and combined) the power of their various legendary items.

Yes, that's absolutely right. Legendary items of any sort should be the object of quests lasting more than just a session or two. If you're playing 5e by the default rules, they should be used for important story-arc-defining moments only.

Of course, some will want to play higher powered games that use them more often, and I'm hoping the DMG has good advice for them.

 

[Celtavian]

Default is zero +X weapons or armor, the game's math doesn't assume any. Magic item availability is entirely the decision of the DM.

No +x magic weapons is the default? You mean I have to put work into changing things if I have even a +1 sword in the game. That would be a pretty lame default. I hope that isn't the case.

Old School D&D was never about having no magic items. That would be a poor way to design a D&D game. I doubt Mearls who has been preaching old school would design a game with zero magic weapons or armor in the game as the default.

 

[kalani]

Old School D&D was never about having no magic items. That would be a poor way to design a D&D game. I doubt Mearls who has been preaching old school would design a game with zero magic weapons or armor in the game as the default.

The math makes no assumptions about magic items, thereby allowing all kinds of campaigns to function from hardcore low-magic campaigns where even a +1 item is highly prized, to a high-magic campaign in which +1 items are uncommon (but not unheard of), while +3 items are few and far between - but not necessarily unique items.

The default assumption however - is that there is no magic item economy and no magic item creation rules for PCs. All magic items with the exception of healing potions lack prices, meaning that their availability in the campaign is 100% subject to DM approval. Unlike in 3.X and 4E - players cannot simply cherry pick their favorite items using their starting wealth (assuming starting at higher level) or enchant the item themselves.

One thing that has always puzzled me, is the fact that some DMs desire the math to remain relatively static. For every +1 the PCs gain, they want the monsters to gain a comparable bonus to AC (or another relevant stat). This borders on paranoia, especially in respect to gaining +x bonuses from magic items..... The fact that monster stats do not take these items into account has caused such DMs to throw a fit, complaining about broken math.

This makes no sense at all. If the benefit of gaining a magic item is negated by the system math at one point or another - it begs the question why the DM gave the PC the item in the first place. I find it deceptive as all it provides is a placebo effect for the PC - offering false rewards and/or diminishing rewards for the PCs efforts. I want magic items to be meaningful, at all levels. That includes +1 swords at L20, even if they are eclipsed by +3 legendary items.