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

[The Mirrorball Man]

Another solution is to go the Numenera way and to hand out powerful single-use items.

 

[Eejit]

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.

You can have magical weapons and armor with +0 static bonuses too you know...

 

[kalani]

I forgot to mention this in my previous post.

The game assumes that some basic magic items are available to at least one or two members of the party - at least in respect to monsters with resistance or immunity to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage.

The difference being however, that the game makes no assumptions of anything beyond a +1 weapon - and even that is only necessary when facing creatures with complete immunity to non-magical weapons (as even resistance can be eventually overcome).

 

[Celtavian]

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.

First, no magic item economy or creation does not mean no magic items.

Second how does making the game easier to run not make sense to you? Are you mostly a player or mostly a DM? Do you have any idea what kind of a nightmare the magic item Christmas tree was like in 3E/Pathfinder? Not just in terms of style, but play?

The math has to add up because when a player obtains a magic item that slants the math heavily in their favor, the DM no longer has any reason to run the game. The game loses any sense of challenge. The PC runs over the encounters with relative ease. Then the DM must compensate by adjusting encounters to deal with the magic item. Are you one of those players that doesn't care if the DM is having a good time? You do know that most of us that DM a lot don't have a good time watching players run over everything like it's a speed bump? That's why we are concerned with the math of the game, including the effect magic items have on combat balance.

The entire game is false rewards. The entire game is a placebo. It's all an illusion. The DM's job is to create the illusion of a challenge. Meaningfulness? What does that even mean coming from a magic item? If you get a magic item that let's you destroy everything, how is that meaningful or even fun? Meaningful should create the illusion that the item gives you some kind of special power, not such a mathematically superior advantage as to trivialize encounters.

Most of us DMs have had to deal with escalating player options whether abilities or magic items that trivialize the game and make it pointless for us to even run encounters. We're the ones that spend the most time preparing to make the game fun for players. So of course we're going to be highly concerned with the math behind the game because that is how we create the illusion that players are accomplishing something meaningful.

 

[Celtavian]

You can have magical weapons and armor with +0 static bonuses too you know...

We'll see how it works. It seems in the module we're running right now, there is a powerful +2 sword. We'll see how that goes.

Given the fact AC works against everything, I hope they included a means for casters to boost their hit rolls for spells. Spells have no advantage striking targets. Thus a hit bonus boost for attack rolls will be welcome. I do recall a 4E mechanic that gave casters attack roll bonuses. At the moment I still don't understand why every caster doesn't get an ability bonus for damage to spells given they do not do substantially more damage than melee attacks, especially from Great Weapon Fighters. The Great Weapon Fighter is doing substantially higher damage than everyone in the group at the moment for the lowest resource cost. A bit of an annoying balance issue.

 

[weldon]

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.

This comment reminds me of an observation about video game design. The various Mario games were held up as an example of design where new powers are introduced to the player just as they are required to solve new challenges presented by the level design. The fun in the game progression comes from learning to use the new tactics to defeat the new problem. I don't remember where I saw it, but I wish I did to give the author credit.

I think those DMs that want the math to remain balanced have a point. Certainly I think that increases in PC power should be met with increases in monster challenge. But if the challenge is +1 AC is overcome with +1 to hit, it's just not very interesting.

 

[aramis erak]

I forgot to mention this in my previous post.

The game assumes that some basic magic items are available to at least one or two members of the party - at least in respect to monsters with resistance or immunity to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage.

The difference being however, that the game makes no assumptions of anything beyond a +1 weapon - and even that is only necessary when facing creatures with complete immunity to non-magical weapons (as even resistance can be eventually overcome).

Actually, might not even need to be a +1 - until the DMG drops, we won't know for certain whether there is a +0 level or not. In my home games, yes, there will be.

 

[kalani]

Second how does making the game easier to run not make sense to you? Are you mostly a player or mostly a DM? Do you have any idea what kind of a nightmare the magic item Christmas tree was like in 3E/Pathfinder? Not just in terms of style, but play?

Are you one of those players that doesn't care if the DM is having a good time? You do know that most of us that DM a lot don't have a good time watching players run over everything like it's a speed bump? That's why we are concerned with the math of the game, including the effect magic items have on combat balance.

I am both, and yes I am well aware of the nightmare that was the christmas tree effect. I am also a firm believer in balance and believe that Dnd is at its core, a fundamentally co-operative game, rather than a competitive one - and as such, I do not place the enjoyment of any player (DM included) over that of any other.

With that being said, I will point out that by making ad hominem attacks which call into question my motives and game experience, you undermine the foundation of your own argument. However, in an effort to prevent further argument, I will state the following (although I find bragging distasteful):

DM Experience (1990-Present)

• I have DMed all editions of Dnd to date including: BECMI, 1E, 2E, Players/DMs Option, Dragonlance 5A (Saga), 3E, 3.5, 4E, Essentials, and 5E.
• I was a sanctioned RPGA DM for 3.5
• I organized/ran the "World D&D day" and 4E launch at my local FLGS
• I was a sanctioned UDE Judge for Yugioh - a game with complicated (and often-times hidden) rules interactions.
• I wrote the book on Priority, and the Summon Negation/Response Chains in Yugioh - and coined the term "Summon Negation Window" in 2005. I accomplished this by comparing and compiling over 5000 card interaction rulings. In doing so, I discovered hidden underlying mechanics to the game and wrote the book on them. I submitted them online in 2005 however they were eventually archived and deleted in late 2007. I then updated and reuploaded them in 2008 to both pojo and TCGplayer.... These guides still exist to this day.
• I am currently an Organized Play DM for 5E, running Encounters/Expeditions on Tues and Wed night, weekly.
• I have been reverse-engineering RPGs since 1997.
• I am a hobby-level RPG developer - with 17 years design/development experience.
• In 2015 I plan on releasing my first professional RPG (designed from scratch) for public playtesting.

The math has to add up because when a player obtains a magic item that slants the math heavily in their favor, the DM no longer has any reason to run the game.

I fail to see how +5-15% accuracy "heavily slants the math" - especially when the DM can always give their opponents magic items as well. Not only that, but as stated in the Monster Manual - monster gear is not salvageable unless indicated by the DM.

I obviously come from a different perspective than yourself. I want magic items to remain meaningful at all levels. As such, I want the value of a +1 sword to be consistent regardless of character level (1-20). By scaling math to account for magic items two things occur:

• The value of the item diminishes with ascending level - cheapening magic items as a result.... Depending on level, a +1 or +2 weapon is equivalent to a mundane weapon at 1st level. I do not want magic items to feel cheap at any level.
• It exacerbates the Christmas tree effect, as PCs are required by the system math to have +X items of X, Y, Z nature by the time they reach levels A, B, or C. Should the players fail to acquire said items by the respective levels, the math is skewed against the players - creating frustration as a result.

Both of these effects combine to force DMs to hand out magic items like candy, so as not to unfairly disadvantage their players. This caused numerous conflicts in the forums and at numerous tables depending on how liberal the DM was with handing out said treasure - something the 5E Dev's took note of. Furthermore, should the DM choose to run a low-magic setting, it required them to manually alter the stats of all monsters to accommodate this.

On the flip side - by removing magic items from the games math, it allows DMs greater flexibility and control over magic items in their setting, and requires fewer math adjustments as a result as the DM can choose when/if to alter the creatures math on a case-by-case basis. If they want the BBEG to have defenses that negate the benefit of the PCs magic items, it requires little more work than increasing the NPCs AC (or other relevant stat) by +X.

Altering 1-2 statistics on a single monster >>>> Rewriting every monsters entire stat block.