D&D 5E Bounded Accuracy and Magic Item Scarcity

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ExploderWizard]

You can still feature a more powerful range of magical items if desired, just don't expect the standard monsters to provide the same challenge.

It really isn't a whole lot different than the situation in AD&D when UA was introduced. If you used all the stuff from UA, characters, especially fighters got massive power ups. When added to access to really powerful magic items then many monsters started becoming pushovers. Your choice was to disallow UA options, reduce magic item availability, or beef up the monsters to compensate.

Flash forward some thirty-odd years and here we are again. The main difference is that many of the character power ups are hard wired in so we are left with magic items and monsters as adjustable dials.

 

[Dragonsbane]

I have more items in my game that the new low-item standard in 5e since parts of the gameworld are more advanced in my lore, so I tried to do a few things to fix the issues with the smaller number range:

- no shields with a bonus to AC
- no to hit bonus for ammo
- no items that increase stats, things like belts of giant strength and headband of intellect removed, as are the stat increasing tomes, ioun stones for stats, gauntlets of ogre power, amulet of health, etc
- no wish items (or the spell in the game)
- many items reclassified to proper rarity by what spells they can cast/emulate
- nerfed feats that give -5/+10 (GWM) down to +3/+6

I also set up a standard rule: When in doubt if a bonus stacks, assume it does not. This includes things from spells and items together. For example, the magic weapon spell does not stack with the bonus from a magical weapon when put together. A paladin's aura of protection does not stack with a ring of protection's saving throw bonus, and the ring of protection's AC bonus does not stack with the shield of faith spell.

Stores to by items are still uncommon unless in a large city, and even then I limit them. I even have feats for players to craft things, and not with outrageous costs or times either. To be fair, all my monsters have at least two good saves to reflect their role in combat, and some monsters in my game have additional immunities (like undead), but I haven't had a problem yet with things getting too out of bounds.

 

[ExploderWizard]

- nerfed feats that give -5/+10 (GWM) down to +3/+6

Whoa! I'll buy THAT for a dollar! Trading a penalty for damage for a bonus plus a little less damage is a no brainer.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think that your first sentence and your second sentence, in terms of game play, are diametrically opposed. As a theoretical matter, you are correct. For example, a world in 5e could have 10 +1 swords for every single inhabitant. Magic swords are not, by definition, scarce. And that has nothing to do with bounded accuracy. But in terms of gameplay, it matters a great deal. A player finds a +1 weapon at, say, 4th level. Then, he keeps finding... +1 weapons. Yay? Awesome? To paraphrase the principle behind the Incredibles, in a world where everything is +1, nothing is +1.

To put it more succinctly, if you a) have bounded accuracy, and b) have a system where characters get massive bonuses from gaining levels and/or proficiency (let alone feats, etc.), then c) you have to constrain the power of magic items, which means that d) magic can't be that special or gradated.

Well, in your 1st post you asked about magic item scarcity i.e. how many magic items are around, not how powerful!

However, I also believe that you can put truly powerful magic items in a 5e game. If they grant high bonuses on d20 rolls (or AC), they will break bounded accuracy, but this IMHO will be a problem only if it affects different characters differently (e.g. the Fighter-types get +5 weapons, the spellcasters don't get something equivalent). If you manage to keep the situation fair for all PCs, then it's not really gamebreaking, and you can always buff the monsters (or just use higher-CR monsters or larger monster parties) to keep the encounter challenging.

As a matter of fact, I am a fan of high-power magic items, except that my favorite way to handle them is to make them circumstance-based and story-bound so that they are not always active but they work only when I want. So I may let you find a Holy Avenger sword that has a +5 bonus to hit, but it's only going to work as often and as long as the story dictates. Breaking bounded accuracy for a single fight once in a while is not the same as an item that consistently breaks it all the time!

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TheCosmicKid]

To put it more succinctly, if you a) have bounded accuracy, and b) have a system where characters get massive bonuses from gaining levels and/or proficiency (let alone feats, etc.), then c) you have to constrain the power of magic items, which means that d) magic can't be that special or gradated.

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. In a bounded accuracy system, where every +1 bonus provides more of a combat advantage, such magic items are inherently more special.

And let's also note here that we're not talking about "magic items" in general -- we're talking specifically about magic items which grant a bonus to attack rolls, AC, and/or saving throws. If an item does something else, the bounded accuracy system is simply not relevant to it.

Under OSR/1e-type rules, it was fairly easy to differentiate the "power" of items- for example, a finely crafted sword (damascus steel) might be the equivalent of a +1 (without ability to hit creatures that can only be hit by magic), then you could go all the way up to artifact level (+4/+5) for extreme high-level campaigns, with lots of gradations in between.

It takes some getting used to.

The difference between a "ceiling" of +3 and +5 honestly doesn't strike me as significant. But obviously it does to you. So, thinking about what I said above about bounded accuracy, I might suggest moving the gradation system you're looking for to something other than attack rolls, AC, and/or saving throws. For weapons, the alternative seems obvious: damage. If a +X weapon only meant +X to damage, it could actually go even higher than +5. You could even have hybrid items like a +2/+5 longsword -- +2 to hit, +5 damage. (I dimly recall some weapons like this in 2E and Baldur's Gate.)

 

[Dragonsbane]

OMG -3/+6 lololol not +3/+6

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Well, I guess it depends on the definition of "special." As you correctly note, since any bonus from a magic item is amazing in a bounded accuracy system, everyone is special; my point was a little different- due to the lack of gradation, once you get your +1, then ... when everything is special, nothing is.

I would recommend against DMs issuing every enemy with +1 armor. So long as they don't, the PCs continue to reap a very real benefit from having +1 weapons, both mathematically and in terms of "specialness". The mighty heroes with their magic swords will cleave through the armies of evil.

And even if you're comparing the "specialness" of PCs to each other (probably not a great idea)... doesn't "When everything is special, nothing is" logic apply just the same to the old system as the new? Having two more numbers at the top can't really change that dynamic, can it? Whatever the gradation scheme, surely every PC is going to climb it eventually, right?