D&D 5E Bounded Accuracy and Magic Item Scarcity

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It's the difference between getting your +1 sword, and saying, "But wait, there's more!," and getting your +1 sword and saying, "Eh, now I'm done. Maybe there will be other +1 swords, but who cares. I can hit stuff good now. Maybe I'll get a feat, or something."

I don't know any player in any edition who's ever said that. You're certainly not "done" at +1 in 5E. There's +2 and +3, which are approximately equivalent to +3 and +5 under the older math. Maybe you're "done" at +3, but by that token you're exactly as "done" at +5 -- and even then, whether +3 or +5, there's always the potential for even better stuff like vorpal swords or just completely different stuff like rings of invisibility, so you're not really "done".

If you want finer gradation, that's valid, and I gave you one suggestion for achieving it. But I hope you can see how it's not fair to 5E to say there is no gradation.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't know any player in any edition who's ever said that. You're certainly not "done" at +1 in 5E. There's +2 and +3, which are approximately equivalent to +3 and +5 under the older math. Maybe you're "done" at +3, but by that token you're exactly as "done" at +5 -- and even then, whether +3 or +5, there's always the potential for even better stuff like vorpal swords or just completely different stuff like rings of invisibility, so you're not really "done".

There's a difference, though. Under the old math, it was fairly certain that your +1 would eventually be replaced by a +2 or +3, as long as the campaign held out long enough. You might not ever find a +5, in the same way that you wouldn't necessarily hit level 20 - because an important feeling of the game is that there's always room to improve - but you could be reasonably certain that you'd get halfway there.

On a scale from +1 to +3, where anything beyond +1 is suitable rare, you don't have any expectation that you might find something better. It is entirely possible that your first step along the path of advancement may also be your last.

 

[Gadget]

Well, but that's the difference. There's a mountain to climb. Some people like stuff- the people in my campaign do. It's cool if you don't- but then you probably don't have good advice for us.

It's the difference between getting your +1 sword, and saying, "But wait, there's more!," and getting your +1 sword and saying, "Eh, now I'm done. Maybe there will be other +1 swords, but who cares. I can hit stuff good now. Maybe I'll get a feat, or something."

Well, that same logic applies to older editions of the game as well, just not as fine a gradation. Not to mention, there are other things than +X that can be added to weapons, from the ever trusty "glows when orcs are around (substitute demons, shapechangers, invisible creatures, etc.) to the flametongue, and Troll-bane, can cast heal on bearer once a week, etc. I believe the DMG has a table of minor and major enchantment that can be added to weapons other than +X. I don't see how many of these are undesirable to PC's used to getting 'moar magic', even if they have topped out on the +X side of things. So, I think there are still many avenues open to the 'magic as rewards & treasure' play style; the scale may have changed with the quantity of bonuses, but this is more about managing expectations than anything.

As you have correctly pointed out, much of character power has shifted to abilities received from class advancement, rather than mostly relying on magic items as AD&D did. IIRC, the aforementioned Balor issue was not a result of the parties' magic item arsenal (other than having weapons that could overcome the Balor's damage resistance), but rather character abilities and synergies like feats and such that increased the parties overall effectiveness.

 

[ExploderWizard]

On a scale from +1 to +3, where anything beyond +1 is suitable rare, you don't have any expectation that you might find something better. It is entirely possible that your first step along the path of advancement may also be your last.

There is more to character advancement than finding the next highest plus weapon,and if not how depressing is that.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

There is more to character advancement than finding the next highest plus weapon,and if not how depressing is that.

Let's not judge people for wanting to advance their weapon bonus. Let's focus on helping them play the game they want. What exactly don't they like about their experiences? And what else might be possible for them within the system?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There is more to character advancement than finding the next highest plus weapon,and if not how depressing is that.

I'll assume that's a question.

I would counter by going one step further - There is more to the game than character advancement. I would go so far as to suggest that blatant character progression can detract from the role-playing experience.

But on the other hand, an obvious path of advancement is an easy way to hook players and keep them coming back for more. I don't want to call that the WoW mindset, because it became apparent as soon as 3.0 came out and offered every class with new abilities at each level, but similar principles are involved. Indeed, one of the criticisms of certain games - Shadowrun, Rifts, etc - is that your characters never really progress past what they are at the start of the game. To that end, character advancement can be a useful method for getting players invested in their characters.

And you lose that when you no longer progress from a +1 sword to a +2 sword and then a +3 sword.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hmmm.... I'm seeing a lot of interesting suggestions, but many seem to run along the lines of, "Just pump up the difficulty of the monsters." I also don't like it when players are just items attached to a PC, but I'm not sure that was my question.

Let me try again- someone mentioned the Balrog.... Balor thread. I remember that well! From my experience, though, that's a bad thing (if it works for you, though....). 7th level characters shouldn't be fighting Balors- because then, what do you have to look forward to?

I guess what I'm asking is this- have people had luck with both having magic items and not having crazy powerful monsters everywhere? And yes, we have agreed that there will be no feats and no multiclassing already, but still ... dang.

Yes. Quantity has a quality of its own. A dozen hobgoblins is amazingly deadly in 5E, especially if they disperse so that one Fireball can't hit more than a few of them.

When I want to give my players a fun but easy fight with a lot of XP and treasure attached, I prep an area with a tough but straightforward monster like a T-Rex, or a few Blue Slaads. When I want to give them something challenging but rewarding, I prep an area with some smart but limited creatures with brains but limited ranged capability and limited mobility, like beholders. When I want to give them something nasty and thankless (e.g. to highlight the consequences of previous mistakes they've made like accidentally destroying their homeland), I give them hobgoblins. An 8th level Death Cleric and his ten skeleton archers died to a dozen hobgoblins last session, and it would have been even worse except that the warlock baited the townspeople into staging a mass assault on the hobgoblins (Persuasion check), and while the hobgoblins were wasting time firing steadily into the raging mob's ranks (dropping several humans each round), the warlock infiltrated the mob and got close enough to Fireball the hobgoblins, catching 3d6 = 9 of them. After Medicine checks and death checks, they lost only two people to the hobgoblins arrows--a middle-aged man and a ten-year-old girl. This isn't the first time I've used hobgoblins (or drow) to kill PCs in a fight which technically isn't even Deadly, even though I routinely throw quadruple-Deadly fights of "big stupid T-Rex" variety at them, and occasional 10x-Deadly "twenty umber hulks and a neogi wizard" fights at them as well.

TLDR; yes, regular opponents can be quite fearsome in 5E if you want them to be. And make sure they have enough brains to stage a tactical retreat when necessary instead of just attacking until they're all dead. There's nothing to make players nervous like "The other half of the hobgoblins whom you didn't kill appear to be shadowing you on their horses at a distance of a quarter mile. It looks like they're waiting for something."

 

[Hussar]

I'll assume that's a question.

I would counter by going one step further - There is more to the game than character advancement. I would go so far as to suggest that blatant character progression can detract from the role-playing experience.

But on the other hand, an obvious path of advancement is an easy way to hook players and keep them coming back for more. I don't want to call that the WoW mindset, because it became apparent as soon as 3.0 came out and offered every class with new abilities at each level, but similar principles are involved. Indeed, one of the criticisms of certain games - Shadowrun, Rifts, etc - is that your characters never really progress past what they are at the start of the game. To that end, character advancement can be a useful method for getting players invested in their characters.

And you lose that when you no longer progress from a +1 sword to a +2 sword and then a +3 sword.

I think the bigger problem is that people view the only progression that matters is flat plus combat progression. That if an item doesn't have a "plus" it's not worth having. That's the sad part.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think the bigger problem is that people view the only progression that matters is flat plus combat progression. That if an item doesn't have a "plus" it's not worth having. That's the sad part.

It kind of depends on how literal you want to go with the word. An advancement from +1 to +3 is a progression. A ring of invisibility gives you new options, but it doesn't really improve anything. It's kind of a binary yes/no thing.

Part of that probably comes from the expectation. For a lot of things, much of the enjoyment comes from the anticipation. You can do X now, but won't it be great when you can do Y? Even if Y = (X+1), that's still something you can look forward to.

And on that note, wondrous items are difficult to anticipate. Maybe you have a character who would really love that ring of invisibility, but that's just one item among the hundreds of magical items that exist in the world. You can't expect to find it. Whereas, in any previous edition, you really could expect to get the next +1 on your weapon. You practically knew that the day would come eventually, even if you never knew when it would happen.