D&D 5E Can 5E bring the wonder and mystery back to Magic Items?

[howandwhy99]

Magic has character. I agree with those who want magic effects, items, locations, etc. back in the DMG / behind the screen / etc.

Some steps I think of for making M.I.s:

1. Magic items have character. They should be unique, have a history, and be able to be altered, even if just through use. Give them personality.

2. Exploration isn't just over hill and dale; magic is mysterious because it can be explored. It isn't known up front. That means Pro-active exploration by the players. They just don't get to have the powers; they need to play with items to learn what they are. Sometimes this could be holding it, sometimes putting it on, sometimes simply testing it out in different situations. "Hey, my spear freezes water when I stick in the water!"

3. Every description is a clue. We find 7 vials, 4 filled, 3 empty. We cast Detect Magic to try and figure out what they do. "Which vials?" all 7. "Five glow with a magical aura". Guess what potion one of the "empty" vials held? (I know you know this).

4. Medieval items are always custom made. Even that sword has a makers mark on it. And it isn't quite the same as any other. How exactly? "You draw the longsword". The players invests the time and that picture IS the longsword. The tassels, the hook, the binding and serrated edge. That's all there and can be used in situations where it becomes useful.

 

[Mercurius]

This seems to be one of the top five complaints about 4E, and one that I share. That said, I think it is easily solvable, especially in the context of what we've heard about 5E; WotC can present and support different approaches to dealing with magic items depending upon the type of setting and style of campaign.

In other words, while the problem manifests mechanically (boring game mechanics for most magic items), it is largely because of a default campaign setting assumption that 4E holds: that magic items are common and are bought and sold. This, coupled with character advancement that requires magic item bonuses to keep up with monsters, makes magic items more akin to gear than treasure, more an extension of PC skills than something truly Other and thus wondrous that can truly change the course of a game.

In a new campaign setting I'm dabbling with adapting from the 4E one I created, I'm thinking of differentiating magic items into two general categories: those that were created in ancient times by magical capacities that are now lost, and those that were created more recently. The former are more powerful, rare, and permanent in their powers, and many have further powers that "unlock" when a player is high enough level. The latter are more disposable and are in a sense more akin to mundane items that have been "charged" with magic dust (so to speak), and thus the charge will fade. In other words, the ability to make magic items both powerful and permanent has been lost.

Now that's a campaign specific approach. I would hope that, given the stated 5E intentions of supporting a wide variety of styles, this could be accommodated, but that a different group could have a more 4E-style campaign.

In a sense I think the question of how 5E will handle magic items--or pretty much anything--is answerable simply by looking at what Mike & Monte have said already: that 5E will be very customizable with tons of modular options and a create-your-own approach. They might have a default approach, or offer two or three default approaches, but I think the answer to the question of how it will be handled is, well, "All of the above."

 

[Lanefan]

I agree w/most of this but as a DM my old grognard brain always forgets what an item does when I dont tell the player right away....

sidetrack

We solve this by an item numbering system. When the party finds an item it gets a number; I note the number on my DM sheet and next to it the properties of said item (if any) and value, and the players keep that number attached to that item. Thus, the players' list might read:

...
53. Vial (weak magic), not curing
54. Longsword, glows orange when wielded (strong magic)
55. Boots, well-preserved (strong magic)
56. ...

while my list reads:

...
53. Potion: heroism (500 g.p.)
54. Longsword +2, +4 vs. Dragons, glows orange except red when Dragons near (8500 g.p.) [later note] Elf-made, name translates to "Sun Mirror"
55. Boots, ordinary, with Nystul's Magic Aura on (5 g.p.)
56 ...

It's a bit more bookkeeping than one might like but man does it ever cut down on the confusion and headaches later!

/sidetrack

Lanefan

 

[Spinachcat]

There is a RPG called Earthdawn that had a great system for magic items. The more you learned about the item, the more powerful it became. By learning the history of the item and perhaps following in the footsteps of the creator, you could unlock powers.

Only the GM knew the extent of the powers and identify / legend lore spells would only help so much. Perhaps, the dragonslaying ability of the sword would only activate after the user slays his first dragon. Or maybe the weilder must visit the grave of the weapon's first wielder and pay his respects, maybe even be geased by the ancient hero's temple.

The items became much more interesting because they were woven with their own stories.

 

[Li Shenron]

I got used to the way 3e treats magic items as technology, but I definitely don't find anything wonderous or mysterious.

Sometimes I just wish there were only artifacts, or perhaps weapons of legacy.

Situational behaviour, erratic behaviour, intelligence and personality, drawback/curses, and abilities linked to the item's (and its possessor's) past history and present deeds... these are features of a magic item that evoke wonder and mystery to me

Then I wouldn't care if ONE magic item is all my character would have.

I'm skeptic this will ever happen... it's too difficult to design when gamers are too obsessed with balance and getting plenty of gadgets.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am not sure how much mystery remains when you give things rules, but I know that stuff like getting a +2 weapon and throwing away your +1 for it (or selling it to a vendor to buy you some magical wands of healing perhaps) took almost everyhting out of it.

In my opinion, the chance for some mystery is retained if magic items grant special abilities, properties and powers (or spell-like abilities for the 3E fans).

But, in interest of maintaining balance - I think (most) of these would be additional options intead of power-ups. This allows you to play a character that refuses to use magic items (or have a campaign without magic items) without being gimped in the process.

Basically, if you get a "Wand of Fire", it "teaches" the Wizard a fire spell that he can use instead of one of his other spells. If you have a Holy Avenger, you can use it to detect evil outsiders and undeads, and instead of making a "skull-crushing blow", you can use it to create holy radiance that blinds your enemies.

 

[Burrahobbit]

Magic has character. I agree with those who want magic effects, items, locations, etc. back in the DMG / behind the screen / etc.

Some steps I think of for making M.I.s:

1. Magic items have character. They should be unique, have a history, and be able to be altered, even if just through use. Give them personality.

2. Exploration isn't just over hill and dale; magic is mysterious because it can be explored. It isn't known up front. That means Pro-active exploration by the players. They just don't get to have the powers; they need to play with items to learn what they are. Sometimes this could be holding it, sometimes putting it on, sometimes simply testing it out in different situations. "Hey, my spear freezes water when I stick in the water!"

3. Every description is a clue. We find 7 vials, 4 filled, 3 empty. We cast Detect Magic to try and figure out what they do. "Which vials?" all 7. "Five glow with a magical aura". Guess what potion one of the "empty" vials held? (I know you know this).

4. Medieval items are always custom made. Even that sword has a makers mark on it. And it isn't quite the same as any other. How exactly? "You draw the longsword". The players invests the time and that picture IS the longsword. The tassels, the hook, the binding and serrated edge. That's all there and can be used in situations where it becomes useful.

I like all of these points. #2 and #3 remind me of a lot of the fun (and, let's face it) frustration to be found in games like Nethack and some (especially early) D&D campaigns.

Maybe the real trick to putting the "wonder" back in magic is balancing the fun of not-knowing with the frustration of not-knowing.

On the subject of "trading up" magical items, I think that at least one option to consider would be magic items that grow with the character (I believe the 3.5e Weapons of Legacy did this, but I never looked at it and don't know how well the concept was realized. Anyone with experience using that book?)

 

[Aenghus]

This is an issue screaming for modularity and a dial.

Firstly, I don't think a sense of wonder can be encoded in any rules. Sense of wonder is as subjective as it gets, what works for one person may not work for the next. Really, it has to come from the DM and the particular game being run.

I think removing +X bonuses from magic items, and not requiring them for the math, would while slaying a holy cow allow for a lot more flexibility in the magic item system.

If PCs don't need magic items to function, they can be truly optional. People who want no items don't need to have them. People who want random items can have them. People who want powerful items can have them. People who want magic item creation rules can have them.

As a far out option I could see magic powers normally provided by items being directly added to PCs, completely bypassing magic items. These could be obtained by quests, legendary teachers, pilgrimages, magic pools, ancient tomes, gods, spirits, devils, demons etc.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Again, I'll have to be the annoying contrarian. Magic items belong in the PHB (or in a player-focused book, at any rate).

Players need the rules for magic items all the time (because player characters generally carry magic items, and monsters generally don't), and the DM only needs them when deciding which items to hand out. So why should they been in a book aimed at someone who usually doesn't need the rules for them?

The most-cited reason for this is absurd; you aren't protecting any 'mystery' by keeping the magic item rules in a book many players will buy anyway (and given an OGL and/or 4e-esque online tools, the information will be easily available online to them anyway).

I'm right there with you with the idea that the players are going to learn the rules for the magic items regardless of where they are "hidden", and that they themselves will be the ones who need to look at them far more often than the DM will. Heck, I also believe that the D&D game is so old at this point it's impossible to get the "wonder" back regardless. It doesn't matter where you put the rules... we all know what Gauntlets of Ogre Power are. It ain't that big a deal anymore.

But at the same time... we also all know there will probably be a proliferation of sources that will have new magic items in them (modules, campaign settings, adventurer's vaults etc.) and there's no way the players will ever have all those sources at hand. When they receive the items from the DM, they will just have to write the rules for their items down. So at that point... if they're going to be writing the rules down anyway... we might as well move the "first batch" of items back to the DMG since it is such a hot button for more people than I think is true for the "magic items in the PH" crowd. It's one of those potential "make or break" situations where you know what? We might as well go back to the older way since it mean so much to so many people. We players are going to have to write down most of the rules for them either way.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Again, I'll have to be the annoying contrarian. Magic items belong in the PHB (or in a player-focused book, at any rate).

Players need the rules for magic items all the time (because player characters generally carry magic items, and monsters generally don't), and the DM only needs them when deciding which items to hand out. So why should they been in a book aimed at someone who usually doesn't need the rules for them?

It depends on your view of magic items. If you see them as a player's resource, then they belong in the PHB. If you see them as a DM's resource, they belong in the DMG.

By placing them into the PHB, the game implies that these are things the PCs should be able to purchase or obtain at their will. Magic Items are just another way for the player to customize his charater.

By placing Magic Items in the DMG, the game implies that Magic Items are different from feats or skills, races or classes, powers or rituals. They are the spoils of adventuring and a tool for the DM to use.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Don't forget to weaken/kill the magic item shops! Characters with enough gold/knowledge should be able to find stuff but 3.5 took it too far!!!

 

[jodyjohnson]

A simple paragraph in the DMG telling the DM to hold some powers for items in secret might be enough.

Or even to make it known that the DM 'can/may' assign new powers or remove powers at will during play. He might not, but fair warning for players that know it all because they hold a Staff of the Magi (DMG p134 - currently 15 charges).

I think 5e will be the 'do what works for your table' edition moreso than any other. Even if you don't actually play/buy it.

Just stick and keep the smorgasbord mindset right into the middle of the D&D mindshare.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

My views:

- Some limited quantity of magic items should be in the PHB, in order to demonstrate crafting rules. This includes basic weapon & armor enhancements, scrolls & potions, wands and perhaps a few minor wondrous items. Powers should conform to those that match spells or similar magic in the PHB.

- Most magic items, and certainly the unique, rare, and powerful, should be in the DMG. The DMG should also contain items that may be lowe level but can't be matched by magic in the player's book.

- Examples of unique items, and uniquely tailoring items, should be provided to the DM.

- Leveling or adding powers to existing magic items should be an optional rule "module".

- +X "enhanced" items should remain, but be explicitly non-magical. This is the realm of unique materials and fine smithcraft, not magic. So a +3 longsword might be so because it was crafted of meteoric iron steel by an exceptional smith, but aside from high quality and its performance enhancement is otherwise unremarkable and does not detect as magic. Meanwhile, an otherwise mundane-appearing sword that glows blue when enemies are near, or a sword with no "+X" enhancement that flames on command, or a +2 sword of undead slaying would all be magical items that detect as magic and have unique powers, the "+X" enhancement if they have one being a function of material and crafting, not the magic. "Magic" is a module added to an item, just as "enhanced" is, and they can come separate or together. (Similar to 3E's "masterwork" concept, except extend masterwork farther, and do not require all magical items to first be masterwork items.)

 

[Li Shenron]

My views:

- Some limited quantity of magic items should be in the PHB, in order to demonstrate crafting rules. This includes basic weapon & armor enhancements, scrolls & potions, wands and perhaps a few minor wondrous items. Powers should conform to those that match spells or similar magic in the PHB.

- Most magic items, and certainly the unique, rare, and powerful, should be in the DMG. The DMG should also contain items that may be lowe level but can't be matched by magic in the player's book.

- Examples of unique items, and uniquely tailoring items, should be provided to the DM.

- Leveling or adding powers to existing magic items should be an optional rule "module".

- +X "enhanced" items should remain, but be explicitly non-magical. This is the realm of unique materials and fine smithcraft, not magic. So a +3 longsword might be so because it was crafted of meteoric iron steel by an exceptional smith, but aside from high quality and its performance enhancement is otherwise unremarkable and does not detect as magic. Meanwhile, an otherwise mundane-appearing sword that glows blue when enemies are near, or a sword with no "+X" enhancement that flames on command, or a +2 sword of undead slaying would all be magical items that detect as magic and have unique powers, the "+X" enhancement if they have one being a function of material and crafting, not the magic. "Magic" is a module added to an item, just as "enhanced" is, and they can come separate or together. (Similar to 3E's "masterwork" concept, except extend masterwork farther, and do not require all magical items to first be masterwork items.)

Good ideas Olgar! But how about even scrolls and wands and weapon enhancements being made an optional modular rule?

I know this sounds extreme, but since so many gamers had issues even with scrolls being used too often...

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think magic item crafting is easily made modular, and potentially on several levels. Scroll and potion creation could be separate modules. Add some, none, or all creation options to your campaign.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I know the common/uncommon/rare thing was not popular online, but it might be a step in the right direction.

If at launch you have a dozen or so common items of each slot (not counting higher level versions of the same item) that PCs can just make, or buy/sell.

All potions and scrolls, and other 1 time use things should be common.

then have a few uncommon items of each slot... these are items that in order to learn how to make them each one is a diffrent way, so learning to make a luck blade is diffrent then learning to make a flaming sword. These should requare special ingrediants (red dragon tougne for the flam sword...ect) every once in a while you may see one for sale, but most are found.

then have 1 or 2 rare of each slot, these are 1 of a kind items.


I imagin common items like lens of reading, and gloves of climbing ect

 

[Ajar]

I'm not too concerned about what the default is, provided that if the default is an assumed magic item progression baked into the game's monster design, then an alternative system similar to 4E's inherent bonuses/alternative rewards is presented as an equivalent option, not just an obscure sidebar somewhere.

I love inherent bonuses, because it allows me to drop pretty much whatever items I like into the game without breaking anything. I can focus more on what's cool than on what its power level is.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My views:

- Some limited quantity of magic items should be in the PHB (snip good stuff)

In addition to what Olgar said, I think magic items should be explicitly divided between the "balanced" ones and the "unbalanced" ones. There might be a lot of correspondence on the rarity scale, but not exact.

"+1 swords" are balanced. Everyone knows about them, and whether magical or not, you can talk about them in the PHB. I'd rather they stay in the +1 to +3 range so as to avoid being necessary, but you can reasonably be expected to pick one up eventually in most games.

"Flametongue" swords are unbalanced, except for whatever limited plus they have. If you know you have a +1 flaming sword, the +1 part works just like you expect, but the flaming could vary. So these kind of properties, examples of how you might use them, ways you might vary them, are discussed in the DMG.

Also in the DMG is a discussion of the time-honored techniques telling the DM how to deal with the unbalanced equipment. It isn't owed anyone, some of it gets destroyed or stolen, etc.

Now not all "unbalanced" stuff is definitively unbalanced. (So we probably need a better term.) It just hasn't been vetted for balance--or more to the point, squashed in function so that it is balanced.

A lot of items would be like this. You can buy your bog standard potion of healing down at the local temple, and it works like everyone knows it does, albeit nothing spectacular. But there are other potions of healing out there with enhanced effects, odd side effects, etc.

For people that want no magic in the PHB, there is an option to mostly or entirely ban the PHB items. You can't find any bog standard healing potions, much less buy one. The +1 sword mechanics still tell you how that part functions, but you'll never find a sword that you know to be a straight +1 sword and nothing else. (The DM might know that all it does extra is shed light on command, but you'll have to find that out yourself.)

It gets a little trickier going the other way, giving people who want more wide open magic access to a bigger list, but I see that as a bit of a problem no matter how you slice it. It is not as if the 4E PHB had all that great of an assortment of item, anyway. So the bulk of it is going to be in another book. Given that, if you want players to pour through and adventurers' vault book and make suggestions, great. If you want them to stay out (or they don't care to look at it), also great. So the only thing the 4E side is giving up here is having a huge list of items that WotC has said can be used in formal play environments.

That's where DDI comes in. All those "unbalanced" items are rated by interested players on some kind of scale for how balanced or not they are. Any formal play can say that characters can manage their items if they want, but are limited to something rated under a certain threshold. And of course individual DMs can do the same thing if so inclined.

 

[howandwhy99]

Maybe the real trick to putting the "wonder" back in magic is balancing the fun of not-knowing with the frustration of not-knowing.

The principle I follow is: "There is never only 1 way to open a door". The alternative to this means everything stops, especially if the goal the players seek to accomplish is on the other side of the door.

So they want to find out everything a magic item can do? Can that even do that? Yes, but it will cost them. They could explore through trial and error. That takes time. They could also find a previous owner and ask them. That takes time and some negotiation. They could find a wizard and pay them to cast a high level divination spell on the item. That takes time and some serious money. How much do they want to really know what that item can do?

Now they might think it's cursed or is having some undesired effect at times, but they don't have to use it either (well, beyond some very nasty possession effects, but that's a whole other challenge).

EDIT:

Don't forget to weaken/kill the magic item shops! Characters with enough gold/knowledge should be able to find stuff but 3.5 took it too far!!!

I've learned that magic item shops are simply another monster's lair. If they own a jewelry store, they have the CR to back up the amount of property they own - even if it includes a pact with the local territory's controlling faction (i.e. the guards). Maybe the owner isn't the whole challenge, at least in terms of combat, but if you take him or her on, then expect the whole group to come out and fight.

I agree magic item shops need to stop being like towns and markets are often run: free markets where there is never a threat of loss. "I'm owed this, it's in the book for that price". CHA means something when you start to barter again. Plus, the PCs might just remember that their old wizard mentor owns and will trade for magic items too (or other stuff). And that same realization can occur with dealing with that dragon, or band of gnolls, or any intelligent item owning creatures. Killing monsters isn't the only way to get what you want.

 

[Tallifer]

I have roleplayed in a dozen systems since 1981.

The only magical items which have stuck in my memory were basically artifacts.

Fourth Edition handles artifacts extremely well. They are still wondrous, exceptional, legendary and desirous.

Regular magical items like +1 swords and jars of Keotum's ointment have always been utilitarian in every edition and in every other roleplaying game. People have got to wake up from their dreamy stupor and stop comparing apples and oranges.