D&D General Chris just said why I hate wizard/fighter dynamic

[doctorbadwolf]

The other side seems to consist of:

• fighters are bad, no explanation given
• they should be able to long jump 200 feet or other supernatural feats such as being better than any real world athlete
• I want them to mythical heroes like Hercules
• they can't do the same things wizards do if wizards can cast as many spells as they want
• fighters are bad, no explanation given

I'm allowed to have a preference. I don't want a repeat of 4E. If you want a supernatural fighter type there are plenty of options.

And round and round it goes.
Bob: "I can't get this to work. It's broken"
Joe: "It's not broken for me, maybe if you explain..."
Bob: "I did explain, it's broken"
Joe: "Right, but maybe..."
Bob: "It's broken dammit!"
Joe: "Okay, if you don't want any help..."
Bob: "See! You agree! It's broken, stop with your flimsy excuses!"

Now you’re blatantly misrepresenting people who disagree with you. Awesome.

 

[Remathilis]

No it doesn't. At least not in the monster math. That's how the random tables turn out if the DM decides to use them, but if the DM never gives out a single magic item over 20 levels, the party will be balanced for the fights the entire way. Magic items are 100% bonus goodness.

Again, this is wrong, per designer words. They said the game doesn't make the assumption that magic items are used.

Don't make me tap the Xanathar sidebar:

Are Magic Items Necessary in a Campaign?

The D&D game is built on the assumption that magic items appear sporadically and that they are always a boon, unless an item bears a curse. Characters and monsters are built to face each other without the help of magic items, which means that having a magic item always makes a character more powerful or versatile than a generic character of the same level. As DM, you never have to worry about awarding magic items just so the characters can keep up with the campaign's threats. Magic items are truly prizes. Are they useful? Absolutely. Are they necessary? No.

Magic items can go from nice to necessary in the rare group that has no spellcasters, no monk, and no NPCs capable of casting magic weapon. Having no magic makes it extremely difficult for a party to overcome monsters that have resistances or immunity to nonmagical damage. In such a game, you'll want to be generous with magic weapons or else avoid using such monsters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What I describe is true for 5e.

They designed the Fihter assuming he/she/xe/it has magic items.

What they did is design the monsters that if you don't have out as many magic items or none at all. you don't have to change the monsters. You instead change their frequency or use other forms of treasure.

The DM doesn't have to change the math to play other levels of magic. The DM 1000% does have to use other options.

This isn’t really true. The game suggests way more magic items than are necessary for the game to run, even in a “low magic” game.

I’ve never had a campaign have more than 12 permanent magic items between 5 or 6 PCs, except my “very high magic item game” Eberron campaign, which still doesn’t have as many as you are claiming is necessary.

 

[Yaarel]

Also, when a creature is immune to nonmagic weapons, the DM can easily ignore that trait, for a setting that lacks magic items.

 

[Cadence]

I'm having a hard time picturing a "low magic world" that has spellcasters, monks with magic fists, all kinds of ways to buff things by magical classes, and creatures hit only by magic... but without many +1 items.

 

[Minigiant]

This isn’t really true. The game suggests way more magic items than are necessary for the game to run, even in a “low magic” game.

I’ve never had a campaign have more than 12 permanent magic items between 5 or 6 PCs, except my “very high magic item game” Eberron campaign, which still doesn’t have as many as you are claiming is necessary.

Again everyone is confused. That's why I say the info is not said out loud.

5th edition was designed with magic items. It was also designed that the magic items don't factor in the math so you can turn it up or down without doing any math. This is different from 0e-4e where monster AC and HP were chosen with the assumption of +X items. Instead of math, the DM of 5e adjusts frequency,

The base unaltered game assumes a fighter has 2-4 uncommon permanent magic items, 1-2 permanent magic items, 1-2 very rare permanent magic items and 1 legendary permanent magic items at level 20.

 

[Lyxen]

Again everyone is confused. That's why I say the info is not said out loud.

5th edition was designed with magic items. It was also designed that the magic items don't factor in the math so you can turn it up or down without doing any math. This is different from 0e-4e where monster AC and HP were chosen with the assumption of +X items. Instead of math, the DM of 5e adjusts frequency,

The base unaltered game assumes a fighter has 2-4 uncommon permanent magic items, 1-2 permanent magic items, 1-2 very rare permanent magic items and 1 legendary permanent magic items at level 20.

While I agree about the basic maths, I think it's important to add that this is statistical only, and that this is no factored into the balance of the game. In particular, whether these items are useless, often useful, or completely in line with the character's need is not there at all, so all assumptions should be based on the fact that these are random items, so somewhat useful.

 

[Remathilis]

Again everyone is confused. That's why I say the info is not said out loud.

5th edition was designed with magic items. It was also designed that the magic items don't factor in the math so you can turn it up or down without doing any math. This is different from 0e-4e where monster AC and HP were chosen with the assumption of +X items. Instead of math, the DM of 5e adjusts frequency,

The base unaltered game assumes a fighter has 2-4 uncommon permanent magic items, 1-2 permanent magic items, 1-2 very rare permanent magic items and 1 legendary permanent magic items at level 20.

Again, Xanathar backs this assumption up. It's like nobody read the magic item distribution section.

3.5's math assumed you needed an +X weapon, +X armor, +X cloak, +X ring, etc to keep up your attacks, AC and saves against appropriate CR creatures. 4e reduced the count to just three (weapon/implement, armor, cloak) but the math still demanded it. 5e's math doesn't require a certain +X at any level, but that's far from saying you don't need any magic items. It just means that now that you've hit 11th level, you have to find/buy/trade in your +2 items for +3 to keep relevant.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm having a hard time picturing a "low magic world" that has spellcasters, monks with magic fists, all kinds of ways to buff things by magical classes, and creatures hit only by magic... but without many +1 items.

D&D handles "low magic" like a duck takes to golf. Inevitably, you must house rule out huge swaths of the game to make it work, and the amount of work increases exponentially every level. I'd rather play a system like the One Ring or ASoF&I if I wanted to make a low-magic fantasy game rather than torture D&D into one.

 

[Cadence]

D&D handles "low magic" like a duck takes to golf. Inevitably, you must house rule out huge swaths of the game to make it work, and the amount of work increases exponentially every level. I'd rather play a system like the One Ring or ASoF&I if I wanted to make a low-magic fantasy game rather than torture D&D into one.

Needless to say, I'm also having a hard time picturing a medium or high magic words where a hero of the realm wouldn't have a +1 weapon at least.