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

[Maxperson]

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

I'd just downgrade it to resistance. Despite what WotC is claiming, resistance doesn't really make it so terribly difficult for a non-magical party. Non-magical PCs tend to do high single target damage, so focused fire removes those hit points pretty quickly. I wouldn't plan an encounter with several damage resistant creatures any more than I would plan an encounter of multiple beholders to use against an all caster party.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

In a low magic world, those classes are usually extraordinarily rare. Casters in the typical D&D world are already rare, but in a low magic world there may only be 2 wizards, 1 sorcerer and 3 clerics, none of whom are higher than 5th level. The PCs are of course a special case since they can opt into the magical classes(assuming no DM house rule preventing it).

 

[Maxperson]

While it does say parties with the right classes don't need them, XGtE also notes in a box a page before the previously mentioned one that the DMG assumes they will get a certain number of magic items (100 on average per party through level 20).

Of course campaigns can be run without them. (Or without some classes, or some races, or even without combat).

That's because the DMG assumes(and is mostly correct) that players and DMs will play with magic items, so it provided a table that does so. People like magic items. The game itself makes no assumption that they will be there and short of the very rare all non-caster group that "needs" magic items, no class actually needs them. Not even fighters.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Play 4th Edition then. It did a lot to level the playing field.

It's odd when the they made a game that answered a lot of the complaints people made about, disparity between classes, action economy, draw out fights, etc. etc. People decided it wasn't what they wanted after all.

that seems a strange stance i]in a 5e thread...

 

[Cadence]

that seems a strange stance i]in a 5e thread...

The thread is marked D&D general (there is a separate tag for just 5e, I think?).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The game assumes more than that. 5e assumes magic. The monsters were designed assuming the party has magic.

5e kind of assumes some source of magic, but is designed to handle everything from “basically none” to “a silly amount”, without breaking.

The statement “they designed the game around the fighter being stacked with magic items” is in contradiction to that, because it implies that the game was built without any significant consideration for a fighter without any magic items. That is what “built on the assumption of a lot of magic items” means.

There are a whole bunch of ways I can imagine justifying that for different campaign worlds. (Flavor related to various power sources like a blessing/commonly trained magic ability/ki; an ability to just be so awesome with your weapon it's like magic; or a gift from your order or the local royalty).

Yep, I can easily imagine flavoring it as not at all magical, but instead simply the result of being as good with a weapon as it is possible to be.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

While it does say parties with the right classes don't need them, XGtE also notes in a box a page before the previously mentioned one that the DMG assumes they will get a certain number of magic items (100 on average per party through level 20).

Of course campaigns can be run without them. (Or without some classes, or some races, or even without combat).

The DMG section on treasure and magic items is written to fit the assumed normal goal of a classic dungeons and dragons campaign, in which it is normal to get new magic items fairly regularly.

The class write ups do not assume any magic items, nor do the monsters. Orcus is meant to be very difficult for anyone mundane.

The game was written under the assumption of a full team of different classes. It was probably written, sometimes to it’s detriment, under the assumption of the four classic classes in a party.

But if you are hunting Orcus, the campaign needn’t feature magic items. You can find a ritual to bless your weapons to be deadly to fiends, or even Orcus specifically, or a high priest or Angel can bless them, etc, granting you a Boon, or you can just protect the mage and cleric while they blast Orcus. Or, ya know, the wizard casts magic weapon and you’re good.

 

[Faolyn]

The game can be played without magic items............FACT. But you can't fight most of the creatures in the monster manuals without magic.........FACT. So you can play a game without any magic items at all. I don't recall them saying you could do everything in the game without magic items. They aren't going to tell people that like nitty gritty low magic games that thier game sucks for those people. That would be terrible marketing. But it is the truth. But I haven't seen any lies actually proven. Just assumptions that they meant more than they actually said.

"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 weapon makes it extremely difficult to overcome the monsters that have resistance or immunity to nonnmagical weapons. In such a game, you'll want to be generous with magic weapons or else aviod using such monsters."

5e was designed that the fighter either has magical equipment or the spellcasters are buffing them.

Sadly, this could have been easily avoided by giving monsters other weaknesses. Like, wolfsbane harming lycanthropes, then let there be a wolfsbane concoction you can smear on your weapons, like with other poisons. But do this for more monsters--especially monsters that could be considered supernatural.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sadly, this could have been easily avoided by giving monsters other weaknesses. Like, wolfsbane harming lycanthropes, then let there be a wolfsbane concoction you can smear on your weapons, like with other poisons. But do this for more monsters--especially monsters that could be considered supernatural.

One thing I wish the Ranger had been given as part of favored enemy is the ability to make “bane poisons” that bypass and reduce the immunities and resistances of the favored enemy type their made for, or shut down regeneration, or make it hard to teleport, etc.

And you’d be providing a tactical benefit for the whole team, not just yourself, so the fighter can kill Orcus without a magic sword because the Ranger made an elixir that makes a weapon “magical” for a while.

 

[Minigiant]

Sadly, this could have been easily avoided by giving monsters other weaknesses. Like, wolfsbane harming lycanthropes, then let there be a wolfsbane concoction you can smear on your weapons, like with other poisons. But do this for more monsters--especially monsters that could be considered supernatural.

One thing I wish the Ranger had been given as part of favored enemy is the ability to make “bane poisons” that bypass and reduce the immunities and resistances of the favored enemy type their made for, or shut down regeneration, or make it hard to teleport, etc.

And you’d be providing a tactical benefit for the whole team, not just yourself, so the fighter can kill Orcus without a magic sword because the Ranger made an elixir that makes a weapon “magical” for a while.

Item based classes are often requested. D&D designers in every edition avoided making them or quit after 1-3 attempts.

5e went the "Nonmagical items are low level" and "Everything is a spell or magic item" routes.