Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6034515" data-attributes="member: 2067">You say this like there hasn't been hundreds of people in every edition of D&D who run games where magic items are nigh to completely non-existent. And like the playtest document itself doesn't say things like "You can add or withhold magic items in your adventures as you see fit; such items are a reward, not a necessary part of a player character’s advancement" and "Such wonders are desirable, but characters do not need magic items to be effective, nor are they entitled to them."It's clearly opt-in. So if you choose to include magic items, you're turning on an option that makes your characters more powerful, period. So before you choose to include a magic item, as a DM, you should understand the basic ramifications of including them. Thus making a mechanic to "balance" magic items superfluous.The RAW makes it pretty clear that this is the default. So it will happen if you follow the rules. If you don't follow the rules, the rules can't really help you. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />If you want to run the easiest version of D&D, you won't include magic items. If you choose to include magic items, the D&D rules should let you know that they are raw power-up, so if you add too many of them, your players will likely be able to face significantly tougher challenges. That's not really very hard to do. The christmas tree and the treadmill and the wishlist were thought to be a good idea because the game designers for 3e and 4e thought a lot like this: "Magic items will be in the game, so they should be balanced!"None of those efforts at balancing magic items lead to satisfying gameplay at the table, though, where a discovery of a +1 sword should have been a cool thing, not simply a requirement for character power. They also introduced a problem in that they forced the DM's hand: now a DM who didn't want to abide by a wishlist was being "stingy," and not meeting the expected wealth guidelines was actually making your party weaker. So to make magic items actually fun to use, the idea is to make it more like 2e, 1e, and OD&D, where a DM could run an entire campaign comfortably without any magic items, and where, if a magic items was awarded, it could be taken from you, cursed, given a severe restriction, made a plot point...so that they were options for exciting gameplay, not elements of balance. In my limited experience (I've been adding 2e magic items to my "inherent bonuses" 4e games pretty seamlessly for a while now), it's a LOT of fun. When magic items are not prerequisites, you can use them for all sorts of mischief. No, the default will be what the RAW says is default. That's how new players learn how to play: they join a game and they read the rules.A lot of people will opt into using magic items, yes.And when they do, they will read text that says "magic items are not a requirement, they are a raw power-up, and adding too many of them will make your party significantly more powerful than other parties of the same level."Thus, newbies placing their +1 swords are under no delusions that the magic item is necessary, essential, useful, or in need of strict and arbitrary balance.Also, I feel the need to keep pointing out that attunement doesn't actually stop you from abusing magic items, but given that the shock of optional magic items has apparently rendered you fantastically incredulous, perhaps you're going to need a moment on that.</blockquote>

Verification