D&D (2024) DMG 5.5 - the return of bespoke magical items?

[CreamCloud0]

it occurs to me that between the requirements of Arcana proficiency and needing to have the spell prepared magic item crafting is most inaccessible to the characters who would need and benefit from it most: martials.

the OG magic item tables were weighted the way they were because magic weapons and gear were functionally de-facto class features for martials and after various editions class design hasn't really changed enough in the ways that matter to remove the unstated design assumptions in the game that assumes your fightery types should each be lugging around a few peices of good magical gear past the lowest teirs.

 

[Emerikol]

While I don't value verisimilitude in the same way you do, I am a stickler for framing site-based exploration as realistically as possible.

If there's biological monsters, the players can find their food source, their water source, their resting places, scat and refuse, etc. If it's a site where people used to live, you'll find bedquarters, living areas, items of leisure and distraction, their bathrooms, etc.

Magic items found via site exploration will be the types of magic items that the previous inhabitants would have logically had. Not everything, of course, because people living realistically will also occasionally collect random stuff serendipitously, just like the PCs do.

In these words, you haven't said anything that is not in accord with the kind of verisimilitude I seek. I just seek a world that seems real. We know it isn't but it feels that way. And what you do above is how you build up that feeling in my opinion.

 

[Ancalagon]

It's not without cause that people assumed the shield spell was one of the spells guaranteed a rewrite. TreantMonk did an excellent video on the most broken spells at some point during the playtest iirc, very few of them were fixed and some were doubled down on.

If we are going to quote TreantMonk, then I think it would be helpful to quote more from him.

He later said that shield is now "less good" because there are more reaction defensive options. A monk can react parry and reduce damage. There are a number of ways to impose disadvantage on an attack. There is a feat that gives you a reaction AC bonus that is proficency bonus based.

Now, I think Shield is still too good, because it still is better than many of these options. But if you have a defensive reaction option, gaining shield is not as big of a boost than if you had nothing.

... a shield of shield is still a heck of a defensive item.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

They don't make the comparisons you speak of (at least not to my knowledge) but items received are well-recorded; first on a party treasury list during the adventure and then on individual character sheets once that treasury has been divided back in town.

As DM I insist on this, as there's nothing worse than trying to figure out by memory what became of a 2-handed sword that passed through a party six real-world years ago but no-one's sure whether it was kept (and by who) or sold, and for some reason right now they really need a magical 2-handed sword.

And I sometimes do hear about it, 99% in jest of course, if the overall treasury value for an adventure seems a bit lacking.

Without a reasonable level of bookkeeping, unscrupulous characters - and I've seen this happen - can quickly end up with far more treasure than would be their share.

The claim made (not in the post I actually quoted, I just didn't feel like digging up the true original) specifically said that if the players got a mix of lots of items that weren't at all useful (that is, explicitly including cleric-specific weapons that nobody in the party would be using) in one adventure, and then in a completely separate adventure they got few to none, they'd openly complain that the DM was ruining their immersion. And that, specifically because not enough cleric-specific (and thus mostly useless) items had been included. Different phrases used, but it's the same meaning.

I 110% agree that good bookkeeping about magic items is important. (Especially since I was lax about it at one point as DM, and it was a headache to fix, though my players had done nothing wrong.) But there's a very big difference between "we kept a record of treasure" and "we are straight-up comparing an itemized list between this campaign and the last campaign, there aren't enough cleric items, this is so unrealistic, how could you ruin the game like that?!"

 

[nevin]

See that's the thing. I think it's great that some campaign have strict timelines. I don't think every campaign should have those. The DM should be free to determine the pacing!

I Simply replied to the idea that it was hard to prevent crafting that way. Nothing was said about could or should. Its. Not hard to stop crafting or magic item shops. it is hard to stop players from wanting those parts of the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The non-casters' contribution is to keep those spindly casters a) protected and b) upright.

Remember, in 1e a typical mage didn't have a Con bonus and was only rolling d4 per level for hit points; meaning that by 9th level the average, rounding up, would be a mighty 23 h.p. Couple that with their spells being automatically interrupted on taking ANY damage or even on just being jostled and yeah, the non-casters had a job to do.

Yes. Being the important person's bodyguard. What a thrill.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Yes. Being the important person's bodyguard. What a thrill.

I thought you, of all people, would appreciate the defender combat role?

 

[tetrasodium]

If we are going to quote TreantMonk, then I think it would be helpful to quote more from him.

He later said that shield is now "less good" because there are more reaction defensive options. A monk can react parry and reduce damage. There are a number of ways to impose disadvantage on an attack. There is a feat that gives you a reaction AC bonus that is proficency bonus based.

Now, I think Shield is still too good, because it still is better than many of these options. But if you have a defensive reaction option, gaining shield is not as big of a boost than if you had nothing.

... a shield of shield is still a heck of a defensive item.

I didn't look up the video I was talking about so didn't link to it. Pretty sure we are talking about the before & after videos though. I was talking about

Spoiler: this video

It predates the new PHB by quite a bit but shield is still wayyy too good.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I don't value verisimilitude in the same way you do, I am a stickler for framing site-based exploration as realistically as possible.

If there's biological monsters, the players can find their food source, their water source, their resting places, scat and refuse, etc. If it's a site where people used to live, you'll find bedquarters, living areas, items of leisure and distraction, their bathrooms, etc.

Magic items found via site exploration will be the types of magic items that the previous inhabitants would have logically had. Not everything, of course, because people living realistically will also occasionally collect random stuff serendipitously, just like the PCs do.

Ironically, I find that it is in fact possible to pursue "verisimilitude" so aggressively, you actually break through the other side and it becomes un-grounded again because, to quote Robert Herrick, "Do more bewitch me, than when art/Is too precise in every part." Everything placed perfectly, just so. Everything neat and tidy. Dwarves only have dwarf things, and you'll 100% always find dwarf things anywhere dwarves once lived, even centuries of looting later. Clerics only have cleric things, and you'll 100% always find cleric things where clerics once presided, even centuries of looting later. Etc.

Real life is messy, and real death is messier still. Many times, civilizations have risen and fallen in the same places, using and re-using the same materials (if not necessarily the buildings that made them.) The Athenian Parthenon stood for over two millennia before being destroyed for stupid, stupid reasons, used for a variety of purposes over the centuries: temple, church, mosque, gunpowder depot (which is what finally killed it). Bronze from ancient times is rare in large part because people would melt it down to cast something new out of it. (There's actually a HUGE treasure-trove of ancient lead recovered from a sunken shipping vessel that is of enormous scientific importance, because smelted lead sitting on the sea floor loses its radioactivity, and is thus incredibly valuable for ultra-sensitive radiation shielding.)

Sometimes, there won't be any axes or warhammers left in the ancient dwarf-forge because it fell to invasion and all the actually "good" (read: dwarf-favored) weapons were in warriors' hands, out on the battlefield, and got carted off as spoils of war centuries ago. Sometimes, a temple was abandoned by its priests because they moved to another site, and would not have been so careless as to leave nice things like holy symbols and fancy armor just lying around. Nearly always, societies have multiple different subcultures, who have different values and priorities, and it's a pure crapshoot what parts survive unlooted and undamaged for adventurers to pick up in the present day.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I thought you, of all people, would appreciate the defender combat role?

There is a vast difference between being a defender and being a bodyguard.

The former is an active participant, in gameplay terms, actually controlling the flow of combat and providing more than just a meatshield. The latter is a (gameplay) passive participant, merely present to put a barrier between nasty things and the real participant.

A doorstop is an extremely useful tool. That doesn't mean it's fun or exciting to be the doorstop for someone else--nor that being someone else's doorstop is equivalent to being their peer. A defender is a peer to a controller. A bodyguard absolutely is not a peer to a wizard.