D&D 5E Do you miss attribute minimums/maximums?

[Maxperson]

The 3e game I was in, the whole party would shut 'er down for a few game-world weeks now and then (in part because we used training-up rules) thus there was always time and opportunity to crank out relatively minor stuff like that.

Lanefan

The world doesn't, though. They could say they shut down, but people would still come looking for them. Days still happen with things going on for them. Storylines happen and can move beyond their ability to repair if they sit there. The roleplaying happens unless the DM creates the problem by allowing the world to shut down so they can create those items, not the item creation rules.

 

[Celebrim]

That's a pretty extreme example, I'd say. I can't think of more than one or two weapons - or items in general, for all that - in 30+ years I've been DMing that have been anywhere near that complicated or fussy.

Well, what I'm trying to get at is that at one point in my DMing career, I got a great idea in my head for how to solve the problem that magic items in D&D didn't feel magical. They weren't mysterious, numinous, eclectic, dangerous, unpredictable, weirdness magnets the way that magic items tend to appear in fiction. And I think I actually worked out how to give magic items flavor, and starting implementing my 'great idea'.

And the problem was, that while my idea was achieving the flavor goals I set out to solve, mechanically it was just much too fussy. And in particular, the very idea that the magic item was mysterious and somewhat outside the player's control, even in situations where the item wasn't that complicated, meant that the player did not have full mechanical understanding of the item, which in turn meant that I the DM had to track all the information that the player didn't know and apply it to every scene. Like several of my 'good ideas', when I put it into practice, I found that I had to abandon it very early.

Still, one upshot of that experiment is that I often have very complicated magic items in my game. One of the swords in the party, an intelligent, legacy +2 keen eager rapier of swiftness has a nearly page long description that makes the above item seem trivially simple. Fortunately, at this point, the player has unlocked enough of his weapons secrets that I'm happy to let him track the bookkeeping. Likewise, the ancient monkey skull is a very complicated item with a two paragraph long description, that took the player about 4 levels of play and two years game time to figure out, but because it's a strictly command activated item, it placed no bookkeeping burden on me.

The biggest headaches, to be fair, are the ones where the character(s) think everything is known about an item but it still has something up its sleeve that their field-testing or ID spell just didn't (or couldn't) pull; as those are the ones the players just assume to be what they believe them to be. Most of the time if an item is unknown or uncertain the players remind me; a typical conversation might go like this:

Fighter's player: "I'm using this shortsword we just picked up. Roll to hit is 17 + 1 for strength, 1 for spec., and whatever the sword gives me."
Me-as-DM: "What item number is the sword?"
Player or treasurer: "147. I think it was in the mummy's coffin."
Me-as-DM if I remember what makes sword 147 tick: "Right, that one. You hit. Hard. Roll damage."
Me-as-DM if I don't remember sword 147: "147? Let me look that up... <<quick glance at my records>> ...right, that one. You hit. Hard. Roll damage."

Multiply the severity of that problem by like 30 and I think you'll see why the problem is not so much that you have to rework D&D to have numinous items, but that you have to do too much bookkeeping. Whereas, if there was some means by which the players dice roll was modified secretly and automatically and reported to me through a secure channel because the players character sheet understood what the items did even if the character's player did not, then what I was going for could work.

The only other way to achieve this goal I can think of is to have a rules light system where everything works according to the GM's whim, which then does make for mysterious magic, but in my opinion goes too much the other way and permanently removes the possibility of understanding by the player. At that point, the player is basically just along for the ride.

I usually don't have to look back very far as after each adventure they ID everything then divide and-or sell it. Again, it's only when they think they know one thing but the truth is another that I have to worry about it long-term, and even then only if they don't sell it. Those are the ones that generate sticky notes on the back of my DM screen.

I was in a situation where frequently, just sticking an object in your pack could have long term mechanical consequences. I try to avoid that now as much as possible.

Lan-"players forgetting to record item numbers with their characters' possessions (guilty!) also causes grief"-efan

In my game, if player's lose their notes on an item, they've also misplaced the item somewhere, likely never to recover it. Believe me when I say that this ensures the most meticulous record keeper in the party will in the long term be chosen as party treasurer and he'll be frequently audited.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, what I'm trying to get at is that at one point in my DMing career, I got a great idea in my head for how to solve the problem that magic items in D&D didn't feel magical. They weren't mysterious, numinous, eclectic, dangerous, unpredictable, weirdness magnets the way that magic items tend to appear in fiction. And I think I actually worked out how to give magic items flavor, and starting implementing my 'great idea'.

And the problem was, that while my idea was achieving the flavor goals I set out to solve, mechanically it was just much too fussy. And in particular, the very idea that the magic item was mysterious and somewhat outside the player's control, even in situations where the item wasn't that complicated, meant that the player did not have full mechanical understanding of the item, which in turn meant that I the DM had to track all the information that the player didn't know and apply it to every scene. Like several of my 'good ideas', when I put it into practice, I found that I had to abandon it very early.

Still, one upshot of that experiment is that I often have very complicated magic items in my game. One of the swords in the party, an intelligent, legacy +2 keen eager rapier of swiftness has a nearly page long description that makes the above item seem trivially simple. Fortunately, at this point, the player has unlocked enough of his weapons secrets that I'm happy to let him track the bookkeeping. Likewise, the ancient monkey skull is a very complicated item with a two paragraph long description, that took the player about 4 levels of play and two years game time to figure out, but because it's a strictly command activated item, it placed no bookkeeping burden on me.

For my 3e games, I got tired of there being tons and tons of little rinky dink magic items found. It made magic seem common and the players were like, "Oh, yay. Another +1 sword with shock.". I decided to make magic items rare. Instead of a PC finding a +1 sword with shock, a ring of sustenance, bracers of resist electricity 10, and a +1 protection ring, all over 3 levels, he would find Jolt, a +1 longsword with the shock ability. Jolt also increased is reactions a bit and shielded him from some electricity damage. Lastly, it charged itself with the light of the sun and so long as it spent at least some time out in the sun, it would sustain him without needing to eat or drink, and reducing the amount of time needed to sleep. If not exposed to the sun for 2 weeks, it would become only a +1 sword until exposed again.

Suddenly the players were excited when they found items again. The items were all cool and you didn't find them often.

 

[Helldritch]

That never was a problem in games I ran.
Even when players can make their magic items, it takes time to make one. Surplus magic items were often given to key followers, henchmen or simply allies. This had the effect of raising their loyalty toward the party.

Usually, especialy in 1e (but it was done in 3e too, to a lesser extent) the group started with doing quests/adventures up to level 5. Then the hirelings started to enter the picture. Some NPC might come and go as the game progressed. Around level 9 (name level) henchmen came in. Around level 12 the group started to "split". Sometimes an adventure was ran entirely by the henchmen of the players (who were taking control of their henchmen for the game). A henchman could be brought along some adventures, and in the process would see surplus magic items given to them. Once a group was TPK and they were brought back by their henchmen!

It was not rare in my games to have a player play more than one character. Sometimes a player could play 2 or 3 henchmen. The rapid pacing/advancement of 4e and 5e lessened this aspect of play. Players rises in level a bit too quickly for that. I'm not saying that it can not be done, just that since leveling is so fast, most games follows the "adventure path" type of games. The introductionary adventures of 3e, 4e and the adventures of 5e are perfect example of AP. At the same time, this had the advantage of reducing the amount of magic items given. There is no need of surplus magic items as there are almost no henchmen now. The magic rich environment of 1 and the scarcity of magic in 5e suits me equally well.

 

[rabindranath72]

Ability checks featured already in the rules from the 1st Red Box by Tom Moldvay (1981). Judges Guild stuff from 1979 also has them (e.g. the Ref Sheets.)

 

[rabindranath72]

It was missing from the 1E core DMG and PHB, but mentioned in quite a few adventure modules, so it seems to have been an assumed 'thing' which didn't make it into print in official 1E books. It was certainly in the rules by the time the Mentzer Red Box Basic set came out, as though books discuss ability checks - if I remember correctly though they were very vague and it was left up to the DM as to whether they were done using 3d6 or 1d20.

I had that Red Box in 1983 a few months before I started playing 1E AD&D and used stat checks without ever realising the PHB and DMG did not mention them. We used the 3d6 method playing basic, but switched to 1d20 for AD&D as 4d6 stat generation led to higher stats.

Ability checks featured already in the rules from the 1st Red Box by Tom Moldvay (1981). Judges Guild stuff from 1979 also has them (e.g. the Ref Sheets.)