How come BBEG coming out never have magic weapons or items?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Magic items make the party better. Making monsters stronger because the party has magic items defeats the purpose of the items. That is why 5e is the way it is and not like 3e. In 3e magic items weren't special because they were assumed.

What a strange thing to say. Making the party better is the effect of magical items, and their purpose is to reward adventure IMO.

Part of the game can be finding enough items along the way to be able to survive and/or defeat the big baddies later on.

Huh, so you're disagreeing with others here, at least with regards to the big baddies -- PCs need magical items to survive those dangerous foes.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

How did 1e achieve "balance"? The DM. How does ANY rpg achieve "balance". The GM. Over the decades I have come to the realization that the "DM" is actually the most important rule in an RPG. This idea doesn't sit well with a lot of "newer" players for some reason. It's like they can't accept that someone has more power/importance to the game than themselves or something. I blame the education system and cell phones, but I'm old and crotchety.

A DM is the last line of defence against imbalance; the first line is quality standards and DM-guidance. So this thread looks to me like a mass-rationalization for poor quality standards. I mean before 4e we didn't have any better D&D option for a well-balanced and upfront ruleset with good guidance, so it was every DM for themselves. But as it is, I don't see the point of this 5e vaguery. I have zero interest in a ruleset where I have to spend months and months and possibly years learning the ropes before adding basic stuff like feats and multiclassing, as DEFCON suggests. Nor in "just sort of doing it" as you suggest. I like my games to work right out of the box, especially when I pay for it. I guess 'rulings not rules' is the new fad for whatever reason -- the style pendulum swings every which way in every hobby -- and 5e just isn't the game for me. I blame market hype, but maybe I'm just a cynical millenial.

 

[Oofta]

A DM is the last line of defence against imbalance; the first line is quality standards and DM-guidance. So this thread looks to me like a mass-rationalization for poor quality standards. I mean before 4e we didn't have any better D&D option for a well-balanced and upfront ruleset with good guidance, so it was every DM for themselves. But as it is, I don't see the point of this 5e vaguery. I have zero interest in a ruleset where I have to spend months and months and possibly years learning the ropes before adding basic stuff like feats and multiclassing, as DEFCON suggests. Nor in "just sort of doing it" as you suggest. I like my games to work right out of the box, especially when I pay for it. I guess 'rulings not rules' is the new fad for whatever reason -- the style pendulum swings every which way in every hobby -- and 5e just isn't the game for me. I blame market hype, but maybe I'm just a cynical millenial.

<RANT>
Take a look at some of the variables. Party size, feats, multi-classing, ability scores, party build and effectiveness, magic items or not. That's before you take monster tactics, terrain, number of encounters between rests, etc. into account. From my experience no two groups are the same even when everything else is equal regardless of edition.

I don't see how there could have a perfect system for a game built along the lines of 5E unless you put in a ton of restrictions. As far as years to master the system ... I don't see how it's that hard. Last game the PCs stomped on your encounters so you increase your XP budget a bit. Had to hold back to not kill the party? Decrease the budget.

D&D has always needed a DM that adjusts the game for their players, there's never been such a thing as "perfect" balance. Want a game where everything is perfectly balanced without adjustments? Play a board game.
</RANT>

 

[The Crimson Binome]

5e has very, very tight accuracy math that intentionally does not take into account the effects of +x magic items. A character with a +1 sword will hit 5% more often than they are “supposed to”. A character with a set of +1 armor will be hit 5% less often than they are “supposed to.” This is by design, and was done mostly in response to critique that, in 3e and 4e, you need certain +x items by certain levels just to keep up, which meant if the DM didn’t give out the right items on the right schedule, the party could end up too weak (or too strong, if they gave out too much) for their level and break the CR math. It also made magic items an expected thing on the player’s side, which some folks felt made magic not feel rare or special enough. So, for 5e, they decided to leave magic items completely out of the encounter math.

It was particularly egregious with 3E, where keeping your avoidance rate consistent across twenty levels of advancement meant that you needed +5 armor, a +5 ring, a +5 necklace, and a +5 shield. If your opponent also had a +5 sword, then that was unfortunate, because there was nowhere else that you could find such a bonus to offset that. Similarly, if you couldn't use a shield for whatever reason, you were flat out of luck because now you were going to get hit 25% more than you should.

While it's great that you no longer need to weigh yourself down with four separate magic items just to keep up, and that they addressed it by reigning in the attack bonus, it does reveal the underlying issue of static AC values. Without a reliable source of magic armor, enemies are going to get better at hitting you, and you're just going to get hit way more than you should. If they were going so far as to remove the complex patch of magic items that let players kind of work around that issue, they really should have fixed the default no-magic math first.

 

[Satyrn]

<RANT>
Take a look at some of the variables. Party size, feats, multi-classing, ability scores, party build and effectiveness, magic items or not. . .

the biggest quality of life hacks my table has implemented in the name of balance is to always use the standard array. It's been crazy the difference between that and our previous C.H.E.A.T. method that resulted in 18s and 20s at early levels.

</RANT>

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

<RANT>
D&D has always needed a DM that adjusts the game for their players, there's never been such a thing as "perfect" balance. Want a game where everything is perfectly balanced without adjustments? Play a board game.
</RANT>

Funny how in every conversation about balance, someone among the fans of less-balanced games always starts ranting about perfect balance, without anyone else bringing up the concept.

I don't need perfect balance, just quality balance and some guidance if I want to deviate from what my game expects. Especially if the game expects a radical deviation from D&D convention. 4e gave it to us, the D&D-alike that I'm currently DMing gives it to me, and I'm sure other games do too. I have a family and a 9-to-5 nowadays, so my game time is limited to just a few hours one day a week; I don't have time to playtest for the devs. Especially when I can find higher standards elsewhere.

 

[ad_hoc]

Especially if the game expects a radical deviation from D&D convention.

5e is a return to form. 3e and 4e were a radical deviation.

4e gave it to us, the D&D-alike that I'm currently DMing gives it to me, and I'm sure other games do too. I have a family and a 9-to-5 nowadays, so my game time is limited to just a few hours one day a week; I don't have time to playtest for the devs. Especially when I can find higher standards elsewhere.

I don't feel like doing any prep so I just come to the table with an adventure and read along as we play. It just works. Your game time is actually more than most. I think once every 2 weeks is more common.

All that said, please, go play another game that you like. We will all be fine and you will be happier for it.

 

[Oofta]

Funny how in every conversation about balance, someone among the fans of less-balanced games always starts ranting about perfect balance, without anyone else bringing up the concept.

I don't need perfect balance, just quality balance and some guidance if I want to deviate from what my game expects. Especially if the game expects a radical deviation from D&D convention. 4e gave it to us, the D&D-alike that I'm currently DMing gives it to me, and I'm sure other games do too. I have a family and a 9-to-5 nowadays, so my game time is limited to just a few hours one day a week; I don't have time to playtest for the devs. Especially when I can find higher standards elsewhere.

I have no idea what you mean by "quality balance". Older versions of D&D had no encounter build guidelines at all, nor any indication of what level of threat a monster posed. The CR guidelines are a starting point, I just don't see how they could be much more. They're probably decent for a group of 4 novice players with no magic, using standard array, no optional rules following the 6-8 encounters per long rest with 1-2 short rests.

If you have a problem balancing your games, ask for advice. We're full of it. Advice that is. Well, we're probably full of a lot of other things as well.

Or you can just complain that the game isn't perfect because no game is.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I have no idea what you mean by "quality balance". Older versions of D&D had no encounter build guidelines at all, nor any indication of what level of threat a monster posed. The CR guidelines are a starting point, I just don't see how they could be much more.

In fourth edition, the monster level was an accurate reflection of its overall power, as well as its expected performance against individual PCs.

 

[dave2008]

I don't need perfect balance, just quality balance and some guidance if I want to deviate from what my game expects. Especially if the game expects a radical deviation from D&D convention. 4e gave it to us, the D&D-alike that I'm currently DMing gives it to me, and I'm sure other games do too. I have a family and a 9-to-5 nowadays, so my game time is limited to just a few hours one day a week; I don't have time to playtest for the devs. Especially when I can find higher standards elsewhere.

This seems like a wholly unwarranted rant. 5e is balanced, go play. I have a family, work 40+ hrs a week, I am adding an addition to my house, and have type to pick up 5e and play. It took our group 1 session to get going. It is not some doomsday edition you are making it out to be (nor is it some perfect edition either)

For reference, it took my group about 3-4 sessions to get going with 4e and about a month to get going back in the 80's when we first picked up 1e (of course we didn't realized the difference between 1e AD&D and D&D back then)

So do you really feel this way, i.e. have you played the game, or are you just ranting?

EDIT: To be clear, every post here all you do is trump the perceived negatives and disregard the positives or all the support that differs with your experience or assumptions (I am not sure which). It is fine if you can't handle the game and others can, but that doesn't make it bad,wrong, not fun - it just makes it not the game for you.