D&D 5E How do you handle magic item churn in 5E?

[tetrasodium]

Sure, this makes sense. I disagree that Alice's "more frequent but less powerful items" magic items paradigm needs to be supported (It's almost explicitly in opposition to 5e's design goals with magic items), but I do agree that support is not present.

You are ignoring the UA from not too long ago designed to add features that could be used in games that deliberately progress at a much slower rate than expected first. Wotc said they made it because they discovered all these slower than expected progressing games. Second "should Alice's desired style be supported" is irrelevant to the fact that If it was Andy's desired style would work fine simply by ignoring some rules & guidance while Alice has to fight against 5e.

 

[TwoSix]

You are ignoring the UA from not too long ago designed to add features that could be used in games that deliberately progress at a much slower rate than expected first. Wotc said they made it because they discovered all these slower than expected progressing games. Second "should Alice's desired style be supported" is irrelevant to the fact that If it was Andy's desired style would work fine simply by ignoring some rules & guidance while Alice has to fight against 5e.

1) Which UA was that, the class variant features one?

2) "We should have more detailed rules because you can always ignore them if you want" is a slippery slope that leads to hundreds of pages of extra rules. I mean, I understand you think they should have gone more detailed with magic items, but they also had a ton of feedback that people wanted less detailed magic item rules than were present in 3.5/PF/4e. That magic item system was very much a "love it or hate it" deal.

 

[Tallifer]

My party's next magical item.

 

[tetrasodium]

1) Which UA was that, the class variant features one?

2) "We should have more detailed rules because you can always ignore them if you want" is a slippery slope that leads to hundreds of pages of extra rules. I mean, I understand you think they should have gone more detailed with magic items, but they also had a ton of feedback that people wanted less detailed magic item rules than were present in 3.5/PF/4e. That magic item system was very much a "love it or hate it" deal.

The class feature variants. They did say it was intended to help accomidate slower leveling games.

A slippery slope is how we got 5e's "someone once thought that was complex so

" without thought to the role that complexity played & gameplay styles it enabled is how we got 5e. You can simplify complex, but you need to design the complex first rather than just doing simple & calling it a day or you wind up with 5e's problematic over simplification. A variant rule of "you may choose to ignore item slots & instead require magic items to be attuned during a long rest but limit characters to 3 attuned items rather than using slots but should use more powerful magic items." and "If you would rather magic items to have more permanance, you could choose to have them regain 1d6+1 charges each day at a particular time such as dawn rather than having a set number of charges that never replenishes" the 3.5/pf/4e magic item system you disparage as being "love it or hate it" could absolutely handle 5e style magic items like that but not in reverse.

It's also an absurd diversion to suggest this kind of thing would add hundreds of pages

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I believe its probably easier to start with simple base rules, and then allow adding complexity to them. 5e is designed to be pretty modular like that. Trying to add additional complexity to the system wherever someone thinks that the current rules are too simple is, as TwoSix pointed out, a slippery slope leading a much larger book. Better to keep to the original design goals and let people who want more complex rules to create or pick additions that suit their preferences from supplementary materials I feel.

 

[Bitbrain]

Reply to the Opening Post.

At my table, I make it clear that magic items are extremely rare. Each PC will never obtain more than 3 in any given campaign, 4 if you are a Fighter.

Also, magic weapons in my games deal one extra dice of damage at minimum.

 

[Todd Roybark]

1) Expendables.....high churn is to expected for these, to allow for novelty, for all involved.

2) Story based reasons...Theft, Torts, Force etc....I use the film, The Maltese Falcon as inspiration; getting involved with historical objects often leads to headaches.
‘Ownership’ of art is a fraught question in our own world, same can be true for magical items.

3) Magic. Artifacts, like the One Ring often have a tendency to disappear, move on, or cause fellows to murder each other over it, etc.

4) Human inattentiveness—- if the character never uses the Silvered Magical Dagger that adds no numerical enhancement, I don’t really care that item card is sitting with the player.

5) Disenchanters, caryatid columns, modified Beholder eye rays, etc....my rat bastardness is unbounded. I don’t need no stinking Monster Manual entry, to create some bedevilment.

 

[Azzy]

That hasn't been an issue in any games I've DMed or played in.

 

[the Jester]

The problem with attunement without slots is that you can objectively pick the three best items & the gm can no longer have a powerful thing that conflicts with some other powerful thing so only one can be used. Now you unattune the weakest thing & attune to both powerful things

I have puzzling over this for a couple of days, and still can't figure out what it has to do with my post.

But what you posit as a problem to me is actually the exact opposite. It's a feature designed to tamp down on the "magic item Christmas tree" effect from the last couple of editions. I think it's an excellent move.

 

[the Jester]

5e's magic item economy flatly does not work because they are all too powerful & there are no longer any subjective dials that can be used.

That's a nice assertion, but I strongly disagree- 5e's magic item economy (if you want to call it that) works fine, not all magic items are too powerful, and I'm not sure what you even mean by 'subjective dials'. The 3e "body slot" system was okay, but nothing stopped you from (for instance) making some kind of mind control item as a pair of boots and paying the upcharge. Very few dms that I saw would care enough to stop that sort of thing.