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

[tetrasodium]

Then don't hand out the items you perceive as powerful or problematic.



I don't think anyone is saying that Alice's playstyle preferences are badwrongfun. Just that they aren't as problematic as you seem to think. Look, here's a solution for Alice- simply don't give out a ton of magic items. You really don't need to. Or make magic items suitable for the power curve she wants. It's not that hard. But having, 4e-style, six different items that do almost exactly the same thing with tiny numeric or usage variations is a waste of space. There's no need.



If she doesn't want magic items, she doesn't have to hand them out. If she does, she can. If she doesn't like the ones in the DMG, she can make her own. It's not that hard to do. It's something DMs have been doing for around 50 years now. I really don't see the problem here. Heck, if she wants a constant influx of items, she can do that. If she wants them to all be minor, she can do that. If she wants her wands to run out of charges, there's a sidebar for that in the DMG. I don't see what the problem is here at all. Is it a desire for more items that do less? Simply import them wholesale from 4e, then. In many cases you don't even have to convert them- they'll work as is.



If I am understanding you correctly here, you seem to be saying, "The problem with an option presented for people like Andy is that it's not well-suited to people not like Andy." Well, yeah. That's because it's for people like Andy, who want certain 3e-style elements in their game. It's hitting its target. It's like if someone who isn't into tactical combat starts complaining about the facing options in the DMG- you're not using them, they aren't suitable for your playstyle, don't use them.

That's a lot of words to say that you forgot Alice wants to run a game with less powerful but more common magic items & slower progression than Andy does for his game and she should deal with the fact that the magic items are all written for Andy's game style by not handing them out or just not use magic items. Telling Alice to import things from older versions of d&d & make enough changes to 5e so they fit does not change the fact that they were removed for 5e with "this is complex so

" without enough consideration for how they enable the kind of game alice wants to run to include some other tools like 3.5>4e did with different (but still preset) weapon & armor properties or the focus was only on meeting andy's game with all other games being badwrongfun outside 5e's Venn diagram consisting entirely of Andy's game & nothing else.

 

[Oofta]

If you want to run a game that differs from 5e's designed paradigm, than you have to house rule. That isn't a flaw with 5e's design.

I would even say that the ease of which you can house rule is one of 5E's strengths. For example when it comes to ability score adjustment items I decided that I didn't like the idea of replacing scores. So I changed it. Gauntlets add +2 to your strength (up to 20), girdles have a higher max and add more. They also stack with the gauntlets. That just fits my vision of how I want magic to work - I want the PCs core abilities to matter more than their items.

Not hard at all.

 

[Oofta]

That's a lot of words to say that you forgot Alice wants to run a game with less powerful but more common magic items & slower progression than Andy does for his game and she should deal with the fact that the magic items are all written for Andy's game style by not handing them out or just not use magic items. Telling Alice to import things from older versions of d&d & make enough changes to 5e so they fit does not change the fact that they were removed for 5e with "this is complex so View attachment 120119" without enough consideration for how they enable the kind of game alice wants to run to include some other tools like 3.5>4e did with different (but still preset) weapon & armor properties or the focus was only on meeting andy's game with all other games being badwrongfun outside 5e's Venn diagram consisting entirely of Andy's game & nothing else.

They dedicated an entire chapter "Dungeon Master's Workshop" to making the game your own. As they state in the first paragraph:

As the Dungeon Master, you aren’t limited by the rules in the Player’s Handbook, the guidelines in these rules, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual.​

​

They go on to encourage changes and experimentation. Other than going to your house and asking how they could write the game explicitly for you I don't know what else you expect.

 

[the Jester]

That's a lot of words to say that you forgot Alice wants to run a game with less powerful but more common magic items & slower progression than Andy does for his game and she should deal with the fact that the magic items are all written for Andy's game style by not handing them out or just not use magic items.

First, if "I forgot" something that you assumed, it's because you didn't state it explicitly in your post. All your tossing around of Alice and Andy and Goku and whatever doesn't clarify anything, it obfuscates your point.

Second, I offered several solutions for your poor Alice, who apparently can't import, homebrew, or adjust anything for her game. If there is such a person, I'd suggest that she stretch her wings a little and try some different approaches to solving her problem instead of pining for an older edition's paradigms.

Telling Alice to import things from older versions of d&d & make enough changes to 5e so they fit does not change the fact that they were removed for 5e with "this is complex so View attachment 120119"

Now you're just making stuff up (unless you can provide a cite for that claim). The issue with magic items wasn't that they were too complex; it was that they had become just better gear instead of special, and worse, that they had become requisite. The designers pretty clearly said that they were moving magic items back into "this is special" territory for 5e, and if Alice doesn't like it, she can adjust accordingly.

without enough consideration for how they enable the kind of game alice wants to run to include some other tools like 3.5>4e did with different (but still preset) weapon & armor properties...

You're pining again. And that's fine. But if you won't accept any of the easily instituted suggestions to include that stuff in 5e, you can always play an earlier edition, with all its warts and flaws.

The changes to magic items in 5e are a direct response to how they worked in 3e and 4e. The difference- reduction in "churn", items that are cool and fun, but aren't needed to keep up- is absolutely intentional. And even so, it's absolutely easy to retrofit your game style to a more 3e-like (or 1e-like, if you prefer) playstyle. If Alice can't be bothered to put in the work to convert or homebrew, doesn't want to go back to playing a more suitable-to-her-tastes edition, doesn't like the options available in the DMG and Xanathar's, and isn't happy importing older edition material, hey man, I don't know what to tell her. She isn't being reasonable with her expectations.

or the focus was only on meeting andy's game with all other games being badwrongfun outside 5e's Venn diagram consisting entirely of Andy's game & nothing else.

5e had a long public playtest period, with lots of surveys for feedback, and the designers paid close attention to those surveys. If 5e is designed for Andy and not Alice, it's because Andy participated in that playtest and filled out those surveys, like thousands and thousands of other people. Alice's preferences simply weren't the ones that a majority or plurality of players wanted. And even so, there seem to be plenty of ways that Alice can bend 5e into the game she wants. She's just not being reasonable about doing any of the work herself. She's just shouting, "No, it should be my way!" while ignoring that she's in the minority AND that it can be her way with just a little bit of work.

 

[Nebulous]

Ok Goku, Alice is trying to avoid Super Saiyan as the baseline for normal though. That's fine for Andy's game but is very problematic in Alice's. An item that can take an 8 or even a 3 to 19 is indeed powerful. The same holds true for an item that permanently grants 1d6 castings of a spell every day to a character until they find a better one. If those kinds of things were not the case, we wouldn't be here in a thread from someone asking about handling item churn in 5e.

Yeah, I dislike the permanency of these things as well. I've never introduced one of the above in 5e as far as I can recall. Although I do like the idea of a small kobold wielding a greatsword three times bigger than it is. That would scare the crap out of a party.

Well I do give out wands of magic missiles as treasure, but wands in my games use CHARGES, never the stupid reset at dawn rule with 5% of loss. It is a dwindling resource you use when you need it, and eventually it will be gone.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yeah, I dislike the permanency of these things as well. I've never introduced one of the above in 5e as far as I can recall. Although I do like the idea of a small kobold wielding a greatsword three times bigger than it is. That would scare the crap out of a party.

Well I do give out wands of magic missiles as treasure, but wands in my games use CHARGES, never the stupid reset at dawn rule with 5% of loss. It is a dwindling resource you use when you need it, and eventually it will be gone.

I do the same but it doesn't stop players from saying "but it says it gets back 1d6+1" at some point. 5e is the only edition I've ever had players regularly do things like that so often, it's part of why I ban dndbeyond at my table.

@the Jester you assume that alice was not present in those surveys rather than simply had her voice as a gm drowned out by players thinking about how powerful they would be who outnumber gm's by a significant degree or some other poor application of statistics & survey practices*. We've been talking about the same two hypothetical games for a while now, you shouldn't need constant reminders that it's still being discussed in a back & forth discourse.

* Be honest, when was the last time you saw a UA survey ask how you feel about something as a gm? It's few and far if ever they ask anything gm specific in those.

 

[Nebulous]

I do the same but it doesn't stop players from saying "but it says it gets back 1d6+1" at some point. 5e is the only edition I've ever had players regularly do things like that so often, it's part of why I ban dndbeyond at my table.

I personally find that temporary, one shot magic items or dwindling resource magic items supplemented by RARE permanent items works best in my 5e games. The party is 5th level and only the paladin has a magic "intelligent" battleaxe. Some DMs will think that is well behind the curve, but it's the kind of game I want to run. I don't like higher level D&D, I just don't enjoy the power curve by 10th, so I run the game in the sweet spot I enjoy, and I parcel out the magic the I want.

 

[the Jester]

you assume that alice was not present in those surveys rather than simply had her voice as a gm drowned out by players thinking about how powerful they would be who outnumber gm's by a significant degree or some other poor application of statistics & survey practices*.

* Be honest, when was the last time you saw a UA survey ask how you feel about something as a gm? It's few and far if ever they ask anything gm specific in those.

No, I more or less feel that the playtest was big enough to provide a relative sampling of the D&D community.

As for the UA surveys, I'm not sure what you mean. What would be an example of a DM specific question? I always answer them from my own perspective, which is that of a DM.

The playtest surveys did ask how you felt about a lot of things. I remember surveys about a lot of aspects of the game- both things like going through lists of spells and choosing which ones I felt were iconic and giving feedback about aspects of the playtest which I then saw incorporated into the next playtest document (or maybe one a few iterations down the line).

 

[tetrasodium]

No, I more or less feel that the playtest was big enough to provide a relative sampling of the D&D community.

As for the UA surveys, I'm not sure what you mean. What would be an example of a DM specific question? I always answer them from my own perspective, which is that of a DM.

The playtest surveys did ask how you felt about a lot of things. I remember surveys about a lot of aspects of the game- both things like going through lists of spells and choosing which ones I felt were iconic and giving feedback about aspects of the playtest which I then saw incorporated into the next playtest document (or maybe one a few iterations down the line).

That came up in a recent thread & I answered it here. along with some examples The way you ask a question influences the responses you get. Pew research has an excellent article that goes into those sort of things here. Without getting into politics there is another example of it that you might be familiar with if you read/watch the news regularly you will frequently hear how a poll says voters are in hate/love soandso's proposal but when those same voters are polled on what they feel about specific policies based on the policy rather than name the have the opposite opinion on those specifics. The same also applies to the order you ask the questions in

On the topic of magic items & using some mentioned already, some examples might be:

1. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree & 5 being strongly agree. "I sometimes have trouble tracking all of my equipment"
2. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree & 5 being strongly agree. "The wand of magic missile is easy to use"
3. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree & 5 being strongly agree, " I think the wand of magic missile & others like it would be a lot of fun (chosen simply because it was posted earlier).
4. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree & 5 being strongly agree. "I think the wand of magic missile would fit well in the party"
5. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree & 5 being strongly agree. "The wand of magic missile is well balanced"

Not only do those start out with questions that prime the mental pump to push a responder into the player's headspace, they all biased in ways that are bordering on push polls. compare to something like:

1. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree & 5 being strongly agree. "players sometimes have excessive difficulty tracking details of their equipment such as asf acp crit range crit threat brutal# damage reduction etc "
2. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree & 5 being strongly agree. "The wand of magic missile daily recharge mechanic rather than a set number of charges is a good design choice"
3. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree & 5 being strongly agree, " I think the wand of magic missile & others that recharge like it would be an appropriate treasure for a level 4 party to find.
4. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree & 5 being strongly agree. "I think the wand of magic missile would fit well in the party"
5. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree & 5 being strongly agree. "The wand of magic missile reharge mechanic is well balanced"

Right off the bat, the difference between the first question 1 & second question 1 is that the first only asks if the responder "sometimes" has difficulty tracking things. Alex could vote 5 because at high levels he has six pages of inventory that has nothing to do with the complex bits missing from 5e equipment. Beth could vote 5 because she likes to fit 5 pages of stuff on two and does so by writing in mice type. Charles could vote 5 because he tries to avoid filling out new character sheets & eventually starts erasing through the paper. Dawn could vote 5 because she has dyslexia. None of those four voted five because the items themselves are too complex. .... The second question 1 specifically points out what potentially difficult to track aspect about the equipment is the subject of being difficult to track so Alex looks at his six pages & decides those particular aspects are not a significant hurdle enough to merit a 5. Beth looks at her mice type & decides that those numbers are not the problematic thing that her mice type was for the first question 1. Charles looks at those things and admits hose values almost never change on a weapon/armor so are not the cause of his erasing through the page problem so again does not vote 5. Dawn thinks about those values & admits that they are not her dyslexia so also does not vote 5

The first question 2 is so simplistic & vague that it is effectively meaningless. An autohit spell you just roll some d4's with is obviously easy. Uttering the words "I use my wand of magic missile to cast magic missile at $target" is beyond the point of merely being "easy". The thing gets back all it's charges within a couple days with d6+1 (avg 5, min 2!)/day & has nearly zero chance of ever going away, what could be easier? everyone votes 5 on a question that should never have been asked to an individual capable of taking the survey without assistance for reasons other than language or physical disabilities on par with those of stephen hawking before death.... but hey it got a bunch of 5's so must be good!

The second question 2 asks about the charge mechanic specifically By using the words "good choice" rather than easy to use or fun, responders are forced to consider the broader implications of going from set number of charges to what is effectively making the item permanent and more specifically do so in comparison to the old charge mechanic. Alex thinks back to that time he burned out a few wands he'd been saving in his back pocket as his ace in the hole to save the day & realizes he would have just had one or maybe two wands that couldn't have enough charges to repeat that under this system so does not vote 5. Beth Realizes that her five pages of inventory will never happen because hose items are now both more powerful & permanent that she won't have a stockpile made from odds & ends collected & she's always enjoyed being the group's record keeper so certainly does not vote 5. If charles really thinks keeping track of the inventory not tracked by Beth is a significant problem he might vote higher than Alex & Beth, but he might also have other reasons for not doing so. Dawn might look at that mechanic & think about how it would complicate her experience due to dyscalculia so tries to vote less than 1 but can only vote 1.

The First question 3. Would it be "fun"?... sure why not, Wotc seems to really like asking this kind of question in the UA surveys.
The Second question 3. Alex looks at that and realizes "oh my god, I thought that was on par with staff of fireball or something not an uncommon low level magic item!" he does not vote 5 because he realizes that such a wand would be a significant part of what defines his character. Beth comes to similar realizations & thinks about how the shift to very few character defining magic items would impact the feeling of fulfillment she gets being the group's record keeper so also does not vote 5. Charles thinks about how he's going to be not only subtracting but also adding charges to the wand regularly so avoids 5 because it means he's going to be erasing through the page more often. Dawn comes to whatever xonclusion she comes to

Both Question 4s are the same, Would it fit well in the party?... all four think & say "I guess?..." to themselves but because of question 1 & 2 the second version is likely to have lower results among the same four if asked the second set instead

The first question 5.Is it balanced? what part? the spell magic missile? The max charges? The 1d6+1 recharge/day? The upcasting costs?the attine requirement? The uncommon rarity? what a uselessly vague question, wotc likes these kind of things in UA surveys
The second question 5. Alex thinks back to the earlier questions he was asked from the second set & his answer is likely to look a lot like his answer to 2 & 3 but could be a little higher or much lower depending on if he tries to stay neutral & objective or if he weights it down against what he' be losing. so on & so forth.

With that said, many of those questions I raised in regards to those four players & the questions are examples of some of the things a well designed survey should attempt to determine with additional questions & the UA surveys almost never seem to. In this context, one reason those things are important is that it allows people to be grouped based on their preferences in order to determine if there are additional things important to those people that should be included or represented in new ways rather than accidentally making a well meaning change catering to a specific group that damages the experience for a second group. A second reason might be to weight those groups because both Andy & Alice are outnumbered 4:1(at least) by their players, but if those players rarely if ever GM or think that being a gm is too hard for them Alice & Andy's oppinions need to carry much more weight in some cases. Those extra questiona also allow decisions to be made so that design choices can include support for the kind of games both andy & Alice rather than just one. That last point is especially important if the designers are all mostly a single type of GM demograpic like andy likely to not even consider or be aware of the needs that a different style of game like Alice's in their design (see the class feature UA video from earlier of crawford saying almost exactly that).

 

[ad_hoc]

No, I more or less feel that the playtest was big enough to provide a relative sampling of the D&D community.

As for the UA surveys, I'm not sure what you mean. What would be an example of a DM specific question? I always answer them from my own perspective, which is that of a DM.

The playtest surveys did ask how you felt about a lot of things. I remember surveys about a lot of aspects of the game- both things like going through lists of spells and choosing which ones I felt were iconic and giving feedback about aspects of the playtest which I then saw incorporated into the next playtest document (or maybe one a few iterations down the line).

I agree with you about the game matching the playtest but that playtest is also very out of date now. So much so that it is a bit silly to speak of it 6+ years later in relation to what people want out of the game.

Many more people are now playing the game than were taking part in the playtest.

Most 5e players will have never played an RPG before 5e (or even a hobby game excepting something like Settlers of Catan).

I think the popularity speaks for itself as far as whether people are happy with the game.