D&D 5E How much magic do you have in your game?

[doctorbadwolf]

The amount you slow their ability score progression doesn't change that the slowing of it by limiting them to half feats rather than +2 ASI expands the math allocation in the system from +0 from magic items to +something from those or another stand in at some point. The must fill all slots effect was a 4e-ism when wotc put too much control over magic items in player hands, prior to 4e they were to help avoid inadvertent stacking of bonuses to any given area & encourage magic item churn. You can prefer attunement slots, but that also is yet another shifted goalpost that is not related to wotc building the math of 5e so that it assumes +0 from magic items leaving no room for the gm to build there.

Nah. I use ASI +1 and a Feat at ASI levels, rather than ASI +2 or a Feat, and I am still quite free to be more creative with magic items than I was in 4e or 3.5.

My wife’s Paladin has an obsidian sword that allows her to see invisible things, enchantments, etc, by looking through the blade, and enhances her Vryloka racial abilities, as well as being able to change into other weapons, and when in thrown weapon form she can throw it and then teleport to the target of the attack, and black and red Armor with rose motif and a wolf’s head on the left pauldron that lets her entangle people in thorny rose vines and summon shadow wolves once a day.

No numbers, other than times per day and the Wolf stat block. I don’t have to care about numbers. The game runs just fine.

edit: forgot to mention, other players on the same campaign have +2 weapons or armor. It’s fine.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Plus anything item is beyond the math calculations of the system before any changes are made.

Technically, sure. But not to any meaningful practical degree.

The game runs just as well with +x weapons, and my half ASI+feats system, with a slightly higher point buy or just rolled stats, as it does RAW.

 

[Argyle King]

with the concordance & angered happy (un)satisfied type stuff? Yea you could probably do that with magic items & it could be interesting back then, but really it needs to come down to having some mechanical impact for players to care much about it anymore than the umpteenth set of platemail they leave behind & 5e runs into trouble at that point.

If there is 6th Edition, I hope it keeps the general idea of "bounded accuracy" and actually follows through with it.

As part of following through with it, I could see racial bonuses (and penalties) becoming non-numerical effects. Similarly, I would like to see magic items redesigned to create more wondrous effects rather than more numeric bonuses.

Thinking about it more, I'm not entirely opposed to +N bonuses, but I would prefer that they be approached in a very different way. A completely arbitrary and made up example from my head would be the Moon Mace, a silver-coated mace (which ignores the damage reduction of lycanthropes) and also grants effects based upon the phase of the moon: no bonus during a New Moon; +1d4 force damage during Crescent phases and Gibbous phases; +1 to attacks and +1d4 force damage during Quarter phases; +1 to attacks and +1d4 force damage and +1d4 radiant damage during a Full Moon.

That particular item is more fiddly than most people might like, but the concept is that bonuses can be more interesting than a flat +N. Instead, it might be a variable bonus during specific conditions or perhaps the item is able to function in a unique way (such as the sword which can be used to cast featherfall, that I mentioned previously). I think shifting in this direction would then allow a straight +N item (which always grants the bonus) to truly be something special.

4th Edition started out that way with both feats and items. In the early books, you might get a bonus to something under specific circumstances (i.e. +1 attack and damage while using fire spells). I thought that was cool and gave reasons for picking different items and having characters care about the actual properties of what an item did. Unfortunately, later books (in 4th) started handing out feats and items which simply just gave the bonuses all the time, without* any drawbacks or specified circumstances. I believe this was the wrong way to evolve the game because it meant sliding back into what I see as the same flawed way of handling magic items which came before, and 5th (unfortunately) seems to have stuck with that latter idea, rather than trying to use bounded accuracy (and an alleged move away from needing big numbers) as way to do something which made magic unique and meaningful.

*This is an over-simplification, but that is the pattern I remember. It's part of why some later feats and items became so common that they were viewed by many as being almost required. For me, what was so maddening about that part of the game going in that direction is that other parts of the game (such as monster design) finally became good/better in later books. So, while parts of the game were moving in a good direction to work as designed, other parts started moving away from the general ballpark of design space for which the improvements were built around.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If there is 6th Edition, I hope it keeps the general idea of "bounded accuracy" and actually follows through with it.

Off topic, of course, but the problem with bounded accuracy is you have HP bloat to make up for it.

You either have high ACs or high HP--it is a problem either way IMO.

 

[Argyle King]

Off topic, of course, but the problem with bounded accuracy is you have HP bloat to make up for it.

You either have high ACs or high HP--it is a problem either way IMO.

I don't believe HP bloat is necessary for bounded accuracy.

Plenty of games are designed without HP bloat.

It would be possible to have progression involve breadth of options rather than assuming that each new level adds more number bloat. That may (arguably) move away from how D&D is typically designed, but I think it is possible to achieve without going against the basic underlying concept of how D&D's vision of adventuring and leveling up works.

edit: I would further add that I'm not convinced that 5E has "bounded accuracy." ...or least not in a way that those words mean what I would normally understand them to mean. Anyway, I would posit that less HP bloat is necessary in a game where damage and bonus bloat is less commonly available.

edit 2: Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but I was thinking about bonuses and how the game works. If there were a desire to keep racial bonuses (as numbers) for a new edition but also a desire among the audience of the game to move away from racial bonuses, I think I would attempt to split the difference and reconcile the two ideas by having both (smaller) racial ability bonuses and class-based ability bonuses. (I just made this up while I was typing it, so it's a vague and half-cooked idea.)

For example, in a hypothetical future version of the game, some of the races might look something like the following:
Dwarf - stonecunning (some sort of bonus or ability to determine things about stone and construction); sturdy (advantage on saves versus being knocked prone); iron liver (bonus on saves against ingested poisons and alcohol); low-light vision; and add +1 to your choice of strength, constitution, or wisdom. Dwarves tend to be strong and hardy folk due both to their physical build and a culture which often involves manual labor such as smithing and crafting, with long lives from which to draw life experience and a gruff "common sense" approach to problems.
Wood Elf - cultural weapon familiarity (longbow); nature's step (advantage on stealth checks in woodland... etc, etc; and add +1 to your choice of dexterity, wisdom, or...
Humans - add +1 to an ability score of your choice and select a bonus feat at first level.

On top of that, you would have classes which look something like the following:
Fighter - add +1 to your choice of strength or dexterity
Paladin - add +1 to your choice of strength or charisma
Wizard - add +1 to your choice of (?) or intelligence

That would keep the idea of bonuses as they are currently presented, while also adding some degree of flexibility to mix-and-match (and still offering some semblance of the races and classes having unique personalities and traits).

 

[tetrasodium]

If there is 6th Edition, I hope it keeps the general idea of "bounded accuracy" and actually follows through with it.

As part of following through with it, I could see racial bonuses (and penalties) becoming non-numerical effects. Similarly, I would like to see magic items redesigned to create more wondrous effects rather than more numeric bonuses.

Thinking about it more, I'm not entirely opposed to +N bonuses, but I would prefer that they be approached in a very different way. A completely arbitrary and made up example from my head would be the Moon Mace, a silver-coated mace (which ignores the damage reduction of lycanthropes) and also grants effects based upon the phase of the moon: no bonus during a New Moon; +1d4 force damage during Crescent phases and Gibbous phases; +1 to attacks and +1d4 force damage during Quarter phases; +1 to attacks and +1d4 force damage and +1d4 radiant damage during a Full Moon.

That particular item is more fiddly than most people might like, but the concept is that bonuses can be more interesting than a flat +N. Instead, it might be a variable bonus during specific conditions or perhaps the item is able to function in a unique way (such as the sword which can be used to cast featherfall, that I mentioned previously). I think shifting in this direction would then allow a straight +N item (which always grants the bonus) to truly be something special.

4th Edition started out that way with both feats and items. In the early books, you might get a bonus to something under specific circumstances (i.e. +1 attack and damage while using fire spells). I thought that was cool and gave reasons for picking different items and having characters care about the actual properties of what an item did. Unfortunately, later books (in 4th) started handing out feats and items which simply just gave the bonuses all the time, without* any drawbacks or specified circumstances. I believe this was the wrong way to evolve the game because it meant sliding back into what I see as the same flawed way of handling magic items which came before, and 5th (unfortunately) seems to have stuck with that latter idea, rather than trying to use bounded accuracy (and an alleged move away from needing big numbers) as way to do something which made magic unique and meaningful.

*This is an over-simplification, but that is the pattern I remember. It's part of why some later feats and items became so common that they were viewed by many as being almost required. For me, what was so maddening about that part of the game going in that direction is that other parts of the game (such as monster design) finally became good/better in later books. So, while parts of the game were moving in a good direction to work as designed, other parts started moving away from the general ballpark of design space for which the improvements were built around.

+1d4 is still a number that number averages out to 2.5. Add 2.5 to the attacks of a fighter, a rogue, a barbarian, a wizard, a cleric, & a warlock you get very different numbers because some of those classes have multiple smaller attacks while others have fewer but larger attacks with very different amounts of hp/ac. It also gives very little room for progression after the first because you are either adding extra or larger dice & either way there is zero subjectivity so everything is either trash or objectively better.

Also yes Bounded accuracy is the reason that 5e has so many monsters that are just giant bags of hit points. With everything tuned so the average 10.5 on a d20 will hit often enough at a given level range it largely removes ac from a value you can play with much before the creature becomes impossible to hit or requires such a high attack roll that the fight is little more than russian roulette. We saw what happens in late 3.5 with slow(1/3 & 1/2) BaB classes trying to hit things a the fighter has even a chance of missing & the results are not good.

Weapons that add a die have been around since 3.5 & maybe some 2e stuff. That's ancient history in terms of d&d & more like inventing the wheel today than some new innovative thing. There's also more than one example in the 5e dmg.

 

[Argyle King]

+1d4 is still a number that number averages out to 2.5. Add 2.5 to the attacks of a fighter, a rogue, a barbarian, a wizard, a cleric, & a warlock you get very different numbers because some of those classes have multiple smaller attacks while others have fewer but larger attacks with very different amounts of hp/ac. It also gives very little room for progression after the first because you are either adding extra or larger dice & either way there is zero subjectivity so everything is either trash or objectively better.

Also yes Bounded accuracy is the reason that 5e has so many monsters that are just giant bags of hit points. With everything tuned so the average 10.5 on a d20 will hit often enough at a given level range it largely removes ac from a value you can play with much before the creature becomes impossible to hit or requires such a high attack roll that the fight is little more than russian roulette. We saw what happens in late 3.5 with slow(1/3 & 1/2) BaB classes trying to hit things a the fighter has even a chance of missing & the results are not good.

Weapons that add a die have been around since 3.5 & maybe some 2e stuff. That's ancient history in terms of d&d & more like inventing the wheel today than some new innovative thing. There's also more than one example in the 5e dmg.

I'm aware 3E had stuff like that.

Personally, I don't see +2.5 damage (under specified circumstances) as particularly unruly. Sure, for some characters, some items will still be better or worse. I would take a system in which there are reasons for and against particular items over one in which a small handful (or one category of items) is most often better than other items.

I'm also aware of the problems with 3E. At the same time, I also see games built around increasing options rather than increasing numbers. To some extent, 4th Edition tried (I think) to do this. As levels were gained, characters became more complex in what they could attempt and what they could do during an encounter. While, yes, 4th also had a numbers treadmill, I think it also made an attempt to reduce the range of results within a bubble of certain levels. Though, sadly, 4th also built monsters with HP bloat. I believe it is possible to approach that differently.

I play games in which armor becomes soak. I would be okay with that, but I think that would be moving outside of what is normally seen as being D&D. That's getting away from the topic though.

My general view is that I would prefer that the game -and magic items in particular- be built around more-interesting effects more often than being built around more math.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm aware 3E had stuff like that.

Personally, I don't see +2.5 damage (under specified circumstances) as particularly unruly. Sure, for some characters, some items will still be better or worse. I would take a system in which there are reasons for and against particular items over one in which a small handful (or one category of items) is most often better than other items.

I'm also aware of the problems with 3E. At the same time, I also see games built around increasing options rather than increasing numbers. To some extent, 4th Edition tried (I think) to do this. As levels were gained, characters became more complex in what they could attempt and what they could do during an encounter. While, yes, 4th also had a numbers treadmill, I think it also made an attempt to reduce the range of results within a bubble of certain levels. Though, sadly, 4th also built monsters with HP bloat. I believe it is possible to approach that differently.

I play games in which armor becomes soak. I would be okay with that, but I think that would be moving outside of what is normally seen as being D&D. That's getting away from the topic though.

My general view is that I would prefer that the game -and magic items in particular- be built around more-interesting effects more often than being built around more math.

Average of a d4 is 2.5. If you go to Google and search for average d# replacing the # with a number for die size you'll get the average. That's how average hit due and avg damage of classes/spells/monsters is calculated

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't believe HP bloat is necessary for bounded accuracy.

Plenty of games are designed without HP bloat.

It would be possible to have progression involve breadth of options rather than assuming that each new level adds more number bloat. That may (arguably) move away from how D&D is typically designed, but I think it is possible to achieve without going against the basic underlying concept of how D&D's vision of adventuring and leveling up works.

edit: I would further add that I'm not convinced that 5E has "bounded accuracy." ...or least not in a way that those words mean what I would normally understand them to mean. Anyway, I would posit that less HP bloat is necessary in a game where damage and bonus bloat is less commonly available.

It might be possible, but it isn't how 5E was designed and since that was the point of the discussion, I'll leave it at that (and not further derail my own thread LOL!). If you want to discuss it in depth, feel free to PM me or start a new thread.

My general view is that I would prefer that the game -and magic items in particular- be built around more-interesting effects more often than being built around more math.

I agree completely with this as far as magic items are concerned. Some items might still get mathematical bonuses, but the majority should center more on effect IMO.

 

[Argyle King]

Average of a d4 is 2.5. If you go to Google and search for average d# replacing the # with a number for die size you'll get the average. That's how average hit due and avg damage of classes/spells/monsters is calculated

I'm aware that 2.5 is the average value of a d4.

My view is that +2.5 damage sometimes (and attached to other conditions and effects) is both more interesting and less of an increase than something like a +2 sword (with no other personality) giving +2 to chances to hit and damage all of the time.