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

[dave2008]

Edit: I also thought it would be cool and was disappointed that the system is so coded against it

What do you mean the system is coded against it? If anything I feel more free in 5e to make give whatever cool magic item I want. Since the assumption is no magic items, I can just make cool things and not have to worry about the # treadmill. Heck, I would argue the game works better even with this approach.

 

[TwoSix]

Lastly, I’m much less comfortable with most 6th+ level spells being in the hands of anyone who could vaguely be described as “folks”. Not even the court magician should have them, unless they’re meant to be a legendarily powerful magician.

Yea, that's where I'm at. People who can use 6th level+ magic are movers and shakers, generally.

 

[tetrasodium]

What do you mean the system is coded against it? If anything I feel more free in 5e to make give whatever cool magic item I want. Since the assumption is no magic items, I can just make cool things and not have to worry about the # treadmill. Heck, I would argue the game works better even with this approach.

all of the monsters and such are built on the assumption of no feat & no magic items compared to prior editions like 3.5 & 4e where they were made with the assumption that you would have this much magic at given level breakpoints. there was more headroom to design cool magic items that do something mechanically. At the end of the day when a magic item doesn't do anything meaningful on a mechanical level there's no real reason for players to care. The system however is designed so any mechanical functionality is above the expectation. Both 3.5 & 4e had areas where the weapons & armor had areas where you could hang subjective dials on. In 3.5 it was things like crit range/multiplier asf/acp/etc, in 4e there were a lot of weapon properties plus some armor ones for different types of armor. Those allowed one magic item to differ from another with the given damage die/ac & even +N that was subjectively better or worse in some areas than one that was otherwise identical. 5e has no subjective dials baked into equipment other than a few Boolean tags & they designed creatures so that even damage type was pretty much irrelevant beyond "but is it magical b/p/s" with the elemental damage types almost always being a poor choice that will bite you.
4e was criticized for having the magic items a little too baked into player facing stuff wile 3.5 was criticized for not doing a very good job of telling the gm what the "you must be this magical" assumptions were & in both cases even their biggest fans would generally admit that it was less than optimal. 5e by comparison has the inverse of 4e where there are no assumptions baked into player or dm facing stuff & suddenly it's a "strength*"... Likewise with not including any assumptions for magic items or feats in character advancement to wall out the gm from adding them but again suddenly this spherical cow where just using feats already consumes more than 100% of the gm's budget for "you must be this magical".

5e takes the problems a bit further with 3 attunement slots & stacking is good. The old stacking rules & body slots not being mentioned in a variant sidebar or even a rushed UA means that the gm needs to be even more careful if they want to use magic item progression because now anything not weapons & armor can be stacked on one pc rather than just putting a bonus or function on the appropriate slot & letting the player decide which of the two to use if the gm doubles up.

As much as they worry about linear fighter quadratic wizard this all means that a +2 or so weapon will invert it. Thanks to someone's decision to make eldritch blast an improved version of the fighter's extra attack but tied to character level as a cantrip EB itself further complicates life for a gm who notices the inversion & wants to add a bit to casters.

* in the same vein as 3.5 being bad about not conveying to the gm how magical pcs are expected to be was an omission that must now be a strength using 5e logic

 

[dave2008]

all of the monsters and such are built on the assumption of no feat & no magic items compared to prior editions like 3.5 & 4e where they were made with the assumption that you would have this much magic at given level breakpoints.

Yes, I think that is a vast improvement in 5e. Magic items can actually be cool and mysterious again. Not just something to fill a required slot.

there was more headroom to design cool magic items that do something mechanically.

I disagree. For me personally it is just the opposite. Since I don't have to worry about the magic being needed or whether or not it "breaks" the game, I can just make it cool and fun. IMO, the system you want is a straightjacket to my creativity. It is fine if that is what you like, but I prefer more freedom.

Everyone likes different things, and that is OK. What is a bug to you, is a feature for me. I am sure there are things that are just the opposite.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes, I think that is a vast improvement in 5e. Magic items can actually be cool and mysterious again. Not just something to fill a required slot.

I disagree. For me personally it is just the opposite. Since I don't have to worry about the magic being needed or whether or not it "breaks" the game, I can just make it cool and fun. IMO, the system you want is a straightjacket to my creativity. It is fine if that is what you like, but I prefer more freedom.

Everyone likes different things, and that is OK. What is a bug to you, is a feature for me. I am sure there are things that are just the opposite.

That makes no sense that you could feel more free to make magic items when the system assumes there are none in your game. In that light "feature" is just a bug that's been documented. The big difference between the 3.5 & 5e omission is that one was generally regarded as a weakness due to poor explanation. The other critical difference between the two to a table... players tend to react poorly & walk away with a bitter taste when a gm tries to take away cool toys because they overpowered something. When players feel like they are struggling & take efforts to obtain things like magic items they feel great when the gm agrees their goals are reasonable enough to succeed the players walk away feeling awesome.

 

[dave2008]

That makes no sense that you could feel more free to make magic items when the system assumes there are none in your game.

It makes less sense that you would say I don't feel / think the way I feel / think. I don't know your experiences, but it can be equally true that I may find it liberating that magic items aren't assumed, while others find it a shackle. I may not understand why it feels like a shackle, but I understand it is possible. Does that make sense?

EDIT: Do you want me to try and explain it more clearly or can you just except that is how I feel?

In that light "feature" is just a bug that's been documented. The big difference between the 3.5 & 5e omission is that one was generally regarded as a weakness due to poor explanation.

I skipped 3e (went strait from 1e to 4e) so I can't really comment about the difference between 3.5e & 5e.

The other critical difference between the two to a table... players tend to react poorly & walk away with a bitter taste when a gm tries to take away cool toys because they overpowered something.

Sure, that could be true, but why would I take something away from them? IMO, D&D is not a game that can be "broken." If I drop an OP item on them, well what does that even mean? I'm the DM. I can handle anything

Also, I've played with the same group for about 30yrs. We are mature and respect each other. It hasn't happen with a magic item, but if we find are rule (RAW or house rule) that is just OP or unfair or similar, we can talk about and move forward. We are there to have fun, as a group. We all understand that.

When players feel like they are struggling & take efforts to obtain things like magic items they feel great when the gm agrees their goals are reasonable enough to succeed the players walk away feeling awesome.

Yes, that is how it worked in my 1e, 4e, & works in my 5e games.

 

[tetrasodium]

It makes less sense that you would say I don't feel / think the way I feel / think. I don't know your experiences, but it can be equally true that I may find it liberating that magic items aren't assumed, while others find it a shackle. I may not understand why it feels like a shackle, but I understand it is possible. Does that make sense?

EDIT: Do you want me to try and explain it more clearly or can you just except that is how I feel?

I skipped 3e (went strait from 1e to 4e) so I can't really comment about the difference between 3.5e & 5e.

Sure, that could be true, but why would I take something away from them? IMO, D&D is not a game that can be "broken." If I drop an OP item on them, well what does that even mean? I'm the DM. I can handle anything

Also, I've played with the same group for about 30yrs. We are mature and respect each other. It hasn't happen with a magic item, but if we find are rule (RAW or house rule) that is just OP or unfair or similar, we can talk about and move forward. We are there to have fun, as a group. We all understand that.

Yes, that is how it worked in my 1e, 4e, & works in my 5e games.

You can try to explain, but it sounds a lot like we are talking about two entirely different things. d&d is a game based on the probability of dice with different number of faces. Those dice are given modifiers based on things like attributes class abilities feats & so on. The engine & math of 5e are based on the assumption that the modifiers from feats & magic items will always be zero. The same holds rue about things like race/class design assuming that there will never be additional abilities or powers from feats or magic items.

In both 3.5 & 4e both feats and magic items were assumed part of all those calculations. Your position that the math of 5e assuming no feats & no magic items somehow making it easier to make magic items is like saying a pure electric vehicle like a tesla is easier to pump gasoline into than a hybrid electric vehicle like a nissan leaf that actually has a gas tank. There are likely a great many things that a pure electric vehicle makes easier than a hybrid but filling the tank with gasoline is not one because filling any part of it with gasoline is likely to cause damage ranging from minor decay of paint/plastic/etc to things like catastrophic fire due to a lack of any designspace for gasoline.

 

[dave2008]

You can try to explain, but it sounds a lot like we are talking about two entirely different things. d&d is a game based on the probability of dice with different number of faces. Those dice are given modifiers based on things like attributes class abilities feats & so on. The engine & math of 5e are based on the assumption that the modifiers from feats & magic items will always be zero. The same holds rue about things like race/class design assuming that there will never be additional abilities or powers from feats or magic items.

I'm getting ready to watch a movie with my partner so I don't have time to explain now, but I will try to come back to this tomorrow.

However, I will quickly say that the game (5e) works just fine if you go outside the foundations of the math. If the foundation assumes 0, that doesn't mean a 1 or 2 or 3 breaks it. Also, it is not like a 1 a 2 or 3 are the only method of making magic items interesting.

FYI, a little about our game (my group). We are feats only (no ASI) with house rules for hit points, hit dice, and rests. Other than that we are pretty RAW / RAI. Out setting is low magic and our group consists of 2 fighters, a ranger (custom - no spells), thief, & wizard. We are currently 15th lvl and we have played this campaign since the beginning of 5e.

 

[dave2008]

You can try to explain, but it sounds a lot like we are talking about two entirely different things.

OK, I will try.

d&d is a game based on the probability of dice with different number of faces. Those dice are given modifiers based on things like attributes class abilities feats & so on.

Agreed

The engine & math of 5e are based on the assumption that the modifiers from feats & magic items will always be zero. The same holds rue about things like race/class design assuming that there will never be additional abilities or powers from feats or magic items.

I agree with the idea the math of 5e is based on no magic items, but I don't know that I agree with it about feats. But that is not really relevant to a discussion about magic items. However I would say the engine is the DM (and this is actually important). Regardless, just because the foundational assumption assumes no magic items, doesn't it mean it breaks with magic items. In fact, as I have stated previously, it makes magic items more exciting.

There are 2 things at work here.
1) In 4e (and from what your saying 3e) you needed magic items to keep up. Thus they become a required item the feel inherently less special. If it something you need, it isn't really an extra benefit. It isn't a wonderous magical item, it is a +2 to me Reflex or whatever that I need to fight level 20 monsters. In 5e, a magic item has serious mechanical benefits that make it feel special
2) With the limits of requirements the # bonus removed in 5e we are free to make magic items that just do cool things and they are still great to have. I don't it to be a +1 or +3 item mechanically do it can do other fun things and I don't feel cheated.

In both 3.5 & 4e both feats and magic items were assumed part of all those calculations.

Yes, horrible idea. See #1 above.

Your position that the math of 5e assuming no feats & no magic items somehow making it easier to make magic items is like saying a pure electric vehicle like a tesla is easier to pump gasoline into than a hybrid electric vehicle like a nissan leaf that actually has a gas tank. There are likely a great many things that a pure electric vehicle makes easier than a hybrid but filling the tank with gasoline is not one because filling any part of it with gasoline is likely to cause damage ranging from minor decay of paint/plastic/etc to things like catastrophic fire due to a lack of any designspace for gasoline.

That is a horrible analogy. Putting gasoline in a tesla does nothing for the car. Every magic item I give or make for 5e makes the game that much more exciting. It is akin to adding additional electrical motors to the tesla, not pouring gasoline in it (my analogy is bad too, but more accurate than yours for sure). Every time you add a magic item in 5e it is something amazing precisely because it is outside the bounds of the base math. And because I am not restricted by a math requirement I can provide or design whatever magic item I want. I am limited only by my imagination, not the system math.

Did that explain my viewpoint? I want to be clear that I don't think your opinion is wrong, but it is wrong for me (and my group). I found it very difficult to design magic items in 4e because I felt like there was such a tight narrow window they could be designed in. In 5e, anything goes and love it.

 

[tetrasodium]

OK, I will try.

Agreed

I agree with the idea the math of 5e is based on no magic items, but I don't know that I agree with it about feats. But that is not really relevant to a discussion about magic items. However I would say the engine is the DM (and this is actually important). Regardless, just because the foundational assumption assumes no magic items, doesn't it mean it breaks with magic items. In fact, as I have stated previously, it makes magic items more exciting.

There are 2 things at work here.
1) In 4e (and from what your saying 3e) you needed magic items to keep up. Thus they become a required item the feel inherently less special. If it something you need, it isn't really an extra benefit. It isn't a wonderous magical item, it is a +2 to me Reflex or whatever that I need to fight level 20 monsters. In 5e, a magic item has serious mechanical benefits that make it feel special
2) With the limits of requirements the # bonus removed in 5e we are free to make magic items that just do cool things and they are still great to have. I don't it to be a +1 or +3 item mechanically do it can do other fun things and I don't feel cheated.

Yes, horrible idea. See #1 above.

That is a horrible analogy. Putting gasoline in a tesla does nothing for the car. Every magic item I give or make for 5e makes the game that much more exciting. It is akin to adding additional electrical motors to the tesla, not pouring gasoline in it (my analogy is bad too, but more accurate than yours for sure). Every time you add a magic item in 5e it is something amazing precisely because it is outside the bounds of the base math. And because I am not restricted by a math requirement I can provide or design whatever magic item I want. I am limited only by my imagination, not the system math.

Did that explain my viewpoint? I want to be clear that I don't think your opinion is wrong, but it is wrong for me (and my group). I found it very difficult to design magic items in 4e because I felt like there was such a tight narrow window they could be designed in. In 5e, anything goes and love it.

That's a mighty big goalpost shift from answering the question of how a system designed with the assumption of zero magic items makes you "more free" to give magic items. Over the course of doing that you questioned the objective fact of feats being optional per phb even though it's a detail wotc likes to brag about in twitch streams & youtube. You admitted in this post that you further expand the designspace to +1 +2 or even +3 available for magic items to fill by not allowing players to improve their attributes when an ASI is available. To top it all off you reacted to "I think we are talking about two entirely different things" by detailing the way it makes you feel more free to add magic items to 5e due to the assumption of +0.. now as much as +3 due to your houserules putting players far behind the curve) you explained that it's because magic items feel really magical.

You can't simply "add" additional electric motors to an electric car because the transmission & drivetrain aren't designed to accommodate them as a drop in thing without replacing & modifying parts of that tesla. Your houserules are the equivalent of clanging those parts. Using the tesla analogy people were talking about how slow recharge time was a negative for a pure EV tesla over a hybrid EV like a leaf & you jumped in claiming it's a strength, asserted you weren't talking about a different topic, & explained how you let it charge while your at work so you don't need to stop for gas. It's fine that you like magic items feeling more magical & that could even be considered a strength of 5e's decision to bake +0 from magic items into the math assumptions, but it's an entirely different point.

The magic items you wanted were always & still there. They are called artifacts & you were always free to do things like give out a +5 holy avenger instead of +N attrib gear & a smaller bonus weapon. The point of body slots in 3.5 was not to fill them all, which would be an an exceedingly difficult goal & rather strange to attempt for the similar reasons to you don't see many warlocks or wizards fighting over gauntlets of ogre when a fighter/barbarian/etc goes "ooooooo" at the find. Body slots were a safety net for the GM that helped ensure magic item churn rather than "does an enhancement bonus shirt of+2 strength stack with gauntlets of ogre power +2"... Those two would not stack as they are both the same bonus type.