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

[dave2008]

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.

I simply tried to explain why I find 5e easier to design magic items for than 4e (and by extension 3e). I certainly didn't try to shift the goal posts. That was the goal I was going for the whole time (explaining why I prefer 0 magic item assumption), where you trying to shoot for something else.

It is also possible I've just done a piss-poor job of explaining.

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.

I did not question if feats where optional. I was questioning whether or not their inclusion actually made 0 difference from math standpoint. I personally don't know, but I have seen some say feats (or some feats) give you a numbers advantage. But I also said that was relevant to a discussion about magic items so I am not sure why your bringing it up.

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.

Another misunderstanding. I just meant they cannot select a +2 ASI. The can improve their attributes with feats that provide a +1 benefit and since we allow all UA feats, we have quite a few that do that. Regardless that is independent of having the space to design magic items, IMO.

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.

As I pointed out, our characters are not necessarily behind the + curve. Some, if not all, have maxed primary stats. But to be honest, I don't think that really maters. You don't have to mechanical superiority for 5e to work wonderfully.

Also, because I don't have to assume magic weapons, when I make, or give, a magic weapon - it doesn't need to have a +1, 2, or 3 at all. I think I mentioned our group currently maxes out at +1 items (may have been in a different thread), so it is not like I am filling the supposed "behind the curve" gap with magic items. What I do with magic items is give them interesting properties, not ever escalating numbers. That is possible because the math of 5e doesn't assume I have to have a +3 weapon at lvl 15 (our current level).

Do I think we play 5e differently. Yes. So in that respect I guess you could say we are playing differently, I just wouldn't go so far as to say: "two entirely different things," but that is just semantics really.

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 tesla analogy is horrible, I am not even going to try to engage with it further and I shouldn't have the first time. My apologies for continue down that line of explanation.

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.

Sure, but their is a psychology of needing to fill a requirement in 3/4e that 5e free me personally from. And as I mentioned above, because I don't have to give a +3 weapon at level 15 in 5e, I can instead design a sword that is only +1, or no bonus to hit, and give it other interesting properties.

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.

Again, I didn't play 3.5e, but it was somewhat similar in 4e. IIRC. I've never given out enough magic items for it to be an issue though. Same with attunement in 5e.

One of the best things about 5e, IMO, is that since there is 0 assumption of magic items. Then I don't need to hand them out, but when I do it is special. That really isn't possible in a system like 3/4e where you have to have magic items to keep with the monsters.

Listen, I've acknowledge that your viewpoint is correct from your perspective, I wish you could step back and acknowledge my viewpoint too. But maybe that is to much to ask of an internet web forum. There isn't one correct answer.

For an example: Here is a sword one of our lvl 15 fighters has;

Whispering Sword
Weapon (longsword), requires attunement
The whispering sword communicates with you telepathically, telling you when enemies are near, when to strike, and when to defend.
You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls made with this sword, Additionally, when you hit a target with this sword you deal an extra die of damage of the weapon's type. While wielding this sword you cannot be surprised. While wielding this sword you can use a reaction to add your proficiency modifier to your AC against one attack that would hit you.

This was made early on. Now I would probably have remove the +1 benefit. It simply isn't needed, IMO.

 

[cbwjm]

For an example: Here is a sword one of our lvl 15 fighters has;

Whispering Sword
Weapon (longsword), requires attunement
The whispering sword communicates with you telepathically, telling you when enemies are near, when to strike, and when to defend.
You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls made with this sword, Additionally, when you hit a target with this sword you deal an extra die of damage of the weapon's type. While wielding this sword you cannot be surprised. While wielding this sword you can use a reaction to add your proficiency modifier to your AC against one attack that would hit you.

This was made early on. Now I would probably have remove the +1 benefit. It simply isn't needed, IMO.

+1 or not, that's a pretty cool sword.

 

[tetrasodium]

I simply tried to explain why I find 5e easier to design magic items for than 4e (and by extension 3e). I certainly didn't try to shift the goal posts. That was the goal I was going for the whole time (explaining why I prefer 0 magic item assumption), where you trying to shoot for something else.

It is also possible I've just done a piss-poor job of explaining.

I did not question if feats where optional. I was questioning whether or not their inclusion actually made 0 difference from math standpoint. I personally don't know, but I have seen some say feats (or some feats) give you a numbers advantage. But I also said that was relevant to a discussion about magic items so I am not sure why your bringing it up.

Another misunderstanding. I just meant they cannot select a +2 ASI. The can improve their attributes with feats that provide a +1 benefit and since we allow all UA feats, we have quite a few that do that. Regardless that is independent of having the space to design magic items, IMO.

As I pointed out, our characters are not necessarily behind the + curve. Some, if not all, have maxed primary stats. But to be honest, I don't think that really maters. You don't have to mechanical superiority for 5e to work wonderfully.

Also, because I don't have to assume magic weapons, when I make, or give, a magic weapon - it doesn't need to have a +1, 2, or 3 at all. I think I mentioned our group currently maxes out at +1 items (may have been in a different thread), so it is not like I am filling the supposed "behind the curve" gap with magic items. What I do with magic items is give them interesting properties, not ever escalating numbers. That is possible because the math of 5e doesn't assume I have to have a +3 weapon at lvl 15 (our current level).

Do I think we play 5e differently. Yes. So in that respect I guess you could say we are playing differently, I just wouldn't go so far as to say: "two entirely different things," but that is just semantics really.

The tesla analogy is horrible, I am not even going to try to engage with it further and I shouldn't have the first time. My apologies for continue down that line of explanation.

Sure, but their is a psychology of needing to fill a requirement in 3/4e that 5e free me personally from. And as I mentioned above, because I don't have to give a +3 weapon at level 15 in 5e, I can instead design a sword that is only +1, or no bonus to hit, and give it other interesting properties.

Again, I didn't play 3.5e, but it was somewhat similar in 4e. IIRC. I've never given out enough magic items for it to be an issue though. Same with attunement in 5e.

One of the best things about 5e, IMO, is that since there is 0 assumption of magic items. Then I don't need to hand them out, but when I do it is special. That really isn't possible in a system like 3/4e where you have to have magic items to keep with the monsters.

Listen, I've acknowledge that your viewpoint is correct from your perspective, I wish you could step back and acknowledge my viewpoint too. But maybe that is to much to ask of an internet web forum. There isn't one correct answer.

For an example: Here is a sword one of our lvl 15 fighters has;

Whispering Sword
Weapon (longsword), requires attunement
The whispering sword communicates with you telepathically, telling you when enemies are near, when to strike, and when to defend.
You gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls made with this sword, Additionally, when you hit a target with this sword you deal an extra die of damage of the weapon's type. While wielding this sword you cannot be surprised. While wielding this sword you can use a reaction to add your proficiency modifier to your AC against one attack that would hit you.

This was made early on. Now I would probably have remove the +1 benefit. It simply isn't needed, IMO.

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.

 

[pogre]

My answer would have been different for D&D a few years ago - now, that we have played a few campaigns into high levels there is a lot higher level of magic in my D&D campaign. I love the game for the zero to hero feel of D&D and magic plays some role in that.

I also run a WFRP game, which is very gritty with very little magic.

 

[dave2008]

+1 or not, that's a pretty cool sword.

Thanks!

 

[dave2008]

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.

Not in any real way though. I mean we've played PCs with OP stats and that doesn't change anything with how you do or don't need magic weapons. I mean, how does have a +5 in strength make having a +3 sword more magical than having a +3 Strength. Answer: it doesn't. From my perspective, you obsession with +1, +2 or +3 completely misses the point. You are talking about a difference of +2 max., that just isn't game changing.

Also, you seem to be completely missing that I don't give out +something items! So we are in theory creating all this headroom to add +3 weapons, and then not using it, and yet the game works great for us. The game doesn't need it. 5e doesn't require high stats or magic items to be a fun game. It can accommodate those things, but it doesn't need them.

Really, all of that has nothing to do with my belief (for me and my group), that the game is better served by not assuming magic items in the math.

Also, I want to be clear: I am not limiting them to half feats. That was a choice my players and I made as a group. We just think doing cool things (feats) is more fun than a +2 to an ability score.

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.

Like I said I have no experience with 3e, and I barely remember 1e at this point.

You can prefer attunement slots, but that also is yet another shifted goalpost

No your just making stuff up. I never said I prefer attunement. This is what I said (unless I made a comment I don't remember):

"Again, I didn't play 3.5e, but it was somewhat similar in 4e. IIRC. I've never given out enough magic items for it to be an issue though. Same with attunement in 5e."

I said in 4e and 5e that slots or attunement have never been an issue for us. Is your bias showing that you took that to mean I preferred attunement? I don't care about attunement or slots personally.

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.

I agree that it is not related. I am pretty sure you brought up slots and attunement, not me.

I also agree that 5e assuming +0 from magic items has given you no room to build. However, it has given me all the freedom to build and create. I'll try explain one last time in the most reductive and simple way I can:

Example #1: a 3/4e 20th lvl fighter must have a +5 weapon to be competitive with level equivalent monsters. As a designer, I can't reasonably be expected to give that fighter a +1 or +0 sword. It just doesn't work with the game.

Example #2: a 5e 20th lvl fighter doesn't require a + magic weapon at all. I am free to give them any weapon from +0 to +3 and whatever else I want and the game works.

I prefer Example #2, and that is OK. There are more benefits and some consequences for that design choice, but I am trying to be as simple as possible at this point. I personally prefer those benefits and find it easier to deal with the consequences than Example #1,

 

[tetrasodium]

Not in any real way though. I mean we've played PCs with OP stats and that doesn't change anything with how you do or don't need magic weapons. I mean, how does have a +5 in strength make having a +3 sword more magical than having a +3 Strength. Answer: it doesn't. From my perspective, you obsession with +1, +2 or +3 completely misses the point. You are talking about a difference of +2 max., that just isn't game changing.

Also, you seem to be completely missing that I don't give out +something items! So we are in theory creating all this headroom to add +3 weapons, and then not using it, and yet the game works great for us. The game doesn't need it. 5e doesn't require high stats or magic items to be a fun game. It can accommodate those things, but it doesn't need them.

Really, all of that has nothing to do with my belief (for me and my group), that the game is better served by not assuming magic items in the math.

Also, I want to be clear: I am not limiting them to half feats. That was a choice my players and I made as a group. We just think doing cool things (feats) is more fun than a +2 to an ability score.

Like I said I have no experience with 3e, and I barely remember 1e at this point.

No your just making stuff up. I never said I prefer attunement. This is what I said (unless I made a comment I don't remember):

"Again, I didn't play 3.5e, but it was somewhat similar in 4e. IIRC. I've never given out enough magic items for it to be an issue though. Same with attunement in 5e."

I said in 4e and 5e that slots or attunement have never been an issue for us. Is your bias showing that you took that to mean I preferred attunement? I don't care about attunement or slots personally.

I agree that it is not related. I am pretty sure you brought up slots and attunement, not me.

I also agree that 5e assuming +0 from magic items has given you no room to build. However, it has given me all the freedom to build and create. I'll try explain one last time in the most reductive and simple way I can:

Example #1: a 3/4e 20th lvl fighter must have a +5 weapon to be competitive with level equivalent monsters. As a designer, I can't reasonably be expected to give that fighter a +1 or +0 sword. It just doesn't work with the game.

Example #2: a 5e 20th lvl fighter doesn't require a + magic weapon at all. I am free to give them any weapon from +0 to +3 and whatever else I want and the game works.

I prefer Example #2, and that is OK. There are more benefits and some consequences for that design choice, but I am trying to be as simple as possible at this point. I personally prefer those benefits and find it easier to deal with the consequences than Example #1,

Plus anything item is beyond the math calculations of the system before any changes are made. Feats that improve an attribute by +1 such as the UA ones you pointed at are generally accepted as half feats . It's ok if you don't know what is generally accepted to be the definition of a half feat, but that doesn't change what happens to the math when you limit players to where "they cannot select a +2 ASI. The can improve their attributes with feats that provide a +1 benefit and since we allow all UA feats, we have quite a few that do that.". Given that you also said that your game is at level 15 so players have had at least 3 of your houseruled ASI's you've created a situation where the need for magic items is even greater due to the impact of your houserules on the system's math. of course any magic item will feel magical at that point. Math is not something that is subjective based on opinion. Two of something is greater than 1 of that same thing & that will always be the case with no room for opinion in that simple math, it seems like you are seriously suggesting otherwise or one of your posts is simply in direct contradiction with the other.

 

[Argyle King]

I liked the way that 4th Edition handled artifacts and sentient items.

The idea that a "happier" (or more upset) item grants better abilities (or actively works against the user) is something I thought was interesting.

I believe there is a design space within 5th edition for doing that with attuned items. In my imagination, attuning is a process which creates more of a link between user and item than simply just picking something up.

 

[tetrasodium]

I liked the way that 4th Edition handled artifacts and sentient items.

The idea that a "happier" (or more upset) item grants better abilities (or actively works against the user) is something I thought was interesting.

I believe there is a design space within 5th edition for doing that with attuned items. In my imagination, attuning is a process which creates more of a link between user and item than simply just picking something up.

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.

 

[dave2008]

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

Beyond the base math assumptions, but not beyond the ability of the system to handle. 5e is able to handle a party with +0 to +3 weapons and +3 to +5 attributes, at a minimum. It is able to handle feats and no feats. We didn't have any magic items until level 5 and my players have had a great time, and in another game I decked them out like Christmas trees and they had a blast with that too,

Feats that improve an attribute by +1 such as the UA ones you pointed at are generally accepted as half feats . It's ok if you don't know what is generally accepted to be the definition of a half feat, but that doesn't change what happens to the math when you limit players to where "they cannot select a +2 ASI. The can improve their attributes with feats that provide a +1 benefit and since we allow all UA feats, we have quite a few that do that.".

Ugh, I know what half-feats are. I've been a part of this forum since 2009. Your really just being rude at this point.

Given that you also said that your game is at level 15 so players have had at least 3 of your houseruled ASI's

They are not houseruled. half-feats are RAW. There are some UA options that area not, but the idea of half-feats are RAW. Not that it matters to me, but the concept of half-feats is clearly within the parameters of the game.

you've created a situation where the need for magic items is even greater due to the impact of your houserules on the system's math. of course any magic item will feel magical at that point. Math is not something that is subjective based on opinion. Two of something is greater than 1 of that same thing & that will always be the case with no room for opinion in that simple math, it seems like you are seriously suggesting otherwise or one of your posts is simply in direct contradiction with the other.

You continue to miss the point and/or ignore my comments with regard to magic item design in 5e and continue to fixate or your obsession with minor differences in math that have very little effect on the feel of the game for me and my players.

The goal of this conversation for me was to explain why assuming 0 magic items in the base math of 5e made it easier for me to design magic items and in fact helped make them more interesting. I've explained it, you continue to ignore my explanations so I am guessing you concede that I've met my goals. Glad to know you agree with me on the relevant points, even if they don't jive with your point of view.