D&D 5E I demand randomization in 5e.

[howandwhy99]

I demand D&D includes Dice!

(I suspect we shall be satisfied)

I actually like random dungeon, monster, and treasure distribution too, but the purposes of the rolls needs to be nailed down prior to play. Die rolls with meaningless distribution relationships wind up as meaningless rolls.

Also, most of the methods used in every iteration and edition of D&D thus far to determine these rolls should all really land in the dustbin. Monster distribution by climate and ecology is a positive, but treasure distributions have almost universally been bad. Ditto for those generating dungeon distributions.

 

[P1NBACK]

Just open the Adventurers' Vault to the table of contents and roll percentile dice.

And make sure you have Ye Olde Magick Shoppe for me to sell and trade all the junk that is rolled.

In my game, every magical item would be precious and savored.

This idea of "junk" magic items is precisely because of the magic item tree effect and players getting to pick what items they get because it's more optimized.

A good campaign has players grasping to hold onto any damn magical item they can get their hands on and figure out how to use to their advantage.

 

[Tallifer]

In my game, every magical item would be precious and savored.

This idea of "junk" magic items is precisely because of the magic item tree effect and players getting to pick what items they get because it's more optimized.

A good campaign has players grasping to hold onto any damn magical item they can get their hands on and figure out how to use to their advantage.

I think that a "good campaign" can be had under a great variety of circumstances. Stinginess can be fun (certainly I enjoyed a particularly grim Call of Cthulhu campaign years ago) and so can generosity.

 

[Fifth Element]

In my game, every magical item would be precious and savored.

This idea of "junk" magic items is precisely because of the magic item tree effect and players getting to pick what items they get because it's more optimized.

A good campaign has players grasping to hold onto any damn magical item they can get their hands on and figure out how to use to their advantage.

No, "junk" items result from randomness. A randomly-determined item that is of no use to anyone in the party is a junk item.

Good campaigns depend on a lot more than how prevalent magic items are.

 

[P1NBACK]

No, "junk" items result from randomness. A randomly-determined item that is of no use to anyone in the party is a junk item.

Good campaigns depend on a lot more than how prevalent magic items are.

I wonder what sort of weird game you are playing where there are magical items of no use. It's magical for a reason, right? Even the aforementioned Ring of Spicy Stew would be put to use by my players.

The only magic I can see being "junk" are items that are generic and have an overflow of... Two issues that are solved by A) making magical items unique B) making magical items rare and C) making magical items magical.

If you're doing the opposite, giving out tons of magical items that don't have unique abilities and making them as mundane as class abilities, then you're probably going to have the junk problem.

 

[drothgery]

I wonder what sort of weird game you are playing where there are magical items of no use. It's magical for a reason, right?

How about a magical item that is less useful than a mundane item performing a similar function? i.e. if no one but the fighter is proficient with poplearms, and he's a tricked-out sword fighter, then the only possible use for a magic polearm is its value in trade; he'd rather fight with an ordinary sword than a magic glaive (barring 1e/2e-style monsters that can't be hit with mundane weapons).

 

[P1NBACK]

How about a magical item that is less useful than a mundane item performing a similar function? i.e. if no one but the fighter is proficient with poplearms, and he's a tricked-out sword fighter, then the only possible use for a magic polearm is its value in trade; he'd rather fight with an ordinary sword than a magic glaive (barring 1e/2e-style monsters that can't be hit with mundane weapons).

Yeah, I guess that falls under the magic tree effect where you need to fill slot X, Y and Z with optimized items that fit your feats or whatever.

Ideally, I think D&D should be a game about discovery through gameplay, not character-building. If you're more into optimized character-building, then you're probably going to balk at random elements like that.

If the rules are such (like 3E+) that a magical polearm is useless because of your feats and because the rules don't account for magic being magical (like, overcoming magical creature defenses), then that's certainly an issue and something I hope they don't fall into with 5E.

As a designer, I would hope they consider these sort of emergent features of rules like feats and .

And, still, has this Fighter no henchmen or mercenary followers who could use a magical polearm?

 

[I'm A Banana]

A randomly-determined item that is of no use to anyone in the party is a junk item

IMXP, this mostly happens when character abilities (or items abilities) are very narrow.

"I am optimized to fight 5-foot tall elves mounted on hippogriffs during the crepuscular hours of every third tuesday in the Summer, so I cannot use this item that gives me a bonus to bohemian ear-spoon attacks vs. musky giants!"

Or, for a less absurd example: "I am a striker! What use do I have for something that heals people? That's not my job! It's a waste of an action for me!"

Or, "Oh. Great. A decanter of endless water. That'll come in so handy on this dungeon crawl where we don't track rations and fight goblins all day long."

Or, "Wow, if I wasn't an axe fighter, this magic sword would be useful!"

The solution is broader characters, broader items, and a broader game milieu. If, for instance, the game assumes a significant Exploration component, then a decanter of endless water becomes useful. If the game doesn't dictate roles, then healing is potentially useful for everyone. And if the game doesn't allow you to over-specialize in one narrow field of ability, you can make use of things that are outside of that field.

You want some specialization, of course. "Dude who is really good with one iconic weapon" is a D&D/heroic fantasy staple. What you don't want is specialization to eclipse magic. Okay, I'm at +1 to hit with my swords because I'm a sword guy, and this magic axe gives me +1 to hit with it (making it the equal of my sword) and ALSO +1d6 damage...axe clearly is not useless to me. And given that we'll only find, say, 10 magic items in the whole campaign, maybe I should become a sword guy who ALSO has a magic axe up his sleeve. Or maybe I should become an axe guy since I don't exist in a vacuum and this magic axe is sweet.

It's a fine hair to split, but it's likely possible. Part of the reason that happens in 3e and especially in 4e is because the game allows such dedicated specialization that things that would be useful in a broader game more easily fall into "not my bag" territory.

Ensuring that items are optional is actually a boon for this, too. There's no need of or promise for an upgrade for your rusty iron sword that you love so hard. You don't strictly need it. You won't get a replacement. You don't want to make use of the item you got? Mokay, but that's your choice. It's not the DM's problem that you don't like your shiny loot.

 

[P1NBACK]

Or, "Oh. Great. A decanter of endless water. That'll come in so handy on this dungeon crawl where we don't track rations and fight goblins all day long."
.

Do we need a thread called "101 uses for a decanter of endless water that doesn't involve drinking the water"? Seriously. Those types of items are some of the most useful to imaginative / creative players.

The types like this: "Once per day you get a +2 to attack a creature you are flanking and is prone..." are the sort of stuff I've seen in 4E. Maybe that's why they seem "junk".

 

[Someone]

I want tables with random stuff in my books. Also font size 15, triple space, huge margins, and lots of sidebars with redundant information.