D&D 5E I have the DMG!

[Saeviomagy]

Yeah, but it means that you can't give one character a +3 shield and a different one +3 armor and a ring of protection to a third.
Much better to simply say "magic bonuses to armor/damage do not stack" and be done with it.

 

[Ravenheart87]

In this instance the correct response actually would be to run. A lot of DMs (myself included) will include challenges that fall into the *run away* category and leave it up to the players to decide what to do. Personally, I do it in order to create a world that is unpredictable for the players that could turn deadly for them if they make the wrong decision. Not every challenge should be within their means, at least not immediately.

Oh yes... One thing I never used are level appropriate random encounter charts in Wilderness. In my Swords & Wizardry campaign I've seen the party hide in the bushes just to watch how an adult red dragon loots their abandoned camp. The cleric even vowed revenge, so the dragon could've become a nemesis for the party, if they returned to the area, but they continued their journey in different lands.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yeah, but it means that you can't give one character a +3 shield and a different one +3 armor and a ring of protection to a third.
Much better to simply say "magic bonuses to armor/damage do not stack" and be done with it.

I've been contemplating doing exactly that. You can wear magic armor and carry a magic shield, and you can use whatever nifty powers each offers, and you get the normal AC bonus of both, but you only get the higher of the two magic bonuses.

Or, middle-ground... Maybe they synergize in such a way that you get the higher of the two magic bonuses +1.

Dunno. It won't be an issue in my campaign for a long while, in any case.

 

[TarionzCousin]

What if magic armor bonuses stacked but came with [-]horrific[/-] wonderful side effects, such as slowed movement, reduced hit points, or an irreversible gender change?

 

[sirgaric]

I don't understand this concern about the magic armor + magic shield breaking the game apart. It is not like you could buy a set of Legendary Armor + Shield to any random pedler you find in the road.

Just my humble 2 cents.

Cheers,

Jorge

 

[Psikerlord#]

Magic armour and magic shield isnt a problem, it just preserves the AC difference between a sword & board and a GWF, which is otherwise diminished by a ring of protection to a 1 point difference, which frankly, isn't worth the trade off in lost damage. So I'm all for magic shields adding to AC.

As for breaking bounded accuracy, I dont think that's true at all, given DMG has advantage for flanking. Even high AC guys will get hit enough once monsters outnumber the PCs and gain regular adv on their attack rolls via flanking.

 

[EcnoTheNeato]

In this instance the correct response actually would be to run. A lot of DMs (myself included) will include challenges that fall into the *run away* category and leave it up to the players to decide what to do. Personally, I do it in order to create a world that is unpredictable for the players that could turn deadly for them if they make the wrong decision. Not every challenge should be within their means, at least not immediately.

Now, I'm not saying that this was that particular DMs purpose, but the situation made me think.

Good point.

Oddly, Snapdragyn, 3.x HAD treasure/wealth by level charts, even a "starting above level 1" wealth chart. The fact that, despite these, your DM still made these decisions in game, would suggest that he would STILL do it in 5th ed, with or without guidelines. So...that point is useless? And the anecdote does nothing but hurt your argument I guess

Admittedly, it would be handy to have just to simply have as a guideline for new DMs. But nothing that I figure to be necessary!

 

[The Hitcher]

D&D is not a finely balanced elven blade, it's a wildly swinging Flail of Unpredictability. Any party can be wiped at any point if their d20s decide it is time. Having some kind of precision treasure chart may reduce the probability slightly, but not dramatically. The best ways to reduce it are creative play and having a DM who isn't a dick.

Personally, I think random player death is uninteresting, and so it's not a part of my games. Players get themselves killed by the RAW? In my game, something else bad (but more interesting) happens instead. Unless it's the last session of the campaign of course - then all bets are off! (Last session of Phandelver coming up next week - should be good times.)

 

[Celtavian]

I feel like +3 armor should be the best magic item a character might have. Just because something is possible, does not mean it is probably. In 5E +3 armor seems like it would be an extremely rare item that maybe one or two party members might have in their entire 20 levels. The magic item Christmas tree is gone. If a DM is handing out +3 shield, armor, weapon, and ring of protection, he deserves what he gets. The game is not meant for a PC to have that many high end items. If he had all that, he would be some kind of uber character with enormous magical resources that few would ever see in their lifetime.

I like the low magic nature of 5E. My buddy was excited to get a +1 sword by level 6. I was excited when my rogue won the Staff of Defense. My other buddy was overjoyed to win the +1 ring of protection. I like making magic items highly unique. Makes for a better role-playing experience. If a DM was handing out +3 items like candy, that would be a return to old Christmas tree version of the game. Magic would be devalued and players would feel entitled to it. Not sure why a DM would want that.

 

[MagicSN]

A 1st level spell costs 2 points, 3 at 3rd, and then 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 at 9th level.

Sure about this? If 1st is 2 and 3rd is 3, what about 2nd, then? Same like 1st?

Also, did they include any rule to ensure there is no broken-ness with the Shield-Spell? (A wizard able to cast Shield 20-30x a day might make the "best tank" Asides from the Eldritch knight who could cast it 10x but still wears Plate and reaches gigantic AC then 10 rounds per day). In our group we already nerfed Shield to only affect one attack, and even then our main GM is worried that he can only offer the Spellpoint optional rule if he nerfs Shield even further.

Are there higher health potions than the ones from Rise of Tiamat BTW?

Thanks in advance.

MagicSN