D&D 5E (2024) Indirectly Buffing Rogues, Rangers, Monks Via Magic Items?

[Zardnaar]

I also disagree that certain classes in 5.5e are weak enough to justify needing specific boosts from items. In my experience, player skill has a far more significant impact on effectiveness. And of course, combat effectiveness isn't the only factor for determining character effectiveness (if your campaign is 90% combat, you might disagree). As long as everyone's having fun at the table and isn't feeling shorted on their character's access to the available rewards, then we're good.

I have generally built my homebrew adventures prior to knowing the characters that will be running through them, though occasionally I provide a mechanism for the players to select something suited to their characters (e.g., if you do a mission for the elvish nation, here's a list of ten powerful magic items you can select your reward from). For my first campaign written for the 2024 rules, I've tried to honor the design philosophy cited earlier in the thread by inserting a system of spell rituals that can be used to empower mundane items at certain specific locations in the campaign world (e.g., you can do a ritual at this magic pool and expend x amount of gold to take a normal item to +1, be it a suit of armor, weapon, cloak, etc.). Between that and the very generous 2024 item crafting rules, I think my players will be fine.

Ga.e hits level 11. Someone has a sword and board ranger.

Everyone else is using a +1d4 or d6 weapon and they find a vicious trident (+2d6 damage).

Fighters just got a third attack, Paladins get radiant strikes.

 

[ECMO3]

Hang on. - You have repeatedly said that bias and favouritism are beneficial and correct, even though WotC don't explicitly state that casters are designed to be superior and more interesting to play in general compared to martial classes.

You are confusing rules imbalance with DM bias. They are two very different things.

Any game with rules will have variances based on the application of those rules. You talk about spells vs martial imbalance, but what about martial vs martial. What if my Barbarian uses a Blowgun? A Blowfgun is a weapon and rules exist for it and my Barbarian using a Blowgun is going to be very weak and it is going to be far more imbalanced with virtually any other PCs I've seen.

What should not be done is the DM tilting the game in favor of one PC.

You encourage favouring certain PCs. That you have an excuse ("magic should be more powerful than skill") does not really make it OK.
Players expect the rules to provide balance.

My preference for how the rules should work or how they would work in an ideal game is fundamentally different than how I execute a game in play with the rules that exist.

In play, I play Rules as written and I talk about all the things I will change or deviate from in session 0. Some of them are things I prefer which IME make for a better game (using the old 2014 Indomitable), some of them are things that make the game easier (give every PC the Two Weapon Fighting Feat at level 1), some of them are things that I don't care for but are popular among my players (can use an attack to try and break a grapple, you can have up to 2 inspirations).

But in every case, I tell my players how the game will be different than the rules and then I stick to that. I don't start changing the rules to make certain characters weaker or stronger or changing things on the fly becuase I did not like how they turned out.

If you tell your players in session 0 that you won't be fair and unbiased, that you are going to give the benefit of the doubt and the boosts to whichever one is the weakest in play then it is fine. Doing that without telling them is not fine IMO.

After all, if players weren't happy with their characters getting worse and/or fewer magic items, they could just play a class that does get more favourable treatment.

It is a different thing, but even if I pull this thread - you can't do this if the DM is biased and that bias is based on performance in game. If I switch to a weak class and still dominate play (which will happen most of the time) then I still will get the short end of the stick so to speak.

FWIW I usually do play weaker classes and I usually have the strongest character at the table, unless I am playing with optimizers.

I've played more Rangers in 5.5 than any class except Warlock, and I have never played one that was one of the weaker characters at the table in play.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If the mechanics have no impact on play, why have them?? Might as well go play Shadowdark then.

 

[Zardnaar]

You are confusing rules imbalance with DM bias. They are two very different things.

Any game with rules will have variances based on the application of those rules. You talk about spells vs martial imbalance, but what about martial vs martial. What if my Barbarian uses a Blowgun? A Blowfgun is a weapon and rules exist for it and my Barbarian using a Blowgun is going to be very weak and it is going to be far more imbalanced with virtually any other PCs I've seen.

What should not be done is the DM tilting the game in favor of one PC.



My preference for how the rules should work or how they would work in an ideal game is fundamentally different than how I execute a game in play with the rules that exist.

In play, I play Rules as written and I talk about all the things I will change or deviate from in session 0. Some of them are things I prefer which IME make for a better game (using the old 2014 Indomitable), some of them are things that make the game easier (give every PC the Two Weapon Fighting Feat at level 1), some of them are things that I don't care for but are popular among my players (can use an attack to try and break a grapple, you can have up to 2 inspirations).

But in every case, I tell my players how the game will be different than the rules and then I stick to that. I don't start changing the rules to make certain characters weaker or stronger or changing things on the fly becuase I did not like how they turned out.

If you tell your players in session 0 that you won't be fair and unbiased, that you are going to give the benefit of the doubt and the boosts to whichever one is the weakest in play then it is fine. Doing that without telling them is not fine IMO.



It is a different thing, but even if I pull this thread - you can't do this if the DM is biased and that bias is based on performance in game. If I switch to a weak class and still dominate play (which will happen most of the time) then I still will get the short end of the stick so to speak.

FWIW I usually do play weaker classes and I usually have the strongest character at the table, unless I am playing with optimizers.

I've played more Rangers in 5.5 than any class except Warlock, and I have never played one that was one of the weaker characters at the table in play.

You multiclass a lot though.

And you're playing a specific ranger. And lots of magic items.

Fae Wanderer built around fear is your jam?