D&D 5E Is Treasure and Magic Items Important To You?

[tetrasodium]

I'd forward a slightly alternative take. Magic Item Attunement is a solid design element, they were just overly aggressive with tagging items to require it. Attunement should be reserved for major items you want to lock to a specific user or prevent too much stacking, not minor items like a Ring of Jumping. If an attunement requirement was a bit less common the cap would be a lot less oppressive.

That's a bit tangential to the point though. Wotc made attunement slots to simplify body slots & move away from the "christmas tree effect" and designed many of the items to be more impactful and removed safeguards that existed when decking out a character in magic items was possible and designed the system's underlying math so it never considered the presence of magic items. All of those together cause things to rapidly slingshot into the deep end of unbalance caused by extreme christmas tree effect while removing room for a gm to give out occasional magic items that play well within the powerscale of a given level.

I'm sure that there are tables that like the way only using attunement slots to limit magic items that exceed the system's math the second they are available in almost any form. That's great if someone likes it, but wotc also declared all other use cases of magic items within a campaign unsupported & out of scope for 5e by not even supporting them in optional rules & coding the system math against trying to add them back in.

 

[Rabulias]

I was toying with the idea of having a wealth "score" that increases by level. So instead of tracking gp, a player would try to buy something, roll a die and add their wealth bonus. It would have to be structured so that commonplace things were an automatic success (e.g. you are third level yes you can afford a candle), but if they wanted to buy something more expensive like plate mail, they would need a lucky roll or a higher wealth score. Granted, common sense would need to apply to make sure the players didn't abuse this mechanic ("yes, I'll take 500 flasks of oil please, thank you").

d20 Modern (among others) did something very similar to this, and it might be easy to adapt: d20 Modern System Reference Document

 

[Xetheral]

In my campaigns, treasure is hugely important, because it gives the PCs the ability to start shaping the game world in an open-ended way. Whether they choose to do so by building their own home base, engaging in politics, upgrading infrastructure, building a network of contacts, engaging in commerce, founding an organization, hiring a personal staff, or something else, their choices on how to use their treasure influence the campaign more than just gaining levels does.

 

[MGibster]

Treasure and magic items aren't that important to me. To start with, in most D&D games I find there really isn't a whole lot for me to spend my gold on. When I'm a player, most of my characters spend a significant chunk of their treasure carousing. When my fighter rolls into town he lives the most extravagant lifestyle possible spending significant amounts of gold throughout the community.

It's fun to get a new magic item every once in a while. But honestly, when I look back at my favorite campaigns from the past it isn't the magic items that comes to mind. It's what our characters did and the rolls we made that I really remember.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Well, at the rate magic items are given out (as broken down in Xanathar's), assuming the same 5 person party size, that's about 20 permanent magic items, filled up by the end of 16th level.

So, if this was before then, it seems you had a DM who was much more generous with items then 5e gives - so that wouldn't be a problem with 5e. As a matter of fact, it sounds like Attunement was working as intended, preventing christmas trees of magic items even though the DM was far outside the parameters of 5e.

That's like telling a poor man he shouldn't have any trouble with banks charging overdraft since he hasn't got any money in the first place.

Edit: To be sure, the way we got that many items was using the Random Treasure from the DMG. Not how I prefer to do treasure, but this DM loves rolling on random tables.

We got roughly 1-2 treasure hoards each level. If you think that's outrageous an outrageous number of items for mid-level, then I'll note the DMG says, "Over the course of a typical campaign, a party finds treasure hoards amounting to seven rolls on the Challenge 0–4 table, eighteen rolls on the Challenge 5–10 table, twelve rolls on the Challenge 11–16 table, and eight rolls on the Challenge 17+ table." That's 45 rolls, or 2.25 treasure hoards per level. About half the campaign there were only 3 PCs and the rest were with 4 PCs. Our fifth player was covering second shift that campaign.

The only unusual thing the DM did was throw back items that didn't fit anybody in the party, but it more or less tells you to do that. For example, around level 7 or 8 we took down a pretty powerful demon, and the DM rolled on the 11-16 table (it's based on the enemy CR). We got... a holy avenger! Cool! Thematic! Except... nobody was a paladin so we re-rolled it.

 

[aco175]

I'll echo what some others say about specific items over a simple +1 sword. At lower levels I may give out something cool and them at mid levels I may allow a boost of something the PCs are carrying.

Example may be at 3rd level the thief gets a +0 dagger that returns when thrown and can cast misty step 1/rest. Then at 9th level the party comes across a radiant pool in a dungeon allowing each of them to dip something into it to boost somehow. Perhaps that dagger now becomes +1 and can also cast shield 1/rest or cast lightning bolt 1/day. Maybe the thief wants to dip in the armor he is wearing to become mithral shirt that can teleport into a ring like the old Flash superhero. At that point it is the PCs choice of what item and I may allow some choice to the gained powers.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'd forward a slightly alternative take. Magic Item Attunement is a solid design element, they were just overly aggressive with tagging items to require it. Attunement should be reserved for major items you want to lock to a specific user or prevent too much stacking, not minor items like a Ring of Jumping. If an attunement requirement was a bit less common the cap would be a lot less oppressive.

This I would agree with. Attunement should be used to limit item trading. However, it needs to be more useful than just, "This item can be meaningfully traded." It's got to be abusive when trading not merely useful though. Like all the limits they used to put on a ring of regeneration. Overall I think attunement to limit item swapping is fine. The party has to decide who uses an item, but they can change it as needed.

I think a limited number of attuned items is much more questionable, however. I think it's fine as an optional rule, but I don't buy it as a general rule anymore. They don't even use it to limit mechanical bonus stacking. You can have a sword +3, armor +3, and shield +3 and none of those take attunement. I wouldn't want to give those items out as a DM ever; they're both extremely powerful and absolutely boring.

 

[King Babar]

As a DM I'm probably on the conservative side when it comes to magical items. They're notably uncommon in my campaigns and I rarely tailor them to the wants or needs of my players (at least overtly).

I want magic items, even a relatively humble +1 weapon, to be something with a history behind them; the sword of an ancient king, a druid's staff made from a branch of the first oak tree, a dagger that is the fang of a dragon killed generations ago, etc. Heirlooms and relics, something that helps build out the setting in a way that I think a shop filled with magical knick-knacks doesn't. I want artifacts, not commodities.

Similarly, I've never given out a Bag of Holding in any campaign I've ran. I want finding a hoard of treasure (or an unwieldy item) to present something of a dilemma for the party. "How are we going to move all this stuff?". I like the RP that can come out of seemingly mundane problems.

 

[TwoSix]

Important enough that one of my next campaigns won't have characters gain abilities from class at all, they'll simply spend XP to craft magic items or unlock more powers from their gained magic items.

I like the idea of power gain being random and based on the narrative rather than driven by their first session choices.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I can't say I care much about coinage and gems, but give me a fancy ring, a torc with a grimacing ogre face engraved on it, or a cloak patterned with a deity's holy symbol and I'm all over it. Mundane stuff that my character can wear and look cool with makes me happy.

I've come to realize that I prefer a greater baseline of magic item distribution than is the current norm (based on AL and official adventures). As a DM, I want to see PCs get interesting magic items that they can use in unanticipated ways, that they can feel epic discovering and wielding.

The exceptions are the Bag of Holding and Deck of Many Things. Those I will never willingly give out in an adventure. shakes fist at them

 

[Necrozius]

Using the optional Downtime activity in Xanathar's guide for purchasing magic items has made them worthy of my consideration (as a GM). Finally the party has something to spend their money on (the equipment list is pretty sparse) but it is still limited (no "let's all buy +2 longswords this week and 10 bags of holding LOL").

However, I much prefer the rules for magic items in Adventures in Middle Earth. Things like magic weapons getting stronger over time ("unlocking" more features as the owner levels up) and items tied to specific skills, granting the owner the choice of spending HD to do epic things.

 

[el-remmen]

I'd forward a slightly alternative take. Magic Item Attunement is a solid design element, they were just overly aggressive with tagging items to require it. Attunement should be reserved for major items you want to lock to a specific user or prevent too much stacking, not minor items like a Ring of Jumping. If an attunement requirement was a bit less common the cap would be a lot less oppressive.

This is how I do it. I also have some items that have lesser powers available to anyone who picks it up, but the greater powers require attunement.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Coin treasure does have some importance, depending on the PCs or campaign. Those clerics and paladins, or just very religious non-divine PCs, are going to want/need all those coins to tithe/donate to their churches/temples. Or if you are playing a campaign in a setting just recovering from a major war, all that coin will help pay for a lot of rebuilding, which will buy the PCs a lot of favor or even a noble title.

And yeah, gold coins are way too common in most settings/campaigns. Outside the upper class and nobility, they should be much rarer and simply less of them minted in general.

 

[J.Quondam]

And yeah, gold coins are way too common in most settings/campaigns. Outside the upper class and nobility, they should be much rarer and simply less of them minted in general.

I tend to agree with this, at least for some campaigns. Coin can certainly be interesting, provided it's rare and special. It can make for great world-building, clues, or hooks.

A rogue picks the pocket of a diplomat and comes away with a couple platinum coins. "Jeepers! Platinum?" And then upon closer examination, finds them to be from a rival kingdom. "Holy crap! Who is this guy?"
Or a party uncovers a small urn full of silver Roman denarii... in New Mexico. "Why on earth is that here??"

Coin can have a compelling story, just as surely as an unusual art object, an elaborate jewel, or a magic item. That coin, though, needs to be special enough for PCs to take notice. But that's really tough in default D&D, in which the base assumption is that non-magical treasure is just wealth, and wealth is just the easiest means for players to crank up the numbers on their character sheets.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In my campaigns, treasure is hugely important, because it gives the PCs the ability to start shaping the game world in an open-ended way. Whether they choose to do so by building their own home base, engaging in politics, upgrading infrastructure, building a network of contacts, engaging in commerce, founding an organization, hiring a personal staff, or something else, their choices on how to use their treasure influence the campaign more than just gaining levels does.

Thats a great point, and I agree, though I don't like tracking specific gold coins to accomplish that, anymore.,

As a DM I'm probably on the conservative side when it comes to magical items. They're notably uncommon in my campaigns and I rarely tailor them to the wants or needs of my players (at least overtly).

I want magic items, even a relatively humble +1 weapon, to be something with a history behind them; the sword of an ancient king, a druid's staff made from a branch of the first oak tree, a dagger that is the fang of a dragon killed generations ago, etc. Heirlooms and relics, something that helps build out the setting in a way that I think a shop filled with magical knick-knacks doesn't. I want artifacts, not commodities.

Similarly, I've never given out a Bag of Holding in any campaign I've ran. I want finding a hoard of treasure (or an unwieldy item) to present something of a dilemma for the party. "How are we going to move all this stuff?". I like the RP that can come out of seemingly mundane problems.

Yeah it's a matter of taste and preference in world building, as well. I don't like presenting worlds wherein the past was better than the present, or where all the "cool stuff" are things no one knows how to make anymore, and prefer worlds where the magic sword that burns with the fire that forged it, glowing red hot and dealing additional fire damage, is something that the guy in the neighboring kingdom invented ten years ago. There is one of them, because your dad was the first person to ever commission one, and the method for making it hasn't been repeated yet. The occassional ancient relic is great, but I never make such things better than more modern inventions.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Back in the olden days when a AD&D Fighter had hit points, armor (and armor class), a weapon and some basic equipment... that was IT as far as features they could actually use. Thus getting a sword that boosted your attack by 1 and could burst into flame was a huge gain in power and variety.

I think it's worth remembering that prior to 3e, one of the biggest attractions of the Fighter class was that it had the best equipment draw in the game. Yes, there were items that you couldn't use like most staves, most wands, most scrolls, and some varied items. But everything else on the treasure tables was fair play. Any armor, any weapon, any miscellaneous item, etc. Virtually no other class was like that. Clerics were limited on weapons, Thieves were limited on armor, and Magic-Users were limited on both. If you generated treasure randomly, virtually everything that you'd roll would be something the Fighter could use. The item limits that Ranger and Paladin had were actually intended to have teeth, too.

So, yes, Fighters were limited, but the design of the magic items was such that they ended up being the least limited class overall.

 

[Doug McCrae]

These are the three magic items I've enjoyed the most as a player.

The Deto-mace. A morning star that could fire its spiked balls as 10d6 fireballs. AD&D 2e. Created by me for use by a ridiculously overpowered barbarian character in a oneoff.

Ironbright. A talking, 'laser'-shooting, magic sword that used to belong to a paladin and was now the property of Catgirl Airu, a typical flighty catgirl. The intent was that together they would form an 'odd couple'. Big Eyes Small Mouth. Created by me for a short campaign. The previous paladin owner was backstory.

Mjolnir. My superhero Dog Girl married Magni, son of Thor, and became God Girl. After they divorced she got property of Mjolnir. She also had a cart pulled by goats that could fly in Spaaace! Systemless, formerly Champions. Most of this was the GM's idea and was backstory.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think it's worth remembering that prior to 3e, one of the biggest attractions of the Fighter class was that it had the best equipment draw in the game. Yes, there were items that you couldn't use like most staves, most wands, most scrolls, and some varied items. But everything else on the treasure tables was fair play. Any armor, any weapon, any miscellaneous item, etc. Virtually no other class was like that. Clerics were limited on weapons, Thieves were limited on armor, and Magic-Users were limited on both. If you generated treasure randomly, virtually everything that you'd roll would be something the Fighter could use. The item limits that Ranger and Paladin had were actually intended to have teeth, too.

So, yes, Fighters were limited, but the design of the magic items was such that they ended up being the least limited class overall.

even in 3.x it was still mostly the case. Sure a wizard could gain proficiency & wear armor, but the system made sure they probably wouldn't want to due to asf & ensured that they paid through the nose if they wanted to. fighters in 5e still have all those magic weapons & armor options but the system goes into complete meltdown if awarded because everything else is balanced around the assumption they won't ever get any of them.

 

[Lanefan]

The exceptions are the Bag of Holding and Deck of Many Things. Those I will never willingly give out in an adventure. shakes fist at them

You are now officially entered into the list of Those Who Are No Fun.

 

[TwoSix]

The exceptions are the Bag of Holding and Deck of Many Things. Those I will never willingly give out in an adventure. shakes fist at them

Deck of Many Things is the best and I will not hear otherwise.