D&D 5E Magic Items, and what it says about the editions

[Sacrosanct]

So I'm getting ready to run SKT soon, and I'm replacing the Dripping Caves with the old module, Horror on the Hill. I was gonna use KotBL, but I think I like HotH better for my purposes (I want more adventuring to justify going to level 5 as opposed to what's in the SKT campaign proper)

While prepping, something occurred to me. I'm a long time AD&D player, playing it from 1981 to 2012, skipping 3e (for the most part) and 4e completely before 5e came out. Each edition that I've played, seems to have a focus on magic items that reinforces a certain playstyle beneficial to that edition's design.

In AD&D (and b/x), magic items are everywhere. And the overwhelming majority of them are +1 weapons, potions of healing, and items that grant invisibility. That seems to reinforce three things that are very important in TSR D&D: PCs are fragile compared to later editions and need healing (since natural healing is pretty much non existent unless you want to hole up at the Hyatt for a couple weeks), many monsters had monster immunity to non magical weapons (not resistance like later editions), and finding ways around monsters was just as important as actually fighting them.

with my limited time playing 3e (only about 50 sessions or so), it seems that edition is designed around magic items being required, and weapons turned up to 11. What I mean by that is a ton of magic weapons not only gave bonuses, but they all seemed to have additional elemental damage added as well. Combat seemed to resemble a fireworks show, with everyone having a weapon that added acid, fire, cold, or lightning damage lol. That seems to reinforce 3e's design of sharply increased numbers bloat and magic item dependence

Now 5e? That turned everything around. I think it's the least magic item dependent edition. They come right out and say the design goal was to make magical items optional, and with bounded accuracy, including magical weapons or armor from 3e would create all kinds of havoc. Going through the published campaigns, and with the exception of Hazeron in HotDQ, magic items and treasure are far more rare and less powerful than any other edition I have played. We recently finished HotDQ/RoT, going all the way up to level 15, and I think my PC only ever had 4 magic items (not counting potions of healing) the entire time. And none of those were weapons or helped avoid combat altogether (like AD&D by comparison) By the time you reached level 15 in AD&D (which admittedly would take A LOT longer than in 5e), you would have a virtual treasure pile of items.

Anyway, just an observation, and when converting TSR modules to 5e, I'm finding I'm eliminating most of the items.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm converting a DCC 3.5 module for my 5e game and I have to strip out the majority of the treasure, which I'm happy to do honestly. I like the default magic level assumptions of 5e.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm converting a DCC 3.5 module for my 5e game and I have to strip out the majority of the treasure, which I'm happy to do honestly. I like the default magic level assumptions of 5e.

Same here. TSR D&D will always probably still be my favorite, so on the surface you'd think I wouldn't mind so many magic items, but in reality, they just aren't needed in 5e. In 5e, you don't typically have 3rd level characters who still have less than 10 total hp like in TSR D&D. The PCs are a lot more robust, with more abilities baked into their class to where they don't need a magic item to augment it (like a basic stealth check in 5e opposed to only a thief being able to hide in shadows in TSR D&D [and a really low chance at that, at low levels]), and with things like hit dice and rests.

And I'm perfectly fine with stripping down the magic item count, to be honest.

 

[Salamandyr]

Just a note, in 5e, healing potions are standard equipment. One doesn't find them, because by default, they are available for purchase.

If the ubiquity of healing potions in treasure troves is a comment on the 1e's assumptions about magical items, then their availability for sale should be factored into thoughts about 5e's magic item assumptions.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Just a note, in 5e, healing potions are standard equipment. One doesn't find them, because by default, they are available for purchase.

If the ubiquity of healing potions in treasure troves is a comment on the 1e's assumptions about magical items, then their availability for sale should be factored into thoughts about 5e's magic item assumptions.

Very true. And that assumption being: "Keep PCs alive, and HP is our chief resource we use." Between the common potions of healing, hit dice, and the healing mechanic with short and long rests, 5e's design seems to be all about keep PCs with plenty of HP. And with bounded accuracy, instead of modifier bloat, they've shifted it into hit points

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Same here. TSR D&D will always probably still be my favorite, so on the surface you'd think I wouldn't mind so many magic items, but in reality, they just aren't needed in 5e. In 5e, you don't typically have 3rd level characters who still have less than 10 total hp like in TSR D&D. The PCs are a lot more robust, with more abilities baked into their class to where they don't need a magic item to augment it (like a basic stealth check in 5e opposed to only a thief being able to hide in shadows in TSR D&D [and a really low chance at that, at low levels]), and with things like hit dice and rests.

And I'm perfectly fine with stripping down the magic item count, to be honest.

I don't mind a lot of magic items but I hated the 3.x idea that a character of X level needs X amount of magic to be effective for his level. The gear quickly became far more important IME than pretty much anything else. Dialling back the gear with attumenent, lower bonuses, and killing the layers of buffs PC were expected to have helped a lot for me. I tend to give the players utility items and stuff of that nature, but so far we are just 4/5th level so I'll see how it goes at higher levels.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I don't mind a lot of magic items but I hated the 3.x idea that a character of X level needs X amount of magic to be effective for his level.

To be fair, that was mostly a player-side idea in 3E. It was facilitated by the reams and reams of magic items in the DMG and the wealth-by-level table, which a lot of players (myself included) took together as a sort of backdoor point-buy system for magic powers. But I wouldn't say mandatory magic items actually became a game design assumption until 4E.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Just a note, in 5e, healing potions are standard equipment. One doesn't find them, because by default, they are available for purchase.

Are they, though? I don't think them being on the table means players should be able to take it for granted that they're for sale. One doesn't expect to find alchemist's fire or holy water or spyglasses at just any shop, either.

 

[Salamandyr]

One of the things a lot of people have missed about earlier editions (1e & B/X-BECMI) was the extent to which magical items were a balancing factor between classes. As a really obvious example--clerics limitation to maces and flails wasn't just intended to be thematic, or even to make them use less effective weapons (by default they all used the same die anyway) but to keep them from using the most powerful of magic weapons--magic swords.

At higher levels, just like in 3e and on, magic users and clerics had magical powers as part of their class, but fighters, and to a lesser extent thieves (thieves were really the poor cousin of early D&D--look how little attention they got in Dragon, and the only advice on how to run games for them in the DMG was how to screw them over) had access to the same powers through magical items, and were a more robust magic deployment platform thanks to better underlying stats.

I recall a talk by one of the early gamers talking about how Fighters were actually the best solo class in the game--and what magical items basically made them complete death machines in those early games--and it wasn't the magic swords, but the elven cloaks and boots, and amulets of enemy detection. Sure a magic user could use those things too, or boots of flying, but it was redundancy, mimicking spells they probably already had, giving them a little more longevity, but no more power; on a fighter, every magic item was a force multiplier. (linear wizard/quadratic fighter!)

3e turned it on its head, by turning the magic item economy around. Now the Fighters had the most limited access to magic, and what magic they could use was the most expensive and limited and did nothing but mildly improve the things they were already supposed to be good at, while the wizards and the clerics had access not only to their spells but all the best magic items too...and they could also use whatever items the fighter had access to.

Maybe though that's the way players prefer. I recently ran a game that had a pair of boots of flying as a treasure that would have dramatically improved the effectiveness of any of the melee classes in the party. They were even dedicated to the god the paladin worshipped (they were going to meet a flying monster soon).

They gave them to the wizard...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The thing I hated most about magic items in TSR days was how the novels always broke the rules. I remember a Forgotten Realms novel where some Verbeeg wore his Ring of Regeneration on his toe to avoid detection, and how I wanted to scream at the author, "It explicitly doesn't work that way, for a good reason!"

As far as I can see, the main difference between AD&D and 5E in terms of magic item prevalence (outside of modules, which don't count because they aren't rules text) is the way AD&D requires +1 (or +2, or +5) weapons to hit so many monsters, whereas 5E just makes it half damage (with lots of free cantrips to bypass weapon immunity entirely). I'm honestly on the fence about whether the change improves the game or not. In 5E, you really can't use monsters with weapon immunities as a "you must be this tall to ride" sign, and you can get by with nothing but spellcasters in a party. Is that a good thing or not?

Other than the weapon-immunity issue, I think AD&D and 5E play pretty much identically when it comes to low-treasure settings.

There are definitely times when I'm tempted to go back and try running some AD&D from my new, wiser and more experienced perspective, and see how the game feels now. How much of what I am enjoying in 5E is about the game, and how much is about being better at DMing?