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

[Corwin]

It was a major goal of 5e to be D&D for everyone who ever loved D&D.

That doesn't sound right. Are you sure about that?

 

[Tony Vargas]

That doesn't sound right. Are you sure about that?

Absolutely certain, yes. Mike Mearls put it just that way, "D&D for anyone who ever loved D&D," may have been the exact quote (sadly all the L&Ls have been taken down or I'd just give you the link I saved at the time).

What doesn't sound right about it, to you?

Every version of D&D has problems with overabundance of magic, but 4E was the first version to try to equalize the playing field, regardless of magic.

'Overabundance?' Maybe in some senses. AD&D had issues with the game breaking if you gave out too much magic - or classes falling further out of balance if you didn't give out enough of the right sorts in the right proportion. 'Monty Haul' campaigns were notorious for an overabundance of magic, but there were also 'low magic' campaigns that had few if any items (and encountered issues of their own). 3e had wealth/level guidelines, so there was, at least in theory, a proper abundance of magic to shoot for (too much would have been a theoretically problematic 'overabundance'). 4e was much the same, though it tended to make items less significant relative to class abilities.

5e is perhaps most nearly unique as an edition in assuming few/no magic items as a baseline. (Even as it gave all classes at least some accesses to magical abilities, mostly in the form of spells.)

 

[Corwin]

Absolutely certain, yes. Mike Mearls put it just that way, "D&D for anyone who ever loved D&D," may have been the exact quote (sadly all the L&Ls have been taken down or I'd just give you the link I saved at the time).

So you have no way to quote or link them actually saying it? And are you intentionally misquoting yourself? What about the part where you said that it was a major goal? That's an important part of the narrative you were intending to convey, wouldn't you say?

What doesn't sound right about it, to you?

The part where it doesn't sound like something WotC would've said. At least not in the way you presented it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you have no way to quote or link them actually saying it?

None. It did make a bit of a splash when he said it, and many of us felt it was an impossible goal, but he said it. Now that the L&Ls have been taken down, though, there's no way to prove it.

And are you intentionally misquoting yourself?

Not sure if he said 'everyone' or 'anyone.' Not that it much changes the sentiment. 5e was conceived as inclusive, to bring the fractured fan base back together. It's succeeded better than I expected, but there's definitely room for more on the mechanics and player options side.

What about the part where you said that it was a major goal?

It was one of the first goals articulated, the other goal that seemed 'major' at the time was capturing the feel of the classic game. Care to deny that one, as well?

The part where it doesn't sound like something WotC would've said.

It was something Mike Mearls said, in L&L, when 'Next' was starting up. Really, he said it a lot, in a lot of different ways, that was just the one quote really that stuck with me.

 

[Corwin]

So you are basically going to keep trying to put out unsubstantiated claims, huh? Wow. That's not very cool at all. Yeah, yeah, I know, "there's no link available." How convenient. And yeah, I was there for the early "Next" starting up stuff, too. I don't recall the kind of claims coming from their camp you seem to be wanting to present as "fact".

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I don't recall the kind of claims coming from their camp you seem to be wanting to present as "fact".

I do. Consider that substantiation. But what really surprises me here is that you're skeptical to the point of hostility about what boils down to please-everybody marketing speak. Does it honestly strike you as unlikely that Mearls would try to sell 5E to fans of every edition -- unlikely enough to accuse Tony Vargas of lying about it for some reason?

 

[Corwin]

I do. Consider that substantiation.

Let me guess: You don't got a quote or link, either?

 

[Uchawi]

'Overabundance?' Maybe in some senses. AD&D had issues with the game breaking if you gave out too much magic - or classes falling further out of balance if you didn't give out enough of the right sorts in the right proportion. 'Monty Haul' campaigns were notorious for an overabundance of magic, but there were also 'low magic' campaigns that had few if any items (and encountered issues of their own). 3e had wealth/level guidelines, so there was, at least in theory, a proper abundance of magic to shoot for (too much would have been a theoretically problematic 'overabundance'). 4e was much the same, though it tended to make items less significant relative to class abilities.

5e is perhaps most nearly unique as an edition in assuming few/no magic items as a baseline. (Even as it gave all classes at least some accesses to magical abilities, mostly in the form of spells.)

There has always been a selling point to D&D as a high fantasy setting, which includes a lot of magic. The vancian system itself is based on gaining very powerful magic that can alter reality. Or you can look at a setting like Forgotten Realms, which is only surpassed by Eberron in the amount of magic available in a setting. That is why I stated an overabundance in comparison to other systems like GURPS, RuneQuest, etc. Of course any DM can do whatever they want, so I am only speaking to trends.

If I had a choice of all the math being laid out to include consideration of magic in the game, versus not addressing it, I would chose the former. I find it easier to remove stuff, then to add it.

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

Interestingly though, there is less gear, but each item is more important and "flavorful". An item that may not be "the best" for your character can become a signature item, part of the character's "shtick" so to speak. I had a wizard back in 2nd ed that had a cloak of the arachnid, I used that thing all the time!

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Let me guess: You don't got a quote or link, either?

What's your working theory here? That Mearls never said this thing that it would be perfectly plausible for him to have said, and when multiple people tell you otherwise, they're... what? Suffering from a mass delusion? In some sort of conspiracy against you? Your behavior here is utterly baffling to me. Where is this aggressive skepticism coming from? It's not even like the existence of this statement is particularly important to the argument one way or the other.