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

[Sacrosanct]

This completely shortchanges the party spellcasters.

There is nothing wrong with having an encounter where the fighters cannot hurt the foe and basically act like literal meatbags, while the wizard whittles it down using cantrips.

Alternatively, a save or suck spell that allows the party to flee.

Alternatively, a Magic Weapon spell that does allow regular combat to proceed.

etc...

This is true (shortchanging the casters) when spell casters had a very limited resource (spells) and couldn't do ANYTHING without them. Now they have powerful at will cantrips that make that no longer the case. You're basically arguing for some cases where the fighter can't do anything, but no cases where a wizard cannot, (because at wills exist).

 

[Tony Vargas]

This completely shortchanges the party spellcasters.

There is nothing wrong with having an encounter where the fighters cannot hurt the foe and basically act like literal meatbags, while the wizard whittles it down using cantrips.

Alternatively, a save or suck spell that allows the party to flee.

Alternatively, a Magic Weapon spell that does allow regular combat to proceed.

etc...

I think you can see how there's be something wrong with that scenario if the party lacked such a caster, though.

This is true (shortchanging the casters) when spell casters had a very limited resource (spells) and couldn't do ANYTHING without them. Now they have powerful at will cantrips that make that no longer the case. You're basically arguing for some cases where the fighter can't do anything, but no cases where a wizard cannot, (because at wills exist).

I'm not sure about cantrips being 'powerful,' but yeah. Sounds about right.

I've always hated that past editions (going all the way back) tended to make your gear more important than your own abilities, and that's one of the reasons I love 5E.

Unfortunately, you do place a powerful magic item and the lucky PC is 'just better' because of it, you could lose that. 5e both makes it more practical than in traditional D&D to place few/no magic items, while still presenting magic items that are potentially (nearly) as high-impact as they traditionally were. So you can take it either direction just by deciding whether/which items to place.

I thought 3e started the whole magic item christmas tree thing, where you even had a rule about how much magic every PC should have by level. Or am I mistaken on that? 3e certainly had the fireworks show magic weapons

AD&D treasure types and tables implied that you'd find more than a few items as you leveled, and it did have rules and obvious implications woven through its long list of magic items that strongly implied the other sense of 'Xmas Tree' that 3.x made official, body 'slots' that you could (and should if you could manage it) fill up with items. AD&D was very explicit about being able to use only two magical rings, for instance.

 

[CapnZapp]

Personally, I REALLY like the Living Greyhawk 3rd Edition method for handling magic items. You had basic items that were available to anyone (assuming you had earned enough coin to buy them), and by running different modules you had access to favors that could give you limited access to the rarer magic items or materials. And since XP/GP was homogenized per module, the power scaling was controlled very well. It lacked a lot of the flavor and elegance of home games, but for something easily digestible it worked very well.

Are you talking about the "open items" list?

Basically, it lists a short selection of presumably noncontroversial items that won't kill a campaign if the adventurers get to buy them.

Of course, in 5E there really exists no such items.

For instance, you might think a +2 weapon or +3 shield uncontroversial. But if you also allow +2 ammunition you've suddenly introduced +4 bonuses to hit. And if you also allow +3 armor, you've suddenly introduced +6 bonuses to AC.

And that is stuff that can make a DM's life much harder, especially considering how soft the high-level monsters are already.

The same with belts of giant strength, cloaks of resistance and rings of protection.

Looking at that list, about the only things I would include for general use (that is, items that are truly uncontroversial in a 5E context):

...none really...

That's right. Gauntlets of Ogre power or Headband of Intellect? Nope. Amulet of Health? Certainly not! Not even a Heward's Handy Haversack is a given in 5th Edition.

Basically, the only thing that remains from the list would be "alchemical silver", and that only because it's already in the PHB shopping list!

 

[Tony Vargas]

about the only things I would include for general use (that is, items that are truly uncontroversial in a 5E context):

...none really...

Magic items in 5e are supposed to make you "just better," yes. That's the idea.

 

[Sacrosanct]

TSR D&D did not have a "wealth by level" table that 3e had. So while magic items were plenty (as I said in my OP), 3e made it official, and with it, the implications that you were to have X amount of magic items per level built into the core game. TSR D&D did not have that. If you created a 7th level PC/NPC in AD&D, there wasn't a rule or assumption that you would give them a defined list of treasure. It as all up to what the DM felt was appropriate to that campaign. For example, whenever we'd create new PCs, regardless of level, we NEVER started with magic items. Ever. those were found or given to you by other party members who already had them. 3e brought this coversation:

DM: "We're starting at level 6 for this campaign."
Plyer: "Here's my PC."
DM: "We're not starting with magic items."
Player: "It's in the rules. Right there. I get this many magic items."
DM: "But in this campaign, no one starts with magic items."
Player "It's in the rules. you're a horrible DM who is punishing me."


Yes, I've seen that conversation.

 

[CapnZapp]

This is true (shortchanging the casters) when spell casters had a very limited resource (spells) and couldn't do ANYTHING without them.

But you wrote what you wrote in the context of 5th edition, where this isn't true.

Now they have powerful at will cantrips that make that no longer the case.

Sorry, but you brought up the "case" just to shoot it down right away? What do you gain by that?

You're basically arguing for some cases where the fighter can't do anything, but no cases where a wizard cannot, (because at wills exist).

No.

No, I'm not arguing for "no cases where a wizard cannot".

I AM arguing for (a very small selection of) cases where "fighters can't do anything" but I am saying NOTHING about cases where wizards can't.

Look. Taking damage is a thing you do. An important thing. But an easily forgotten thing. That you apparently have forgotten.

So. Yes. It IS okay to be the meatshield. In the literal sense, where you place your meat to shield the spellcaster.

Not often, or even on occasion. But as a novelty, yes, it's perfectly okay to throw a monster immune to non-magical damage against a party.

Assuming, OF COURSE, the party contains a spellcaster or magic item. Obviously I'm not advocating a TPK. Being able to flee an unwinnable fight, on the other hand.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think you can see how there's be something wrong with that scenario if the party lacked such a caster, though.

Yes of course.

I trust you can too, which makes it obvious to both of us that my post kind of implied one existing.

Right?

 

[CapnZapp]

Magic items in 5e are supposed to make you "just better," yes. That's the idea.

No Tony, you're misunderstanding.

That "open list" was meant to open up a small selection of "core" items that everybody would have shopping access to.

My post is meant to say that no such thing can exist in 5E, for exactly the reason you give.

(For anyone just listening with one ear - to spell it out: if there was such a list that everybody had access to, the items wouldn't make you better. They would only allow you to keep up.)

 

[CapnZapp]

TSR D&D did not have a "wealth by level" table that 3e had. So while magic items were plenty (as I said in my OP), 3e made it official, and with it, the implications that you were to have X amount of magic items per level built into the core game. TSR D&D did not have that. If you created a 7th level PC/NPC in AD&D, there wasn't a rule or assumption that you would give them a defined list of treasure. It as all up to what the DM felt was appropriate to that campaign. For example, whenever we'd create new PCs, regardless of level, we NEVER started with magic items. Ever. those were found or given to you by other party members who already had them. 3e brought this coversation:

DM: "We're starting at level 6 for this campaign."
Plyer: "Here's my PC."
DM: "We're not starting with magic items."
Player: "It's in the rules. Right there. I get this many magic items."
DM: "But in this campaign, no one starts with magic items."
Player "It's in the rules. you're a horrible DM who is punishing me."


Yes, I've seen that conversation.

Ignoring for the moment the horribleness of such a player, you will like 5th edition: by choosing the "low magic campaign" option, that player would find no rules support for any magic items at all, and only a single uncommon item at level 11.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But you wrote what you wrote in the context of 5th edition, where this isn't true.


Sorry, but you brought up the "case" just to shoot it down right away? What do you gain by that?


No.

No, I'm not arguing for "no cases where a wizard cannot".

I AM arguing for (a very small selection of) cases where "fighters can't do anything" but I am saying NOTHING about cases where wizards can't.

Look. Taking damage is a thing you do. An important thing. But an easily forgotten thing. That you apparently have forgotten.

So. Yes. It IS okay to be the meatshield. In the literal sense, where you place your meat to shield the spellcaster.

Not often, or even on occasion. But as a novelty, yes, it's perfectly okay to throw a monster immune to non-magical damage against a party.

Assuming, OF COURSE, the party contains a spellcaster or magic item. Obviously I'm not advocating a TPK. Being able to flee an unwinnable fight, on the other hand.

Wait a second. I think we need to back up because I have no idea what you're arguing any more. I argued that you didn't need to give fighters magic items to offset a monster's resistance like you might have felt you had to in earlier editions because in 5e, you still inflict damage regardless. You're not neutered like you were with complete immunity.

Then it seemed to me like you were arguing that that argument shortchanges casters because it's OK for fighters to be offensively worthless from time to time.

And my point is that that would be a double standard. With powerful at wills, casters are now never offensively neutered, so why would it be OK to neuter once set of classes, but not the casters? The only time I would agree that it's OK for fighters to be neutered (and the caster picks up the slack), is like in earlier editions without at will magic, because it was a back and forth depending on scenario. some times, the casters couldn't do anything. Sometimes the fighters couldn't and the casters could.

In either cases, casters are not shortchanged in any way. Not sure why you think my statement does so.