Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6898006" data-attributes="member: 996">In contrast to 1e, I suppose you could say that.  Compared to 4e, 3e, and later 2e, though, not so much, no.  What 5e does do is remove magic items from the expectation of character growth with level.  In 3e & 4e, wealth/level and make/buy made magic items just another tool of character customization (in 4e, one of the less significant ones).  In 5e, magic items are back in the hands of the DM, so if your character is Tom of the Flametongue or Dick of the Frostbrand or Harry the puppet of Blackrazor is very much up to the DM.That was more the case between 1e and 5e.  In 5e, magic items make you 'just better,' breaking bounded accuracy and giving you abilities and flavor you couldn't acquire otherwise, in that it's very much a return to classic game. 3e goes out of its way, very briefly, to acknowledge that the DM could tinker with it, if he really wanted to, by explicitly stating Rule 0.  Then forgets about it, and presents as a game with rules for everything, tons of player options, and (as you point out) a fairly clear set of assumptions about advancement - it could be politely described as 'player empowering.'  The impression that 3e was player-entitling, though, really is more a function of the community attitude of it's day, which was decidedly RAW-obsessed and dismissive of DM rulings and house rules.</blockquote>