D&D 5E Magic Items for individuals?

[CapnZapp]

NPCs are more like PCs than they are like monsters. If you have a level 10 NPC, then figure out how much magic a level 10 PC is likely to have, and give them that.

This is not the 5e baseline, and would lead to vastly more magic items than expected.

Not saying doing it is wrong. Saying giving it as unconditional advice is, since it would lead to a very magic heavy campaign (compared to the 5e baseline)

 

[CapnZapp]

Lots of people on this thread seem to be saying that in 5e, the players just don't get a lot of magic items. But I find that really hard to swallow. Players love loot and the DM's guide is packed with cool stuff. What's the point of all that if you don't expect the players to accumulate some of it?

There are also monsters in the MM that are immune to damage from non-magical weapons. So if the players never get any magic items, they will not be capable of surviving or defeating many of the monsters they encounter.

So that's not making a lot of sense to me.
I'm coming from older version of D&D here, I guess, and so I expect that at a certain point, almost ever PC should at the very least have a +1 weapon or some magic armor or SOMETHING.

Never <> not a lot.

Nobody is saying a level 20 fighter won't be able to bypass magic resistance.

 

[CapnZapp]

There are no guidelines because the past has shown that there are strongly different preferences among gaming groups, and 5e does not want to lean towards favouring any of them at the cost of the others.

I disagree.

By not having even an optional magic item pricing mechanism, 5e favors one set of gaming groups while leaving the other completely in the cold.

As I've said over and over again, I understand why a magic item pricing mechanism wasn't in the DMG.

But there's no reason for not having it at all; creating possibly the greatest gap in 3e/d20 compatability.

 

[CapnZapp]

What's the difference between letting the party find a magic item in a treasure, or having the NPC carry such item?

The difference is that in the latter case the party has to probably fight against the item, before earning it. And that actually sounds like a reward!

So I'd say, rather have the magic items in the hands of the NPCs than stashed inside a chest - unless it's locked, trapped, and requires some thinking to get its contents

But a magic armor is much more valuable (and potentially destabilizing) in the hands of a PC than a slightly higher AC of just one out of hundreds of foes can ever be.

I understand your point. Just saying you should not use this as an argument for adding more magic items: the fact you fight for your loot is inconsequential in the greater view.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

By not having even an optional magic item pricing mechanism, 5e favors one set of gaming groups while leaving the other completely in the cold.

As I've said over and over again, I understand why a magic item pricing mechanism wasn't in the DMG.

But there's no reason for not having it at all; creating possibly the greatest gap in 3e/d20 compatability.

I think either you have a defective DMG, or a definition of "magic item pricing mechanism" wildly different from my own.

My DMG lists suggestions for prices of magic items, both made by the character and purchased should I choose to have an NPC sell them.

Were you perhaps meaning to say "build-your-own item that combines multiple examples mechanism" rather than "pricing"? Because that is what is missing - and in my opinion doesn't actually need to be there in the first place because a group can use the example items in the book to establish what rarity any custom creation should be according to them (the only opinions that matter on the topic), so the only thing which is actually added by a list of properties and their prices to apply to an item is a sense of the book saying "you don't have to actually think about whether this item is a good idea or not because we've implied that it is a good idea whether we meant to or not," which isn't actually a thing of use.

 

[CapnZapp]

Pricing of item properties.

And no, a group can't use the rarities for anything, since rarity is a very poor approximation of utility.

Look, if there was an updated 3e-era pricing mechanism you could elect to not use it.

When there isn't, I can't elect to use it.

Simple.

 

[jgsugden]

I would not suggest to "avoid the temptation", just to use and abuse the attunements & requirements rules

...

The attunement rules place an upper limit for a character on attuned items they can use, but they do not consider the level of the character. For example, I don't think many of us would think that a first level character with three attuned magic items is "in balance" with the standard expected treasure resources we expect PCs to find. If you follow the average treasure distribution recommendations in the DMG, it is likely that characters will not need to worry about the three item attunement limit until very high level, if at all. If you follow the DMG advice, PCs will end up finding about 6 permanent items (not consumables) over 20 levels, and about half of those will be attuned. Now, some PCs will find more than average and others will find less - but the attunement rules were there to prevent the "lucky" PCs from getting too far ahead of expectations by higher levels. They should be irrelevant to low level PCs, generally.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Pricing of item properties.

And no, a group can't use the rarities for anything, since rarity is a very poor approximation of utility.

Look, if there was an updated 3e-era pricing mechanism you could elect to not use it.

When there isn't, I can't elect to use it.

Simple.

Except that you can elect to use it, and I have shown you how to do so (look at an item with a similar effect to the one you are designing, see it's rarity which has a price attached, use that price).

You shooting my suggestion down because "rarity is a very poor approximation of utility," is no more valid than me shooting down your need for a list because "some designer that has no idea what kind of campaign I'm running deciding how useful something will be in my campaign is a very poor approximation of utility."

Take charge of your game, man, don't insist you can't unless some dev that has no idea what you (specific you) want makes some inherently flawed list for you.

 

[CapnZapp]

Except that you can elect to use it, and I have shown you how to do so (look at an item with a similar effect to the one you are designing, see it's rarity which has a price attached, use that price).

You shooting my suggestion down because "rarity is a very poor approximation of utility," is no more valid than me shooting down your need for a list because "some designer that has no idea what kind of campaign I'm running deciding how useful something will be in my campaign is a very poor approximation of utility."

Take charge of your game, man, don't insist you can't unless some dev that has no idea what you (specific you) want makes some inherently flawed list for you.

I shoot your "suggestion" down not only because the 5E magic item rarity rules are doing a piss-poor job of emulating the 3E playing style (that is me telling you how bad they work for my purposes), but because you somehow think it is okay to dismiss my wants by "just do it yourself, how hard can it be".

You need to choose. Either the work is so hard that any attempt will be "flawed", and then it is very uncharitable for you to suggest I do it myself. Or the work is so easy I can "take charge of my game" - and if so, why can't I hope for a professional designer to take my money and make an even better job?

And more importantly, make an official job, available to all equally.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The 3.x approach to item creation was fairly deterministic - really, at it's best it was. It worked well for putting spells on scrolls or in wands or potions or otherwise making items that duplicated a spell. It worked reasonably well for magic weapons & armor with their '+'s and '+'-equivalent properties. It fell down pretty hard for some of the classic items that didn't map so well to existing spells.

Right now, in 5e, we have trivially-made items, like healing potions, and everything else is very much up to the DM. DM fiat works great for the weird, campaign-munching items that the classic game abounded with. Trivially producing healing potions has it's place. The addition of a 3.5 style spell-based item-creation/pricing system could fill in between those extremes: items it's OK to leave in the PCs' bailiwick but which require significant resources (wealth, downtime, feats, spells known) to make so they don't just flood the campaign with them. Crazier stuff can be left strictly to the DM.