D&D 5E Magic items in D&D Next: Remove them as PC dependant?

[Tallifer]

I really really hope they get away from the dependency on magic items in D&D Next. I hated wish lists, I hated it when I just happened to find that piece of gear that I wanted because my build called for it. I used to base my PC's on gear that I found. I had an elven wizard that found a really nice bow, I changed him around and started taking archery type feats, took a few levels in fighter and took on the Arcane Archer PrC all because I found a bow.

I think it would bring the mystery back to magic items instead of an assumed commodity that is used to "build" your characters.

I voted that characters should not depend on magical items, but I disagree with almost everything in your post.

I do not want to change my character's career and roleplaying conceit just because he found a talking guisarme instead of a sword in the dungeon. I loved being part of telling the story of my character from background to finish. I love wish lists (actually I have often mentioned my own even more radical extension thereof).

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'd like to see it at least revert to the state of AD&D/BD&D. Apart from magic items being required to damage certain creatures, they were a nice bonus but hardly necessary. While I think it would be possible to get rid of even that, by requiring silver weapons against lycanthropes, cold iron versus incorporeal undead, and so on, that brings up another thing I don't like, the golf-bag of weapons.

Well I will say this has to do with mentality. Some people for some reason think their character is useless if they aren't doing as much damage as they would be due to DR. It needs to be assumed that you aren't always going to do the damage you want to each and every creature.

Simple rules enforcement will take care of the golf-bag situation. You say "Okay well if you used your money to buy all those different types of weapons what kind of armor are you wearing, or what items are you lacking because you bought all those swords."

DR can stay around while implementing a better magic item system.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I voted that characters should not depend on magical items, but I disagree with almost everything in your post.

I do not want to change my character's career and roleplaying conceit just because he found a talking guisarme instead of a sword in the dungeon. I loved being part of telling the story of my character from background to finish. I love wish lists (actually I have often mentioned my own even more radical extension thereof).

I never said you had to do what I did. I just saw a way to give my PC a different concept because of the story and the game itself. Wish lists promotes pre-planned building of characters and in turn promotes an attitude that I am supposed to find XY and Z because that is the way I built my PC and you are a bad DM if you don't enable me to find those items.

 

[NewJeffCT]

IMO, it's more a question of monster selection. Assumed magic items are simply that: an assumption. Adjusting for a different levels of magic items is just a little more work. IMO, 4E makes it ridiculously easy. If the system assumes you have +3 items, but you only have +1 items, you're approximately two levels less effective than your actual level. If you're DMing for such a party, pick monsters two levels lower than what you would normally send against them. Done.

It's not always that straightforward, though. If you have a large party of players like me, some will have +2 weapons, while others will have +3, while the shaman will have a +3 totem, but only a +1 weapon. I don't like magic shoppes, so I tend to give players magic items as appropriate, so it often leads to different levels of magic items between the players.

 

[Yora]

I'd like to see it at least revert to the state of AD&D/BD&D. Apart from magic items being required to damage certain creatures, they were a nice bonus but hardly necessary. While I think it would be possible to get rid of even that, by requiring silver weapons against lycanthropes, cold iron versus incorporeal undead, and so on, that brings up another thing I don't like, the golf-bag of weapons.

I actually like the golf bag, if it's a small one of two or three weapons total. But the witcher with his steel and silver sword, that's actually really cool.
“I hear you witcher's carry two swords–one for men and one for monsters.”
“Both are for monsters.”

 

[NewJeffCT]

I voted "No" in this poll, and I wish I had 99 more accounts on enworld so I could vote "no" 100 times.

In most of the iconic fantasy novels - Lord of the Rings, Conan, A Song of Ice & Fire, etc - the characters are not dripping with dozens of magic items and carrying around golf bags full of different weapons. "Samwise, it's the wererats, get out my silver weapon" - "Samwise, it's the balrog, get out my +3 good-aligned cold iron sword" - "Samwise, it's a pit fiend, get out my silver good-aligned battleaxe" - "Sam, it's an efreet, get out my frost-brand sword"

I like having magic items be rare and special. I don't want monster level/challenge rating to be based on the assumption that players all have +2 or +3 or whatever level of magic items on them. I want players to be excited when they find a silver dagger at second level and a +1 short sword at level 3.

I think D&D is much easier if you assume low magic and add in a lot of magic items to make it a high magic game. Going in reverse and taking magic out of a high magic game is usually much more difficult. However, I am intrigued by the inherent bonus system of 4E - wish I knew more about it when I started my 4E campaign 2 years ago.

I don't want players to have to carry around a golf bag full of magic weapons in order to hit different creatures (we got around that in my 3.5E game - the magic strength allowed you to sometimes trump specific DR)

 

[FireLance]

It's not always that straightforward, though. If you have a large party of players like me, some will have +2 weapons, while others will have +3, while the shaman will have a +3 totem, but only a +1 weapon. I don't like magic shoppes, so I tend to give players magic items as appropriate, so it often leads to different levels of magic items between the players.

I think the system is robust enough that an extra +1 or even +2 seldom makes a noticeable difference, especially if the individual characters are not cookie-cutters of each other and are already pretty distinct in terms of what they do. However, if there is a noticeable difference, and the DM wants to use treasure placement to balance out the characters, then it is simply a matter of ensuring that the more powerful items are better suited to the weaker characters.

 

[Tilenas]

So I accidentally voted Yes, which entices me to play the devil's advocate here:

Without magic items, all PC abilities have to come from their class and level (including, by extension, spells and feats). Some archetypes, however, don't support the full range of abilities that high level characters should possess.

Without magic items, and barring far-fetched feats and class features, these archetypes will never get access to some abilities. Now, one can go ahead and make sure that this isn't a disadvantage (e.g. make DR easy to overcome with mundane weapons), or factor in a minimum of wealth in magic items for any given level.

In the last case, GMs that run low-or-no-magic campaigns will have some eyeballing to do. In the first case, everyone else has.

Honestly, now, how many of you play without magic items? I'm not talking about the christmas tree and wish lists here. These turn me off, too. But is it really so bad to assume that PCs will have some magic items, preferably of the kind that give their carriers new stuff to do, rather than static AC and to-hit bonuses?

 

[Ahnehnois]

I would really like to see "+X" bonus items either removed or taken out of the realm of magic. I would like magic items to be powerful, but assumed to be rare. I would like them to be imperfect and have drawbacks and flaws.

I would also like to see a fighter that can pick up a sword and fight without having to be precious about his items (but without having to give the fighter spells).

 

[NewJeffCT]

So I accidentally voted Yes, which entices me to play the devil's advocate here:

Without magic items, all PC abilities have to come from their class and level (including, by extension, spells and feats). Some archetypes, however, don't support the full range of abilities that high level characters should possess.

Without magic items, and barring far-fetched feats and class features, these archetypes will never get access to some abilities. Now, one can go ahead and make sure that this isn't a disadvantage (e.g. make DR easy to overcome with mundane weapons), or factor in a minimum of wealth in magic items for any given level.

In the last case, GMs that run low-or-no-magic campaigns will have some eyeballing to do. In the first case, everyone else has.

Honestly, now, how many of you play without magic items? I'm not talking about the christmas tree and wish lists here. These turn me off, too. But is it really so bad to assume that PCs will have some magic items, preferably of the kind that give their carriers new stuff to do, rather than static AC and to-hit bonuses?

I don't mean playing without magic items, but I don't want the assumption of players having a magic item for each slot (head, neck, shoulders, waist, arms, hands, legs, feet, ring 1, ring 2, etc) by level 5, and +2 items by level 10 and +3 items by level 15, etc. built into the system.