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

[Astrosicebear]

I believe they (designers) have said that the modifiers across the board are being lowered. That will have the impact of raising the impact of magic items. A +1 sword now becomes much better.

In reference to the poll/OP, there are two sides to the coin. Certainly there could be a need through the system to have a large assortment of minor magical items. If, for instance, the system has DR of multiple types, a fighter might still need to be a walking store. I find this appealing with reference to the D&DNext feature of weapon skill groups. I would like that my fighter could potentially find a cold iron axe the room before we find some deep, dark nasty fae boss, and have no problem using it.

On the flip side, I too, voted no. I do not want magic items to be as pervasive as 3.5. Up to level 6 they are mysterious. Once you progress beyond that they become mandatory and mundane. Same in 4E except they are practically built into the leveling system. Designing a character over say level 10 in 3.5 takes more time to pick and buy magic items than feats/skills etc.

I would like to see some kind of built in system, or perhaps just a guide for DMs on magic items per character based on level. 3.5 handled this with slots and non stacking bonuses. I believe 4e also had something like this. These might be some ideas, of course up to the DM to enforce/allow/change:

Max # of magic items = 1/2 char level.

Max # of magic items = chart

Broader non-stacking body slots (armor/weapon/upper body/lower body/rings)

Max item power based on level of char vs level of item.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here's the thing though. You have 2 choices:

1) Magic is not needed by PCs - In this case magic items must be fairly trivial since the rules clearly won't be factoring them in. Any powerful item will cause issues. No combat type bonuses, no major powers, etc. This is like 4e with inherent bonuses but more extreme.

2) Magic is needed by PCs - You can now have (and really must have) powerful items and all that goes with it. Any PC not having the requisite expected items is gimped.

Those are your two choices really. So far no edition has defaulted to 1. 4e can be played with option 1. Some will say AD&D could be as well, but it was clearly a rough row to hoe. You could abolish the "+N weapon needed to hit" rule trivially, but without items there was NO defense progression at all in AD&D. With basically no player selectable options there wasn't much of a way to distinguish one PC from another either, nor was there any way for non-casters to gain the ability to do much of anything beyond fairly low damage weapon attacks.

I think the problem is that the basic format of the game just doesn't really work well with magic not being an expected part of the game. The question to me is more about HOW is magic expected to work in the game? Just how do we deal with the dependency on it and how do we fluff magic in a game so that you can have a cool powerful item show up and be interesting to a player and not create the demand for a christmas tree of items.

One of the primary things that would help is of course to retain a rich set of character options for players to use. At least then they can make choices about the mechanics of their character. Of course this means you're going to have the hardest time with items in a 'basic' form of game without a lot of options.

 

[BeauNiddle]

There are other things to spend gold on then magic items. Also, your comment just shows the mind frame that some of us are talking about. You are expecting to walking around and find magic shops so you can spend your gold, magic items should be found, not bought.

You misunderstand my point. According to the core rule book there ISN'T anything else to spend the money on. All mundane kit maxes out at a couple of hundred, once you get thousands of gold there is nothing to buy.

A good DM will give you castles, works of art, patrons, investment opportunities, etc but thats not covered in the core book.

I'm not saying make magic items free in boxes of cereal all I'm asking is that if they do reduce the availability of magic items then they take the required next step of fixing the economy / loot tables so the world makes sense. (and that the alternate rewards actually feel like rewards)

 

[Mattachine]

Sad how the overwhelming answer to this poll is "no", yet only perhaps in OD&D is it true.

Even 4e has a stated goal of not making PCs dependent on gear . . . and they are absolutely dependent on gear for "the math". At least that edition has an inherent bonus option to dispense with magic gear.

 

[Aeolius]

..magic items should be found, not bought.

I wholeheartedly agree, with the stipulation that the occasional "magic shop" offers more mundane item. Mommy Fortuna's Apothecary might stock unusual material components, while Fulgur the Glass Master might also dabble in alchemy.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I think the game as written needs magic items as a reward system, but the math should not be dependant on them. Keep the potions, scrolls, rods of splendor, whatever, but eliminate the assumption that every 20th level fighter has +5 armor and a +6 Strength enhancer.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I wholeheartedly agree, with the stipulation that the occasional "magic shop" offers more mundane item. Mommy Fortuna's Apothecary might stock unusual material components, while Fulgur the Glass Master might also dabble in alchemy.

Yeah, that's pretty much always the way it has been in my campaigns going back to the old days. I like magic that has some mystery attached to it.

I think the game as written needs magic items as a reward system, but the math should not be dependant on them. Keep the potions, scrolls, rods of splendor, whatever, but eliminate the assumption that every 20th level fighter has +5 armor and a +6 Strength enhancer.

Yeah, but as soon as you remove the assumption that they do have those things, then you CREATE the assumption that they do NOT have those things. It is at best really HARD to make a system that accommodates "whatever amount and type of magic is appropriate".

Also, rewards, over a long campaign, have to add up. So there is either going to eventually be a Christmas tree or constant replacement or upgrading of items. Upgrading I've found is about the best option in most cases.

 

[tlantl]

You misunderstand my point. According to the core rule book there ISN'T anything else to spend the money on. All mundane kit maxes out at a couple of hundred, once you get thousands of gold there is nothing to buy.

A good DM will give you castles, works of art, patrons, investment opportunities, etc but thats not covered in the core book.

I'm not saying make magic items free in boxes of cereal all I'm asking is that if they do reduce the availability of magic items then they take the required next step of fixing the economy / loot tables so the world makes sense. (and that the alternate rewards actually feel like rewards)

The money sinks of the first two editions (AD&D) were level training and upkeep. Outfitting henchmen and followers, tithes, and magical research.

Certain classes such as the monk, ranger and paladin had severe restrictions on magic and wealth.

If I don't have to throw thousands upon thousands of coins at players because the rules say I have to, and I can siphon off much of what I do give out, then the player has more incentive to adventure for treasure. No more magic marts means that player characters no longer have the wealth to buy the neighboring country.

 

[Mattachine]

Yeah, but as soon as you remove the assumption that they do have those things, then you CREATE the assumption that they do NOT have those things. It is at best really HARD to make a system that accommodates "whatever amount and type of magic is appropriate".

This is easy to fix if magic items don't, as their primary function, give a "+" to hit or to defense. I would love to see items which grant static bonuses made the top items in the game. For instance, swords that give a minor initiative bonus would be a good low level item, a sword that bursts into flame be a mid-level item, and a +1 sword be a high level item. A +1 flaming sword would be an epic item.

Such a system would go well with the flatter power curve that 5e is purportedly trying for.

 

[Starbuck_II]

This is easy to fix if magic items don't, as their primary function, give a "+" to hit or to defense. I would love to see items which grant static bonuses made the top items in the game. For instance, swords that give a minor initiative bonus would be a good low level item, a sword that bursts into flame be a mid-level item, and a +1 sword be a high level item. A +1 flaming sword would be an epic item.

Such a system would go well with the flatter power curve that 5e is purportedly trying for.

Agreed, there is no reason the +X sword must give that plus to hit to everything.
The +8 sword of ogre decapitation is just a sword that gives +8 hit/dam to ogres (bane to ogres) and on a crit decapitates ogres. To everything else it is is just a sword.

So you can have a sword that flaming burst without the +X hit/dam if they make that how magic weapons/armor work.