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

[SkidAce]

Past a certain level, I do think magic item dependancy is legitimate.

EG: A powerful demon. It flys, it can throw fire, it can only be harmed by magic or blessed weapons.

This is perfectly valid monster design, and matches fantastic tropes and player expectations.

But if your fighter doesn't have either a magic bow, or a magic weapon and some way to fly you aren't going to beat it, even if its a CR5 demon and you're 20th level.

And that's fine too. Plenty of myths call for specifc magic weapons to beat the baddie. Heck even the Hindu GODS had to switch up weapons some times.

So while I agree magic item charts with exponentially escalating costs that lead to daggers worth more than the entire kingdom are just rediculous, at some point it's just fine to either expect the PCs to have aquired some key pieces of kit, or to have the GM need to be aware of the PCs lack of expected resources so he knows better than to put the flying, blasty, immune demon into his game.

Note that it would be perfectly cool to put that demon in without a way to deal with it in the first enocounter. Maybe the PCs need to run away, do research and try dipping arrows in holy water to work around the blessed blade limit.

I endorse this message and wanted to XP it but must spread around etc....

 

[Khaalis]

A +1 long sword is not very mythic. It's a sharper sword.

This entirely depends on how you look at magic items. In the common D&D trope, your are correct that its basically a junk drop. "Oh gee, another +1 Weapon... toss it in the bad with the other dozen".

However, it doesn't NEED to be that way. A +1 magical sword is many things. It is lighter and faster (bonus to attack), it is sharper (bonus damage), it doesn't need to be sharpened, it never rusts, it is far harder to destroy than a normal weapon of the same type*. It could even be argued that Excalibur was simply a +1 sword.

* (Or it should be... 3E breaking rules aside.)


***Side Note***
On a totally side note, I WOULD like to see a system that allows PCs to craft items Without having to be spell-casters but not easily (very costly, long down-time, etc.). I want the system to support non-magical crafters being able to achieve the creation of magic items. An example from the Forgotten Realms (I know some people hate it) is Bruenor. he is a fighter and weaponsmith but was able to craft Aegis-Fang, a magical warhammer.

 

[billd91]

I voted yes. But the important question is - what should PC be dependent on magic items to do?

I thought 4e's solution to the magic bonus weapon was a terrible one. I don't want it baked into the math. If the item gives me a 10% greater chance to hit the creature than I would have with out it, great, makes my job easier. Don't assume I have one to fight level-appropriate encounters. I don't want magic items necessary to tread water or jog in place.

But magic to bypass DR like in PF, or even a low level of DR as in 3.5? I like it. I also like the fact that if I don't have the power to bypass DR, the group isn't utterly stymied, just hindered.

But when it comes to certain things that are cool to do, I want the PCs to need magic equipment. If that fighter wants to fly, he better have boots of flying on. If the rogue wants to turn truly invisible, he better have a ring of invisibility on. Of course, none of these things are generally 'required' for the characters to do their thing, but it sure is cool when they do have them.

 

[Hassassin]

I think there was some attempt to do this in the past, but I feel that almost everything interesting was almost always in the "wonderous" category. I think Wizards could take a hint from their MTG game design for what can qualify as "common" in relative magical power levels. Being common shouldn't mean it's basically worthless, it should just mean it's common. Can any blackmsith worth their salt make a Masterwork weapon? Yes. That means it's common.

Items with truly magical abilities(on use/on hit/ect..) should always be uncommon, but your generic +1 amulet of protection I think, might not be such.

I think they should tie the commonness of items to who makes them.

Common items can be made by many non-spellcasting alchemists and artisans. You will find someone who can make (some of) these items in even small towns and there's an economy for them in larger communities. These are items that the PCs can make if they choose the options and have the down time.

Uncommon items aren't readily in circulation, but you can find them and often a spellcaster who can make some of them. They may not have listed prices and you will probably have to pay with favors and not just gold. The option for crafting these is available to the players if the DM says so. High magic campaigns may treat these like common items.

Rare items are always made for a specific use. They are almost always named items, whether their power is artifact level or not. Powerful spellcasters create them using more art than science, and they often have strange side effects or "curses". You won't find a price for them, instead they are McGuffins you go on quests for. Crafting them requires rituals and is always in the hands of the DM.

I would have consumables like potions in the "common" category, simple permanent items like a protective charm, a magical sword or an everburning torch in the "uncommon" category, and anything complex in the "rare" category.

Nothing in the game (like monster immunities) should assume the characters have access to anything other than common items.

 

[grimslade]

This entirely depends on how you look at magic items. In the common D&D trope, your are correct that its basically a junk drop. "Oh gee, another +1 Weapon... toss it in the bad with the other dozen".

However, it doesn't NEED to be that way. A +1 magical sword is many things. It is lighter and faster (bonus to attack), it is sharper (bonus damage), it doesn't need to be sharpened, it never rusts, it is far harder to destroy than a normal weapon of the same type*. It could even be argued that Excalibur was simply a +1 sword.

But why is it a +1 sword? Excalibur is the equivalent of a stat bonus. How magical. All magic swords confer the eternal sharpness, no rust and resistance to sunder. So the +1 provides a ~5% better chance to hit, and a bump to average damage of less than a die bump.
I dislike a stat bump magic item which is what a flat bonus weapon is. It is the mechanics intruding into the game.
A magically quicker and sharper blade sounds great. A blade that can make a farmer fight as well as a trained soldier or better is a nice effect. Can we avoid the representation as a +1 bonus? Can we stop bonus bloat?

 

[Starfox]

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.

This is VERY true, and probably a big part of the perceived over-powerdness of spellcasting classes. Around here, magic items tend to be plentiful, which goes a long way towards improving the fighting classes - to the point that most campaigns here use some kind of optional Metamagic rules to balance spellcasters. I've not spoken so much about this before, but in a high-magic-item game like most around here, fighting types get out ahead - the Wizard's ability to fly is not so impressive when everyone can fly, the Clerics Bull's Strength spell become much less impressive when they don't stack with the PC's Girdles of Giant Strength and so on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I ran games for decades without ever having a "wish list" but still had a clue what would be useful to each player. That's the DM's job IMO.

I think the problem is in the statement of the DM only giving out what the Player wants. If a player wants a very specific item, that should become a part of the campaign and be researched and quested for. Not just randomly dropped by the DM or bought at Magi-Mart (unless you Really want to run a game where magic is so common items can be bought off the shelf).

I agree that 4E went too far with the personal shopping lists. IMHO, the system became like an MMO where the players "expected" items to drop and that it should be easy to get the exact item they want. Also, IMHO, it shouldn't be that way. Magic items should be more rare, hold more wonder. If the party finds a +2 Flaming Longsword (and assuming the DM put it in the treasure because someone in the party uses longswords) the party member who uses it should be excited to be using it, not have the attitude of "Well that sucks, I wanted a magical Keen blade... guess we have to go trade this in."

I don't have the slightest clue where people get some idea that 4e ever in any way shape or form advocated giving the players what they want. There is ONE SENTENCE in the entire DMG (note, NOT the PHB) where it says "Hey, maybe you want to get a wish list from the players." ALL it is is a suggestion that the DM might want to know what the players actually want, lol.

What the DM does with that information isn't even mentioned. Presumably we're all capable of deciding that. Maybe some DMs want to hand out the player's wish list like candy, fine. Most of us probably won't exactly do that. I give out what I feel like giving out. If it happens to be on the player's wish list, bully for them. If not and they want something bad enough, they can go find it. I'll happily cook up some plot hook for them. Why not?

It is just no more or less of an issue than it ever has been in any edition of the game. I mean it ain't like every 1e fighter didn't want a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength, a +5 weapon, +5 armor, a +3 shield, and a +3 Ring of Protection, right? Of course they did.

It won't be any different in 5e. Maybe the items the players want will be different and maybe they will or won't be as powerful as they were in AD&D, who knows? Given that 4e items are mostly pretty mild and players STILL want specific items I doubt anything much will change regardless.

 

[Hassassin]

I don't have the slightest clue where people get some idea that 4e ever in any way shape or form advocated giving the players what they want. There is ONE SENTENCE in the entire DMG (note, NOT the PHB) where it says "Hey, maybe you want to get a wish list from the players." ALL it is is a suggestion that the DM might want to know what the players actually want, lol.

It's one paragraph, actually. But the previous paragraph ends with a sentence that I find represents all that is wrong with 4e absolutist writing style:

If none of the characters in your 6th-level party uses a longbow, don’t put a 10th-level longbow in your dungeon as treasure.​

Yeah, because the world must revolve around the party and other ways to play are Wrong. Wishlists are just one example of this thinking.

/offtopic

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's one paragraph, actually. But the previous paragraph ends with a sentence that I find represents all that is wrong with 4e absolutist writing style:

If none of the characters in your 6th-level party uses a longbow, don’t put a 10th-level longbow in your dungeon as treasure.​

Yeah, because the world must revolve around the party and other ways to play are Wrong. Wishlists are just one example of this thinking.

/offtopic

If none of the characters in your 6th-level party uses a longbow, don’t put a 10th-level longbow in your dungeon as treasure.

Note the highlighted clause. If the party can't use a level 10 item, then why would you give it to them and count it against their treasure parcels? It isn't a treasure to them, its just a 'mathom'. Of course maybe they can sell it or disenchant it or trade it to someone for something, etc. You'll kinda have to use your judgement, but in no case should useless items be counted as treasure in the usual way. Can't say I disagree with them.

And really, read previous DMGs much? The 4e DMG makes far less absolutist statements about play than either of the AD&D ones ever did. Heck, the 1e DMG is chock full of 'you must do this', 'absolutely do that', 'never do thus-and-such', etc.

 

[Hassassin]

And really, read previous DMGs much? The 4e DMG makes far less absolutist statements about play than either of the AD&D ones ever did. Heck, the 1e DMG is chock full of 'you must do this', 'absolutely do that', 'never do thus-and-such', etc.

I would have to read them again to see if that's true. Maybe it's because after the IMO more inclusive 3e that kind of style seemed more restrictive, or maybe what AD&D advocated just matched my expectations and preferences better.