New Monte Cook article Magic and Mystery

Dragonblade

Adventurer
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Magic and Mystery)

I agree with him in some respects. I don't think magic item acquisition should be an expected part of character advancement and built into the math of the game.

But I don't want a 5e that simply retreads what 3e or prior editions did. I want a 5e thats flexible enough to handle magic the classic way and the 4e way. DMs should be able to give out lots of magic items, or very little, and it should have no bearing on the math of the game.

I posted my thoughts on this in another thread, but essentially I either want inherent bonuses as the default rule and just make it so they don't stack with magic item enhancement bonuses. Thats the simple solution. You can still have your +5 swords and whatnot, but the DM doesn't have to give them out at all and the players will still be able to take on level appropriate challenges.

Another idea is to take the math of magic out of the game altogether, and magic items simply provide a suite of powers but only a minimal or no numeric bonus at all.

So you might have a Sword of Undead Slaying, it provides a +1 (just to reflect its superiority over mundane items), and a +2 vs undead (to make it meaningful, but no items outside of artifacts ever give more than a +2). Then have the sword provide a suite of cool powers such as:

Upon command, the sword glows with a holy radiance that provides bright illumination out to 30'. Undead within the light cannot regenerate, or heal. The sword grants its wielder the equivalent of Great Cleave vs undead opponents. The sword has double its crit range against undead opponents and any slain by the sword cannot rise again. The sword can also strike and cut incorporeal undead as if they were solid.

So there you have a cool item, that doesn't break the game mathematically, and is equally useful in the hands of a low level or high level PC.

Monte Cook mentions wands that contain a spell, and that concerns me. I prefer the idea of 4e implements. Wands that make wizards better casters, not that simply act as charged spell batteries. I'm ok with 5e including both types, but I prefer the 4e method of mages using staves or spells to enhance their spellcasting. I also like spellcasters that roll to cast vs defenses as opposed to saves vs. a static DC. This is an improvement that 4e should retain.

I'm growing increasingly concerned that Monte is throwing the baby out with the bath water here. Especially, since I get the distinct impression that he isn't familiar with 4e at all. I feel that is a mistake.

There are a lot of good mechanics in 4e, and I want many of those innovations kept for 5e. A 5e that is simply a prior edition retread serves no one. It won't sell to those who like 4e, nor will it sell to those who have already gone down the Pathfinder road.

I currently play both, and have no interest in WotC releasing a Pathfinder clone.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I think Monte Cook is on the right track and have similar design ideas in the upcoming Griffins & Grottos. I'll post some thoughts on this to the CMG blog Triad soon and link to the post once it is available.
 

Alright, his last article left me at best confused, and at worst thinking that he was confused. This one, however? I like it. It's on my wavelength.
 

It all sounds reasonable. While Monte does not seem to be familiar with 4e, his concepts translate into 4e. Eg I dislike that 4e's 'treasure parcels' are supposed to base off PC level, not off encounter level. Monte is arguing for the latter, so that's good by me.
 

I sense that this article have in common with the last one is the quest for the sweet spot.

By changing the skill system so you only roll sometimes and at a fixed DC you can create a system where you most of the time roll dice with sweet spot odds.

By removing the inherent bonuses of magical items and the dependence on magic items you remove a big problem when it comes to sweet spot integrity.

Tighter math means a more enjoyable game. At least in theory.
 


I need to print this column out, so I can cuddle up to it and keep warm at night.

Seriously, I've wanted something like this for years (and I say that as a vocal fan of 3E and 4E both). I want magic items to have absolutely zero built-in connection to character advancement. I wand there to be exactly zero requirement that everyone have precisely the same number/value of items. And I want items to be interesting, by which I mean that no item should ever solely, or even primarily, add a numerical bonus to something. (And yes, that means I think that the idea of the +X items should be greatly curtailed, if not utterly eliminated.)

Dunno how possible it is to rewire either of the current editions to work that way, or if it would require the dreaded 5E, but I would weep grateful tears of holy water and Dos Equis if it happened.
 

As I said in the other thread:

Monte seems to be making the assumption that magic items cannot be an expected part of character advancement and a reward at the same time. On the other hand, he also seems to be advocating a style of play in which rewards are generally commensurate with the challenges overcome by the character: in order to get that 10th-level magic item, you need to defeat a 10th-level monster, for example.

He doesn't seem to realize that matching rewards to challenges implies that the rewards become expected. The specifics may vary, of course, and treasure generation may even be random, but if a 1st-level encounter has a 50% chance of generating a 1st-level magic item as a reward, and a party of 1st-level PCs are expected to overcome 10 1st-level encounters before they earn enough XP to reach 2nd level, they should expect to gain 5 1st-level magic items before they reach level 2.

What he might be advocating for is the need to trim the Christmas tree down even further or even eliminate it entirely, so that the DM can hand out any magic item and not worry that the PCs have apprpriate magic weapons, armor and neck slot items to keep up with "the math", or that players should not get to choose what magic items they earn. I'm okay with the former, but I will ignore any advice related to the latter. I've been allowing players to choose what magic items they gain since 3E, and it's working fine in my group. Naturally, YMMV.
 

In my own game, I eliminated any sort of wealth by level system, as well as eliminating the necessity of magic items. People in my game have acquired a ring that created a light that only one person could see and thought it was amazing. Just getting rid of the quantity, required magic items dramatically increased fun with magic items for us.

So, in essence, while I was part of the 12% that disliked the ideas in his first article, I really agree with this article. I hope he keeps it up. As always, play what you like :)
 

Just read the article, and I've been following the series for a bit and occasionally there were some real interesting points and discussions. But for a series titled Design & Development it seems like there really hasn't been much innovation (at least that's shared publicly).

The conversation about the nature of magic items in the game is recurring and IMO dull. I'd like to see some fresh questions, some really exciting design ideas that let these two (well, Monte Cook now) flex their beautiful game designer wings.
 

Remove ads

Top