Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 5697683" data-attributes="member: 2804"><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20111004" target="_blank">Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Magic and Mystery)</a>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.</blockquote>

Verification