D&D 5E Oct playtest magic items are legend---wait for it--ary!

[Jeff Carlsen]

Possible modifications that might allow such play do come to mind, yes. In addition, the set of "guidelines" concerning the character levels for which various levels of item might be "appropriate" seems to chime discordantly with the actual system presented. Does the "Magic Item Rarity" table mean that, if you roll for a "tough" encounter that 3rd level characters are to face and get a result including one or more "Rare" items, you ought to ignore that result because "Rare" items are "appropriate" only for characters of level 5 or above?

I think they're supposed to be two different tools, and they aren't intended to be used together. The rarity by level chart provides guidance for when you're picking and choosing individual magic items for an adventure, and is for games where you want a steady increase in the power of items. The Easy, Moderate, and Tough charts are for if you want to roll randomly and have surprises.

 

[tlantl]

That's from September's Wandering Monsters column at Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Bigger They Come . . .). So, not an actual promise or anything, but what with all the statements about supporting classic D&D lore, a very strong implication that seems to have been disregarded in this case.

Me, I'm gonna be going with the classic setup and reworking the Giant Strength items for my games. Something along the lines of giving the encumbrance levels for the associated giants Size rating, letting the wearer use size-appropriate weapons, and probably giving the wearer giant-style rock-throwing. I really like the idea that they were originally spouting about bounded accuracy, and I'm gonna work like hell to keep that in my game, no matter how much the core team gets lured away from it,

Yes, I realize that probably means I'm gonna end up house-ruling my way into a completely different home-brewed game system. Wouldn't be the first time.

Or because as some have pointed out these original numbers were too low when using the new version of ability score modifiers.

Go have a look at the strength score bonuses from the 1e monster manual II and you will see what I'm talking about.

Saying that they didn't do what they intended is misrepresenting the issue.

The real issue with really strong creatures and bounded accuracy is that the to hit numbers are too high. If the strength bonus to hit were halved then their bounded accuracy formulas wouldn't get mauled by really strong characters or monsters.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I'm also concerned by the stacking of magic items that grant bonuses to AC. Let's take a fighter with a +1 plate, a shield, a defender sword and a dusty rose prism ioun stone (for another +1 AC). Such a character can have an AC of 25! That's insane. Most monsters would only be able to hit the character if they rolled a natural 20. As bad as that is, even higher ACs than that may become possible once we see +3 armor and +X shields.

I have couple problems with this kneejerk:

1. +1 plate and Defenders are very rare and a dusty rose ioun stone is rare.
2. The Defender is a greatsword, so no shield, making the max AC 23 if the wielder puts the full +3 bonus into defense and AC 20 if he doesn't.
3. Currently the most powerful monsters in the bestiary(Minotaur and Troll) are level 6 with a +4 bonus 2 hit. The kit you describe can not be reasonably expected before level 10.

 

[Truename]

This technique generally requires, therefore, that the main "treasures" and the general "toughness" of the opposition be designated in advance - something that, with the rules presented in this packet, you cannot do.

I disagree. In fact, the packet addresses this specifically:

These tables are designed to help you award magic items based on the difficulty of a given encounter. You can determine the available items at the start of each encounter for a taste of unpredictability, or roll for all the encounters in a given adventure area ahead of time and parcel them out as you see fit.

It's also quite clear that the random tables are a tool whose results you can ignore or modify:

You can ignore the result of a roll or modify it as suits your needs... You could instead pick one or two appropriate items for that award and scatter the rest throughout the adventure. Or you could save up several results and award them all at once, when dramatically appropriate.

And you can choose not to use the tables at all (emphasis added):

When you create your own adventures, it’s up to you as the DM to determine where magic items are located... The tables that follow provide guidelines for awarding magic items based on the difficulty of encounters. You can add or withhold magic items in your adventures as you see fit; such items are an award, not a necessary part of a player character's advancement.

This all seems perfectly compatible with a sandbox campaign to me. Either you just decide where the items go, or you roll (in advance) for each encounter area based on your opinion of whether it's an 'easy' 'moderate' or 'tough' area, or you roll and then tweak the results to taste. Or something else. "It's up to you as the DM to determine where magic items are located."

 

[Raith5]

I see this as a matter of scale. If you are planning on having games span a dozen or more levels then you dispense those items over a longer period of time. I don't plan out thirty level campaigns, I seldom plan out anything over two or three levels and go from there. I don't play D&D for epic plots or long drawn out plotlines so I don't really have too much invested in the long run. The highest level characters I ever ran were mid to upper teens in AD&D and those characters were several real time years old by the time they reached those levels. .

This is true, you dont have to automatically get these items at 9th - but the level distributions in the playtest give some rough sense of how they are going to pace magic items (especially the high profile ones) across the levels of PCs. I think that range should be broader than what they show - for me a vorpal sword is a 16+ level weapon, not a 9+ level weapon.

I am basically a one campaign per edition player - so all my campaigns have gone beyond 4 + years. So I like high level play - both for the crazy combats and roleplaying reasons.

I am not sure many people care about this but I my underlying point here is that you need to leave game play space (magic items, monsters, spells) for higher level and epic level play to work.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

This is true, you dont have to automatically get these items at 9th - but the level distributions in the playtest give some rough sense of how they are going to pace magic items (especially the high profile ones) across the levels of PCs. I think that range should be broader than what they show - for me a vorpal sword is a 16+ level weapon, not a 9+ level weapon.

Yeah, I'm sensing some real ambivalence from WOTC as to what the level range of this edition will be.

Clearly they're not even thinking of anything past 10th level right now in terms of class design. But I understood that to mean that they're just holding off until they get levels 1-10 right before moving on to "paragon" tier classes, abilities, specialties, etc., with the adjustments to math and abilities that the change entails. (For example, they might have to bump up damage from basic attacks and cantrips so that they keep better pace with special attacks.)

That particular item table makes it sound more like they're imagining a game that ends at level 10, with level 11 being epic. To me, that sounds very limiting. Like a lot of people I personally enjoy lower-level play, but that's partly BECAUSE level 10 characters aren't walking around with artifacts.

So I'd say, take that chart and stretch it out to level 20.

One thing I do like a lot: no generic items above +1.

 

[Steely_Dan]

But I understood that to mean that they're just holding off until they get levels 1-10 right before moving on to "paragon" tier classes, abilities,

I'm hoping it will be more organic than that.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Not quite - per page 2, one permanent item corresponds to 1d2+2 consumables of the same rarity.

Ah, I didn't notice that. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Falling Icicle]

+1 plate and Defenders are very rare and a dusty rose ioun stone is rare.

Rarity doesn't excuse the stacking problem. Rarity is entirely subjective and up to invidual DMs and campaigns. In one campaign, such items may be extremely rare, so you won't likely run into the stacking issue because PCs won't likely have more than one of those items, if they are lucky enough to even have one. But what about campaigns where PCs do have those items? It's important to balance the items around the assumption that people will have them, not around the assumption that they won't. That way, these items won't be a detriment to the games of people who want to include them in their games.

The Defender is a greatsword, so no shield, making the max AC 23 if the wielder puts the full +3 bonus into defense and AC 20 if he doesn't.

You're right, my bad. The shield was only 1 point of that character's AC though, so it's still a problem. I was also assuming that the character was "only" wearing +1 plate, when armor can go as high as +3. And who knows what other miscellaneous AC boosting items may be published? Without a rule against them stacking with each other, the example I provided may even be on the low end of what's possible, and that's a terrifying thought.

Currently the most powerful monsters in the bestiary(Minotaur and Troll) are level 6 with a +4 bonus 2 hit. The kit you describe can not be reasonably expected before level 10.

Because of bounded accuracy, we can expect that even high level monsters won't have an attack bonus that is too much higher than the monsters we have now. Even monsters with a +10 to attack will only be able to hit an AC 25 character on a roll of 15 or better (meaning that they will miss roughly 70% of the time, on average). For every point of AC the character adds, that miss chance increases by an additional 5%. It is very important for the game that both attack values and AC be kept in careful check, or else you can end up with fights where people almost always hit on one end, or whifflebat fights on the other. Neither extreme is acceptable.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The ring of protection has an intresting presadent...it does not stack.

Maybe we need another step back... remember old school AC had a cap of -10 (that would be 30 in new way to count.)

 

[Lanefan]

Then either halve, third or quarter the xp gains or figure out how to expand level growth to level 60.

Plus I think 10 equal level normal encounters is the standard average with short adventures having 1 to 3 encounters and long adventures being up to around 15 encounters. It is only multi-level mega adventures that tend to have more than 20+ assumed encounters.

You've been running different adventures than I have.

If you look at most of the "classics" from 1e you'll find there's often 20-30 or more scripted encounters plus wandering monsters plus whatever they might meet en route to/from the actual adventure site. And I don't consider those "mega-dungeons", to me those are average normal adventures. Most of the modules found in (for example) Dungeon magazine are almost mini-adventures; something you'd toss in on the side between more significant things.

Temple of Elemental Evil, on the other hand, which has I-don't-know-how-many-hundred encounters in it over 4 massive levels plus several side levels - now that's a mega-dungeon.

Lanefan

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

You've been running different adventures than I have.

If you look at most of the "classics" from 1e you'll find there's often 20-30 or more scripted encounters plus wandering monsters plus whatever they might meet en route to/from the actual adventure site. And I don't consider those "mega-dungeons", to me those are average normal adventures. Most of the modules found in (for example) Dungeon magazine are almost mini-adventures; something you'd toss in on the side between more significant things.

Temple of Elemental Evil, on the other hand, which has I-don't-know-how-many-hundred encounters in it over 4 massive levels plus several side levels - now that's a mega-dungeon.

Lanefan

I was referring to adventures published during 3rd-edition and later where most of the adventures are designed with 10 encounters for a single level gain over the course of that adventure.

When I said "Multi-level adventure" I was referring to class level gain and not dungeon structural levels.

Pre-3rd edition and Post-2nd edition adventures have a completely different encounter density and this would make a very good topic that we should possibly split off from this thread.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Rarity doesn't excuse the stacking problem. Rarity is entirely subjective and up to invidual DMs and campaigns. In one campaign, such items may be extremely rare, so you won't likely run into the stacking issue because PCs won't likely have more than one of those items, if they are lucky enough to even have one. But what about campaigns where PCs do have those items? It's important to balance the items around the assumption that people will have them, not around the assumption that they won't. That way, these items won't be a detriment to the games of people who want to include them in their games.

The basic game is going to be balanced around not having magic items.

The rarity type is a power level indicator in addition to being a standard availability indicator.

You're right, my bad. The shield was only 1 point of that character's AC though, so it's still a problem. I was also assuming that the character was "only" wearing +1 plate, when armor can go as high as +3. And who knows what other miscellaneous AC boosting items may be published? Without a rule against them stacking with each other, the example I provided may even be on the low end of what's possible, and that's a terrifying thought.

If they exist +2 Plate (AC 20) is going to be at least a Legendary item and +3 Plate (AC 21) is going to be at least an Artifact. Also +X Shields may not even exist in the game outside of homebrew and 3rd party products which WotC can not control.

Currently 6 non-armor magic items have AC boosting properties. Two (Bracers of Armor and Robes of the Archmagi) grant AC by being armor in all but name, one (Defender) is a magic two handed sword that forces the wielder to sacrifice offensive power for defensive strength, one (Ring of Protection) does not stack with other bonuses, and the last two (Dusty Rose Prism and Pale Green Prism) can be stolen or attacked independently of you.

Because of bounded accuracy, we can expect that even high level monsters won't have an attack bonus that is too much higher than the monsters we have now. Even monsters with a +10 to attack will only be able to hit an AC 25 character on a roll of 15 or better (meaning that they will miss roughly 70% of the time, on average). For every point of AC the character adds, that miss chance increases by an additional 5%. It is very important for the game that both attack values and AC be kept in careful check, or else you can end up with fights where people almost always hit on one end, or whifflebat fights on the other. Neither extreme is acceptable.

And AC 26 is looking to be the max, the defensive ideal, reached only by wearing a one of a kind artifact armor and wielding a very rare magic greatsword while two magic stones (one rare and one legendary) float around your head and fighting in a defensive manner (dumping all of the weapon's bonuses into defense). Discounting the Defender (which has a trade off that in some ways make it the equivalent of a +2 magic weapon and a shield), AC 23 (and 24 with a shield) is looking to be the expected max AC for a fully kitted out heavy armor character something that should happen after level 10 and only rarely even then.

The only real problem I see is in the Ioun Stones which need to be modified to avoid having the effects of multiple of the same color stacking.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The basic game is going to be balanced around not having magic items.

While magical items aren't going to be an assumed part of character's statistics at any given level, it's still important that they be balanced so that if people choose to use them in their games, it won't turn the game into a wreck.

As I said before, the fact that magic items are optional doesn't mean that it's okay for them to grant bonuses that go through the roof. On the contrary, because the game doesn't assume their presence, it's even more important that the bonuses they grant be kept at a reasonable level.

The rarity type is a power level indicator in addition to being a standard availability indicator.

Rarity is only a rough overall gauge of power and also only measures an item's power by itself. It doesn't measure how items can interact and increase their power together. When items stack, their power together is often greater than the sum of their parts. This creates problems because one item of the same rarity can have a dramatically different impact than another item of the same rarity, depending on whether the PC has another item that stacks with it.

The best solution to this problem is simply not to allow like effects to stack with each other, except in a few specific and carefully considered cases.

If they exist +2 Plate (AC 20) is going to be at least a Legendary item and +3 Plate (AC 21) is going to be at least an Artifact. Also +X Shields may not even exist in the game outside of homebrew and 3rd party products which WotC can not control.

I'm hoping there won't be +X shields at all. That said, it wouldn't be a big deal if their magical bonus didn't stack with that from armor or other AC enhancement items.

Currently 6 non-armor magic items have AC boosting properties. Two (Bracers of Armor and Robes of the Archmagi) grant AC by being armor in all but name, one (Defender) is a magic two handed sword that forces the wielder to sacrifice offensive power for defensive strength, one (Ring of Protection) does not stack with other bonuses, and the last two (Dusty Rose Prism and Pale Green Prism) can be stolen or attacked independently of you.

And AC 26 is looking to be the max, the defensive ideal, reached only by wearing a one of a kind artifact armor and wielding a very rare magic greatsword while two magic stones (one rare and one legendary) float around your head and fighting in a defensive manner (dumping all of the weapon's bonuses into defense). Discounting the Defender (which has a trade off that in some ways make it the equivalent of a +2 magic weapon and a shield), AC 23 (and 24 with a shield) is looking to be the expected max AC for a fully kitted out heavy armor character something that should happen after level 10 and only rarely even then.

The only real problem I see is in the Ioun Stones which need to be modified to avoid having the effects of multiple of the same color stacking.

What we have is only a small sample of items for playtesting. What really concerns me is how many of these items there will be later. By having a rule that prohibits them from stacking, we wouldn't have to worry about how many AC boosting items are published later. They'd just be extra options, rather than each one raising the AC cap even further.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

While magical items aren't going to be an assumed part of character's statistics at any given level, it's still important that they be balanced so that if people choose to use them in their games, it won't turn the game into a wreck.

True, but you seem to be focused on a Muchkinesque corner case.

As I said before, the fact that magic items are optional doesn't mean that it's okay for them to grant bonuses that go through the roof. On the contrary, because the game doesn't assume their presence, it's even more important that the bonuses they grant be kept at a reasonable level.

And I think you are making a kneejerk reaction to reasonable levels, and panicking about monsters being ineffective when full equipped in currently theoretical equipment when we have not seen Giants, Dragons, Demons or Devils yet.

Rarity is only a rough overall gauge of power and also only measures an item's power by itself. It doesn't measure how items can interact and increase their power together. When items stack, their power together is often greater than the sum of their parts. This creates problems because one item of the same rarity can have a dramatically different impact than another item of the same rarity, depending on whether the PC has another item that stacks with it.

I'm just not seeing the multiplicative synergy you seem to be implying.

The best solution to this problem is simply not to allow like effects to stack with each other, except in a few specific and carefully considered cases.

And currently

I'm hoping there won't be +X shields at all. That said, it wouldn't be a big deal if their magical bonus didn't stack with that from armor or other AC enhancement items.

Currently that seems to be the plan since the Spellguard Shield does not have one, and shields are not listed in the +1 armor section.

What we have is only a small sample of items for playtesting. What really concerns me is how many of these items there will be later. By having a rule that prohibits them from stacking, we wouldn't have to worry about how many AC boosting items are published later. They'd just be extra options, rather than each one raising the AC cap even further.

And they close off design space if they institute a default rule non-stacking magic item bonuses policy. In fact two of the items (Defender and Dusty Rose Prism) would be rendered worthless right off the bat.

 

[JoeCrow]

Currently that seems to be the plan since the Spellguard Shield does not have one, and shields are not listed in the +1 armor section.

Well, there is the +1 shield in the Caves of Chaos. Not sure if that counts. They did change the text of that encounter a bit from the first version, and changed it from a +1 heavy shield to a +1 shield, now that there's no "heavy" shield.

 

[triqui]

The new magic item rules are great. I love the flavor, I love them being unique and with personality, I love the concept.

A few things I disagree: belts giving a fixed Str. Yes, it has the nostalgia bonus. But it also make dumping very rewarding. If you dump str to 8, and then you find or build a giant str belt, you get more bang from your buck than if you don't dump str. That's wrong. Similarly, it also means belts give more to classes and characters who don't invest in STR. If you are a fighter, and you have STR 18, getting a Belt of STR does not give you a great benefit, while it will help your STR 14 battle cleric a lot. That's weird. Fighter-types should strive for STR boosters.

Also, I think there are a few items that give too high static bonuses. For example, Defender sword. Take it, never pass anything to AC, and there you go, a +3 sword.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The ring of protection has an intresting presadent...it does not stack.

I have to admit that this particular rulelet is, so far, one of my least favorite parts of the playtest rules.

I hate, hate, hate, HATE, HATE! fiddly little "this stacks, but this doesn't, except sometimes" exceptions on an item-by-item basis.

While the bonus type proliferation of 3E was not wholly justified, it absolutely had its heart in the right place.

So, magic shields and magic armor stack just fine, but a ring or protection doesn't stack with either, currently - then you get an "Amulet of Preservation" which doesn't stack with armor, but stacks with spells granting AC, and etc., etc., etc.

No.

Bonus types - 3E did this right.

 

[billd91]

The new magic item rules are great. I love the flavor, I love them being unique and with personality, I love the concept.

A few things I disagree: belts giving a fixed Str. Yes, it has the nostalgia bonus. But it also make dumping very rewarding. If you dump str to 8, and then you find or build a giant str belt, you get more bang from your buck than if you don't dump str. That's wrong. Similarly, it also means belts give more to classes and characters who don't invest in STR. If you are a fighter, and you have STR 18, getting a Belt of STR does not give you a great benefit, while it will help your STR 14 battle cleric a lot. That's weird. Fighter-types should strive for STR boosters.

Though getting +2, +4, or even +6 wasn't a terrible thing in 3e, jumping to a fixed value isn't a bad thing either. It's awfully hard to dump the strength planning to get a belt of giant strength when their frequency is very low. It's more a case of serendipity allowing a significant repurposing of the character, like allowing that melee-capable cleric becoming a much harder hitter.

Important in all of this is the idea of magic item-based builds being hard to achieve, thus calling into question their rationality. In 1e/2e, without an expected magic item market and rules that made magic item creation difficult, you couldn't easily pursue the strategy that became the Big 6 in 3e. Sure, everybody wanted a ring or cloak of resistance, good armor or bracers, good magic weapons, and most fighters would have sold their souls for a girdle of giant strength. But you couldn't expect to have all, or even most, of them in a typical game. That changed with 3e's magic market assumption and easy magic item creation rules.
Dumping your strength to 8 assuming you can get a belt of giant strength is a foolish strategy. And you deserve any problems you suffer as a result.

 

[Falling Icicle]

True, but you seem to be focused on a Muchkinesque corner case.

I'm focused on what I think is a problem that needs to be fixed. That is, after all, the point of the playtest, to point out potential problems. People often find plenty of "corner cases" to min-max their characters.

We can debate how much of a "corner case" this issue might be, but it's not really relevant. Whether the stacking issue affects 1% of players or 100%, it's still a potential problem that should be looked into.

And I think you are making a kneejerk reaction to reasonable levels, and panicking about monsters being ineffective when full equipped in currently theoretical equipment when we have not seen Giants, Dragons, Demons or Devils yet.

Have I not provided enough thoughtful analysis (even if you disagree with it) to demonstrate that my reaction isn't "kneejerk" and that I'm not "panicking?" You seem to be implying that my position is irrational and purely based on emotion. It's not.

As for the stats of higher level monsters that we haven't seen yet, I have two things to say about that. First, the bounded accuracy design philosophy that they're using promises that high level monsters will not have vastly greater stats than lower level monsters. Assuming that they mean what they've said about that, we can expect the difference in attack bonuses and AC between low and high level monsters to be much smaller than in the past.

Second, without a general stacking rule, there is no limit on player AC. Players can effectively have an infinite AC, the only limit on it being the number of items they are able to obtain. Even in 3e with its infamous christmas tree effect and several different keywords, there was still an effective limit on how high players can go. Right now, 5e is even more liberal in allowing high ACs than 3.x was, and that's saying alot. In 5e, there is no limit to how high it can go. None.

And it's not just AC, either. Nothing is stopping people from having any number of stat-boosting ioun stones orbiting their head, either, allowing people to have effectively infinite ability scores, even though natural ability scores cap at 20.

I'm just not seeing the multiplicative synergy you seem to be implying.

"Multiplicative" is not a word I used. What I said was that two items that stack can have a bigger impact than either item would by itself.

Currently that seems to be the plan since the Spellguard Shield does not have one, and shields are not listed in the +1 armor section.

Not all magic armor has + bonuses either, elven chain being one example. I don't know whether they intend to have +X shields or not. I hope they don't. I was only mentioning it as a possibility.

And they close off design space if they institute a default rule non-stacking magic item bonuses policy. In fact two of the items (Defender and Dusty Rose Prism) would be rendered worthless right off the bat.

If they deliberately design an item to stack with other AC boosting items, they can put that in the item's rules. There can always be exceptions to general rules. Right now, the general rule is that AC bonuses all stack and an item must specifically state that it doesn't stack, as with the ring of protection. I just want to reverse that, and have the general rule be that they don't stack unless the item specifically says otherwise. No "design space" would be closed off by doing that.