D&D General Passive Power Budget: Balancing Magic Item Attunement, Concentration and Everything Else Properly (or Die Trying)

[Fanaelialae]

Not in 3.5.

In theory it was you have xyz treasure. Not specific items.

You coukd have lots of them or a few big ones. The game assumes you have them. Its not baked into the math. Game assumed wealth by level you could theoretically turn into items.

In practice it was usually whatever the DM gave you abd buy a few and you might come close to DMG guidelines. It was all over the place in practice. I saw groups with large piles of gold and few items and the opposite.

Not baked into the math. Game assuming you have some isn't baked into the math. Theres no relation between monster defenses and assumed numbers. That's the 4E treadmill effect via assumptions.

5.0 doesnt assume even that.

That was indeed the theory. In practice, you needed the big number items because the math assumed them. If you didn't have them, you were falling behind. I played in a few campaigns where the DM ignored Wealth By Level. It was like playing on Ultrahard difficulty, because if you didn't have the right magic items you were behind the math curve, and it only got worse the higher in level you got. There was one 3.x campaign where we had a minimum of one character death every single session after we hit about 5th or 6th level, primarily because we barely got any magic items. It only got worse the higher in level we got.

4e baked the math in but they were at least up front about it, and they had an optional rule that granted you the bonuses based on your level, so you didn't really need magic items. I'd say that, overall, the general sentiment was that magic items were underwhelming, not that they overwhelmed the math.

 

[Remathilis]

When you bake magic items into the math, you create serval problems the game now has to address:

1. You need to give magic items frequently. As in, fast enough to account for leveling. Otherwise the characters are too weak for their level.
2. You can't take magic items away for the same reason.
3.interesting or flavorful items ignored in favor of math-improving ones. Especially true if PCs can buy or make their own.

Your system needs to account for this or all the 3e era issues come flooding back.

 

[Maxperson]

Not in 3.5.

In theory it was you have xyz treasure. Not specific items.

You coukd have lots of them or a few big ones. The game assumes you have them. Its not baked into the math. Game assumed wealth by level you could theoretically turn into items.

In practice it was usually whatever the DM gave you abd buy a few and you might come close to DMG guidelines. It was all over the place in practice. I saw groups with large piles of gold and few items and the opposite.

Not baked into the math. Game assuming you have some isn't baked into the math. Theres no relation between monster defenses and assumed numbers. That's the 4E treadmill effect via assumptions.

5.0 doesnt assume even that.

What I quoted WAS 3.5. If you want to argue that the 3.5e DMG is lying, you need to provide hard printed proof from the 3.5e creators saying so.

 

[Maxperson]

That was indeed the theory. In practice, you needed the big number items because the math assumed them. If you didn't have them, you were falling behind. I played in a few campaigns where the DM ignored Wealth By Level. It was like playing on Ultrahard difficulty, because if you didn't have the right magic items you were behind the math curve, and it only got worse the higher in level you got. There was one 3.x campaign where we had a minimum of one character death every single session after we hit about 5th or 6th level, primarily because we barely got any magic items. It only got worse the higher in level we got.

It's not even the theory. The quote I provided was from the 3.5e DMG and it said straight out that if you don't get enough magic items, you WILL fall behind.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Why not? They have greater education, greater knowledge of magic, and they're the ones who make the items. Seems logical.

Plus, wands and staves are largely rare or very rare.

Bear mind though, in my campaign, I house ruled that casting spells off scrolls still costs a spell slot.

You could just as easily write the fiction to throw non-casters a bone rather than yet more rich get richer caster fest.

The lingering magical energies from attuning magic items interfere with the casting process making it harder for the magic to flow through the caster. Boom, done.

Non-casters can attune 5 items, half casters can attune 4, full casters can attune 3.

 

[Stormonu]

You could just as easily write the fiction to throw non-casters a bone rather than yet more rich get richer caster fest.

The lingering magical energies from attuning magic items interfere with the casting process making it harder for the magic to flow through the caster. Boom, done.

Non-casters can attune 5 items, half casters can attune 4, full casters can attune 3.

I kinda like that. The more magical your character is already, the less magic they can attach to themselves.

 

[Zardnaar]

What I quoted WAS 3.5. If you want to argue that the 3.5e DMG is lying, you need to provide hard printed proof from the 3.5e creators saying so.

Aware its not baked into the math as such.

Got a table that says so? Theres no relation between monster AC, BAB and any expected magic items.

Youre making the claim. I bet you can"t find a table breaking it down.

Theres wealth by level and its mostly up to you what you buy assuming the DM is using it.

The math is not valid in beyond a statement you need some magic items.

 

[Silam]

Aware its not baked into the math as such.

Got a table that says so? Theres no relation between monster AC, BAB and any expected magic items.

Youre making the claim. I bet you can"t find a table breaking it down.

Theres wealth by level and its mostly up to you what you buy assuming the DM is using it.

The math is not valid in beyond a statement you need some magic items.

I think the disconnect between you and @Maxperson might be in terms of different design philosophies…

3.5e had a lot of variance. Not every fight was the same. Each new monster was a "puzzle"… does this one have weak Touch AC? Weak flat-footed AC? Weak Ref, Will or Fort saves? Once you figured it out, you found ways to attack that. A +x weapon was only useful in cases where AC is the angle through which to get at the monster, while it would be useless if the only weakness(es) were in their saves. But (I think) the idea was that on average magic items would help a bit.

In 4e, they might have flattened the variance and put a given CR within a much more narrow band. Certainly the 4e design for saving throws is in that spirit (best of two stat affect a save, meaning everybody’s got fine saves in everything…). Boring was a design feature, not a bug. But boring and lack of variance does not mean it is "taking the math into account" more than a system with more swinginess.

 

[Umbran]

Thoughts?

I don't find concentration on spells to be roughly equivalent to use of a magic item, so I'm not sure if this would do what I would want it to do.

Overall, regularizing magic items in the past has wound up equivalent to setting a game assumption for how many items groups and individuals have, and of what power, and it hasn't worked terribly well.

I'm okay with leaving magic item balance in D&D up to the GMs.

 

[Maxperson]

Aware its not baked into the math as such.

Got a table that says so? Theres no relation between monster AC, BAB and any expected magic items.

Youre making the claim. I bet you can"t find a table breaking it down.

Theres wealth by level and its mostly up to you what you buy assuming the DM is using it.

The math is not valid in beyond a statement you need some magic items.

You can see it in the books. It's based around wealth by level and the magic item compendium, coupled with the NPCs magic items per level in the DMG, you can see the stuff match up. You can also look at the MM recommendations for AC by CR, which are high for PCs unless they have magic weapons.

A CR 8 creature should have an AC of 21. Lower if it's harder in other areas, and higher if it's easier in other areas or you want a hard encounter. An 8th level fighter has +8, around a 16-18 strength for +11 or +12 to hit on his first attack, and +6 to +7 on his second attack. He probably has another +1 from feats, but without a magic weapon he's still going to have a high miss chance for his first attack and will probably miss his second attack.

If we assume +13 to hit at 8th level(BAB, Str and feat), he's going to miss 35% of the time with his first swing, and 60% of the time with his second swing. And remember, AC goes up by one per CR, so even though BAB matches that increase and you get the occasional strength boost every 8 levels, the third and fourth attacks will be worthless if you don't periodically increase to a +2, then +3, then +4, and finally +5 weapon. Again, look at the NPCs and item level charts in the Magic Item Compendium.

This stuff is baked into the math. It's just not as front and center as the 4e math which is told to you more directly.