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

[Maxperson]

You provided treasure tables page numbers.

I provided more than that.

 

[Zardnaar]

I provided more than that.

Well I just read them and provided a quote from DMG. Page 135 black and white.

Theres nothing in there whatsoever about exact numbers. It assumes magic items yes. It assumes you have wealth. It specifically says they make no such assumptions about what they are right there. Also says the wealth thing is guidelines only.

They may have changed there minds later but its not there in the DMG. It says the opposite in fact.

Treadmill was a 4E thing RAW, conceptually late 3.5 perhaps. Wasn't baked in. You get money and a shopping list. Guidelines only.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The other two threads on magic items made me write a long response which made me think it ought to be its own thread… so here goes:

It’d be nice if magic items were a built-in part of the power balance.

I agree. Not because I think everyone should be having the incredibly boring +N weapons and armor etc. But because I believe that item-acquisition is one of the critical, beating hearts of the D&D experience, and thus believe that the rules should be designed to support at least four things:

• 4e Dark Sun-style Inherent Bonuses: Your weapons do not make you strong. You make your weapons strong.
• OSR-style Easy Come, Easy Go: Durable magic items are rare and don't get traded. Fragile ones are accessible.
• Monster Hunter-style Build Your Arsenal: Who said only the ancients could make wonders? Find your materials, forge your legacy.
• Standard 4e-style Slow Accretion: Being an adventurer, you encounter magic things. Those magic things are, generally, proportional to the risk for the job, or better, because otherwise you wouldn't take the freakin' job.

You have one "concentration point" per level (so 1 at level 1, 20 at level 20). (Or make them scale like proficiency bonuses if you prefer, it doesn’t matter what the actual number is, as long as it starts low and gets higher)

If it's meant to require all your concentration when you gain a new spell level, then I would instead say have Concentration equal to half your character level, rounded up. A spell requires concentration equal to the spell level of the slot used to cast it.

Also, although it is not actually a problem, I will not be using the term "concentration points" because its abbreviation could be misunderstood. I will instead speak of Concentration score or tally.

Fighting styles, rage, unarmored defense, steady aim and all that jazz also require concentration points. They compete with spell concentration too. You can still be a gish, you just can’t concentrate on the best ever fighting style and the best ever spell simultaneously. You can do half-and-half.

Hmmm. The problem here is that Fighting Styles are much, MUCH weaker than spells. Fighting Styles would either need to be much stronger, or martial characters would need to get FAR greater access. As in you choose your preferred 4 styles to start with, and either add new basic ones, or get access to more powerful ones, as you gain levels. I don't think they should ever be quite as chonky as spells though--every Fighter should be doing at least 2-3 by the time they get to high level.

This is a very interesting idea though. You've taken your Concentration score concept and turned it into a general rules-tool. That's good design instinct. It'll need refinement, but I really like where this idea is coming from. It has legs.

And then we come to magic items. Those also take concentration points. If you don’t spend the points, the magic blade is just an inert piece of metal. You haven’t dominated it, mastered it. You’re too distracted focusing on a spell or a style or whatever else. There are no attunement slots, this mechanic replaces that.

I would say this needs to be handled extremely carefully, because now we run into the problem of spellcasters being denied enough Concentration to both have magic items of their own, and focus on a powerful concentration spell. Consider, if something like the Robe of Eyes requires 1 Concentration, which seems reasonable because it's a powerful magic item, you now have a character that has to choose between "use the cool spell I JUST learned" or "continue to benefit from the cool item I earned". That's not a fun choice, that's a "choose what benefit you aren't allowed to draw on today", which sucks.

Possible alternatives:

• Spells require concentration, they have enough spare points to also have an item or two by 5th level, but they cannot concentrate on more spells than half their proficiency bonus, rounded down.
• Spells require concentration, you have enough spare points etc. etc., but concentrating on more than one spell at a time is a high-level feature--the full-spellcaster's equivalent of high-level damage/attack features on martials. Various limitations to avoid abuse.
• Split items into three categories: generic, spellcaster, martialist. Spellcaster items are those that require attunement to a spellcaster, and their points do not count against you for the purpose of concentrating on spells. Martialist items are those that require attunement to a Fighting Style practitioner, and they do not count against you for the purpose of concentrating on styles. Generic items, unless otherwise stated, always count against both spells and styles.

I'm sure there are more options. I like the third a lot, but it's also the most ambitious, which means it's the most vulnerable to flawed design.

In the case of very powerful sentient magic items, such as (but not necessarily limited to) artifacts, if you don’t sink enough concentration points into controlling them, they might control you. The One Ring is a cursed item for anyone but Sauron, who is the only one strong enough to control it.

An interesting choice, but given items are functionally useless without concentration, I'm not sure this works well as presented. Consider: what if you could instead choose to invest less than the full concentration required for an item, but for each point C you skip, you have to face a DC 5C "Attunement" saving throw--no bonus, no proficiency--to avoid succumbing to the compulsions of the item. For weak 1C items, these compulsions are just funny, silly, or only mildly harmful. The more concentration an item requires, the more onerous its compulsions if you fail the save. Full-on Artifacts require 5 concentration--meaning, without some special aid, it's not possible to skip out on all of the concentration for it, because you can't pass a DC 25 saving throw with just 1d20.

This mechanic also opens up the door to scalable magic items. You pull Excalibur out of the rock all right, and surely you’re set for life with this thing. You won’t ever need any other weapon. It’s the best ever. But you may only be able to use it up to a +1 weapon for now. When you grow stronger, you might be able to allocate enough points into it to unlock its +2, then +3 power.

This could pair nicely with the above. That is, some items might have the [Scaling] tag. They don't require an Attunement save for partial concentration, they just give fewer benefits until/unless you fully master them. Definitely worth considering, especially for non-cursed Artifact-type items.

I could also see something like an [Augment] tag, where a basic item can become a [Scaling] item if improved, perhaps with specific magic materials, or by being exposed to specific energies or opponents. A Dragonslayer Greatsword, for example, might have the [Augment] tag: each time it is used to slay a dragon, the maximum potential Concentration investment goes up by 1, to a maximum of N (whatever is appropriate for the system's math.)

So you can pick a mid-level magic item and also concentrate on a mid-level CME and wack foes on the head. Or you can pick up a non-magic weapon (or simply not concentrate on unlocking the full power of your magical weapon) while concentrating on a maxed level (for you at least) CME. The choice is yours.

Sure, but as noted above, this creates the immediate problem of "I only JUST got CME, and now I can't use my bracers of defense because CME requires all of my concentration." That's not a "choose to have full CME and a weak weapon, or partial CME and a strong weapon", it's "choose to have CME at all, or to have magic defenses at all". From your description here, it sounds like you wanted this to be more of a back-and-forth, which would be a much more enjoyable gameplay experience, rather than an either-or that comes up every single time you get a new spell level and consider taking a Concentration spell.

A mechanic which basically says "don't bother taking Concentration spells" is gonna have undesirable effects, creating perverse incentives. That isn't a criticism of you, nor of the idea--you are at the "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" stage. That stage is never clean or simple.

Either way, it’s built into the core system. The system truly doesn’t care if you have magic items and even if you do, whether you actually use them. Your max power is still capped by your max concentration. Maybe the magic weapons help you last a bit longer when you’re out of slots to concentrate on your own spells… but increased lasting power does not equal increased max power.

Thoughts?

It's an excellent design proposal. It has a clear design goal: address the problems of excessive magic power, through items and features that must spend from a very restrictive budget. It aims at reasonable, gameplay-experience results: reward clever approaches, keep things relatively simple while still permitting depth, offer degrees of choice rather than dull non-choices or frustrating "gotcha" binaries. It leverages an existing concept in a new and clever way, that isn't much beyond what already exists. And, perhaps best of all, it opens new design space, rather than closing existing design space. That's a real noteworthy thing.

As said though, it requires refinement. I can foresee at least two key issues (ensuring martials have both flexibility and growth, beyond just magic items; and ensuring that spellcasters don't get forced into crappy, anti-fun "use your new shiny toy, OR your old shiny toy, but never both" choices) that depend enormously on the specific execution. And, as with any design proposal, it requires testing to ensure that it actually achieves the desired results. To do this, you'll have to nail down, with a degree of precision, what you want out of this mechanic. What should it feel like to use? If it were executed perfectly, what gameplay experiences would it develop? Why would this be something that should excite the player, rather than make them feel annoyed or frustrated? What would you consider a "good enough" result, even if it fell short of your intended goal? Once you can answer those questions, you'll be able to construct a testing rubric, and then actually do playtesting to determine if the approach you've settled on achieves those goals. If it doesn't, iterate and test again. If it fails to improve meaningfully after 2-3 iterations, then the core design probably needs to be reworked. If it still fails to improve meaningfully after 2-3 reworks (so 6-9 testing iterations, split across 2-3 versions), then the idea itself is probably flawed and will need to be workshopped.

At least, that's how I see it. Testing ain't easy. Believe me, I know. I tried to test some homebrew I wrote for 5e. Passed it by at least two dozen GMs. Exactly one was open to it, despite essentially all of them saying that it looked well-built, and that one ended up not actually inviting me to their campaign. So....yeah. IME, 5e GMs have their 1-2 pieces of 3PP/homebrew content, and otherwise won't even touch non-official things they didn't personally make themselves. But this is the process, if you want to do serious, meaningful playtesting, rather than the odious marketing song-and-dance that Paizo and WotC typically do.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well I just read them and provided a quote from DMG. Page 135 black and white.

Theres nothing in there whatsoever about exact numbers. It assumes magic items yes. It assumes you have wealth. It specifically says they make no such assumptions about what they are right there. Also says the wealth thing is guidelines only.

They may have changed there minds later but its not there in the DMG. It says the opposite in fact.

Treadmill was a 4E thing RAW, conceptually late 3.5 perhaps. Wasn't baked in. You get money and a shopping list. Guidelines only.

Treadmill has existed since at least 2e. It wasn't invented by 3e, and it sure as hell wasn't invented by 4e.

You literally cannot even ATTACK some enemies if you don't have a sufficiently-magical magic weapon in 2e. That's a literal hard-coded treadmill. "You must be at least this magical to even participate."

4e gave us Inherent Bonuses in just over a year after release (DMG2). Pull the other one, Zardnaar.

 

[Zardnaar]

Treadmill has existed since at least 2e. It wasn't invented by 3e, and it sure as hell wasn't invented by 4e.

You literally cannot even ATTACK some enemies if you don't have a sufficiently-magical magic weapon in 2e. That's a literal hard-coded treadmill. "You must be at least this magical to even participate."

4e gave us Inherent Bonuses within a year of release. Pull the other one, Zardnaar.

Thats not a tread mill what we're talking about.

Theres no assumptions in 2E either and one doesn’t have any expectations you use those monsters or you use them.

What 2E recommends is don't use those monsters if half the party cant damage them.

Thats from the DMG BTW. No expectation that everyone can hurt those monsters. RAI and RAW.

You've never played 2E iirc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thats not a tread mill what we're talking about.

Theres no assumptions in 2E either and one doesn’t have any expectations you use those monsters or you use them.

"You can't fight this monster without magic items" isn't an assumption of magic items?

Then what the hell DOES "assumption of magic items" mean?

What 2E recommends is don't use those monsters if half the party cant damage them.

Then that's an assumption of magic items, Zardnaar. Don't be disingenuous.

Thats from the DMG BTW. No expectation that everyone can hurt those monsters. RAI and RAW.

You've never played 2E iirc.

I've played BG1/2, IWD, and PS:T. I'm quite familiar with the rules involving these things. I'm also quite familiar with how utterly useless a high-level martial character is against high-level threats unless you are absolutely bedazzled with magic items.

I'm also also familiar with how high-level combat in 2e often devolves into "who can strip away their opponent's magical protections first?" gameplay, which is actively anti-fun in one of the worst possible ways.

 

[Zardnaar]

"You can't fight this monster without magic items" isn't an assumption of magic items?

Then what the hell DOES "assumption of magic items" mean?


Then that's an assumption of magic items, Zardnaar. Don't be disingenuous.


I've played BG1/2, IWD, and PS:T. I'm quite familiar with the rules involving these things. I'm also quite familiar with how utterly useless a high-level martial character is against high-level threats unless you are absolutely bedazzled with magic items.

I'm also also familiar with how high-level combat in 2e often devolves into "who can strip away their opponent's magical protections first?" gameplay, which is actively anti-fun in one of the worst possible ways.

Thats not the treadmill we're talking about.

4E Darksun put in bonuses to replicate 2Es lack of materials.

4E added feats that scaled to plug holes in the math.

4E monsters followed a template in terms of AC and defenses.

Thaheres no such assumptions in other editions. That treadmill is unique to 4E

I'm not claiming those editions had no magic items. There was no underlying math assumptions. If you required a +3 weapon to hit something and lacked it tough luck.

2E recommend you dont be a jerk about it eg screwing over the entire party. 2E adventures had less loot than 1E. Much like 5E it was up to the DM.

3.5 added magic item mart. I'm not sure how many people read those rules or used them. Rules also talk about DM also picking the items or using random loot a'la 2E that will approximate the WBL. Still leaves the door open to DM doing exactly that same as 2E.

One may not like those rules and thats fine but its RAW straight from the DMG. Theres no underlying math or expectations you have required items to hit specific creatures. More tough luck if you dont.

Amazing what's actually written down vs online assumptions. Prestige classes explicitly optional ask the DM hmmmnn.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thaheres no such assumptions in other editions. That treadmill is unique to 4E

You are literally, explicitly wrong. The "X With Class" articles--published online FOR 3E--explicitly speak about the system-expected magic items.

Treadmill absolutely, unequivocally was not "unique to 4e".

But your hatred again shows its ugly head, and I have no interest in discussing this with you further. Your hate of 4e distorts any conversation with you.

I'm not claiming those editions had no magic items. There was no underlying math assumptions. If you required a +3 weapon to hit something and lacked it tough luck.

Then you are JUST WRONG. But I don't think you'll ever even lift a finger to check, because it doesn't serve you to do so.

 

[Zardnaar]

You are literally, explicitly wrong. The "X With Class" articles--published online FOR 3E--explicitly speak about the system-expected magic items.

Treadmill absolutely, unequivocally was not "unique to 4e".

But your hatred again shows its ugly head, and I have no interest in discussing this with you further. Your hate of 4e distorts any conversation with you.


Then you are JUST WRONG. But I don't think you'll ever even lift a finger to check, because it doesn't serve you to do so.

I'm talking about the DMG.

If those articles even exist (link please) how many people would have read them? If its not in the core rules.......

Youre making a very specific claim. Its on you to post it

If those articles actually exist they're probably talking about RAI or came later on.

I'm quoting from the core rules here. Page numbers, I tried posting photos. DMG is beside me I can go get the 2E ones 1989 or 1995 if you like.

I've also got my 4E books still.

I remember the developers very late in 3.5 cycle talking about the most popular items etc.

3.5 dmg directly contradicts several claims made. Theres no assumptions RAW that specific items are required. If you need one its a tough luck situation if you lack it vs a monster.

4E you kind of hung around 60-65% hit chance. 2E you could get that up to 95% hit chance vs highest AC in the gane. ACs tgat high were very rare.

That great sword you found level 5 or 6 might soldier on for 10 levels.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm talking about the DMG.

If those articles even exist (link please) how many people would have read them? If its not in the core rules.......

Youre making a very specific claim. Its on you to post it

If those articles actually exist they're probably talking about RAI or came later on.

I'm quoting from the core rules here. Page numbers, I tried posting photos. DMG is beside me I can go get the 2E ones 1989 or 1995 if you like.

I've also got my 4E books still.

I remember the developers very late in 3.5 cycle talking about the most popular items etc.

Here is a list of Archive.org links, since they've all been removed from the Wizards website at this point (in fairness, they kept 'em up for like 15 years, so that much I can't be too mad about.) All of the articles were written by Skip Williams in 2004-2005. And remember: Skip Williams was co-creator of 3e. He knew what he was talking about. He was behind only Tweet in terms of influence over the design of 3e. If you don't think he knows what he's talking about, then nobody does. Not even you.

Further, the designers explicitly admitted (quite late, I admit, 2007) that there really were a "Big Six" items that every character needed in order to not fall behind the system's designed dangers:

• Magic weapon
• Magic armor & shield
• Ring of protection
• Cloak of resistance
• Amulet of natural armor
• Ability-score boosters

And, again, Mr. Williams explicitly refers to several of these (particularly the amulet of natural armor and the ring of protection, no surprise there).

Anyone who knows anything about 3e knows that these were intentionally designed this way. System mastery was the intent of the 3e designers--explicitly, by Monte Cook's own admission--and one of those system-mastery things was that there were mountains of absolute trash items, and a small handful of genuinely essential items you needed in order to not fall behind the game's innate scaling math.

That's the truth. If you don't like it, that's your business, but it is, in fact, the truth. Admitted by Skip Williams and Andy Collins (another designer around since 2002, who wrote or co-wrote several books for both 3e and 3.5e.)

Andy Collins puts as the sixth and final reason why these six items are so common in no uncertain terms: "Required to Play. Characters simply can’t compete against their foes without enhancing their attack rolls, Armor Class, and saving throws. Every one of the “Big Six†items directly improve your character’s ability to roll high." (I have left the bugged-out apostrophes as written, since that's what the text appears as now.)