Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6029958" data-attributes="member: 996">It really depends on how magic items are factored into the game.If items are 'standard equipment' - if there's an expectation that PCs will have items, and, as the game progresses, encounter balance and the type and scope of adventures reflect that, then PCs should be able to make or buy such items, or specifically seek them out in quests or otherwise exercise some control over what items they acquire.If items are potential 'game breakers,' they need to be kept strictly to the DM - PCs can't make or buy them.&nbsp; If the design allows a clear line to be drawn between the two, then making/buy for the former, and DM-largess-only for the latter would be workable.&nbsp; However, that would require a lot of care, as a fairly 'minor' item that PCs can make in quantity can greatly impact the game (see WoCLW in discussions of 3.x, for instance).The current philosophy seems to be (once again) &quot;let the DM sort it out.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Magic items are not going to be factored in to game balance.&nbsp; Instead, they're simply going to be designed to be cool and desirable to players things that 'feel magical' and are 'something to get excited about.'&nbsp; That makes design fun &amp; easy.&nbsp; It's exciting for the players.It's a minor nightmare for the DM.&nbsp; Each time you give out an item, you may be wrecking your game.&nbsp; If you avoid individually-broken items, the sum of what you give out could still skew or break things.&nbsp; You don't know for sure until the players have used the item for a bit, and, as happy as they likely are with an item that turns out to be a game-changer, taking it back is an unpleasant option.&nbsp; Enter rust monsters, disenchanters, steel predators, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Rods of Cancellation, anti-magic zones, etc...That should sound familiar to anyone who played classic D&amp;D, because 5e's approach to magic items is cribbed directly from it.&nbsp; I'm sure some of you loved that approach.&nbsp; Others of us were acutely aware of its shortcomings and were glad to see it go.This is probably, yet again, something that needs to be presented as options...&nbsp; quite a large range of very carefully thought-out options...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6029958, member: 996"] It really depends on how magic items are factored into the game. If items are 'standard equipment' - if there's an expectation that PCs will have items, and, as the game progresses, encounter balance and the type and scope of adventures reflect that, then PCs should be able to make or buy such items, or specifically seek them out in quests or otherwise exercise some control over what items they acquire. If items are potential 'game breakers,' they need to be kept strictly to the DM - PCs can't make or buy them. If the design allows a clear line to be drawn between the two, then making/buy for the former, and DM-largess-only for the latter would be workable. However, that would require a lot of care, as a fairly 'minor' item that PCs can make in quantity can greatly impact the game (see WoCLW in discussions of 3.x, for instance). The current philosophy seems to be (once again) "let the DM sort it out." Magic items are not going to be factored in to game balance. Instead, they're simply going to be designed to be cool and desirable to players things that 'feel magical' and are 'something to get excited about.' That makes design fun & easy. It's exciting for the players. It's a minor nightmare for the DM. Each time you give out an item, you may be wrecking your game. If you avoid individually-broken items, the sum of what you give out could still skew or break things. You don't know for sure until the players have used the item for a bit, and, as happy as they likely are with an item that turns out to be a game-changer, taking it back is an unpleasant option. Enter rust monsters, disenchanters, steel predators, Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Rods of Cancellation, anti-magic zones, etc... That should sound familiar to anyone who played classic D&D, because 5e's approach to magic items is cribbed directly from it. I'm sure some of you loved that approach. Others of us were acutely aware of its shortcomings and were glad to see it go. This is probably, yet again, something that needs to be presented as options... quite a large range of very carefully thought-out options... [/QUOTE]

Verification