D&D 5E Wandering "Monsters": Magic Items

[steeldragons]

'Nuther week. 'Nuther article that has nothing to do with monsters.

sigh.

Well, it's up, and I didn't see a thread for it yet, so here it is. That and the fact the Great Wheel thread from last week waas going crazy, so here, you can see their oh so impartial and balanced "poll results" and add/ignore/debate them in that other thread.

Me? I've got nothing to say on the matter as my entire view of this is: If you're too stupid, dense and/or unimaginative to be able to see how/when adding magic items in your own low/average/high magic campaign works for your table or not, then you shouldn't be in the proverbial "big chair."

There is no reason, whatsoever, that I -or any DM- need to be told 'PCs should receive 6-8 permanent magic items over 20 levels. That makes the 'default' D&D game work. But if you want a lower magic game, then just give 'em 3-5. And if you want higher magic, give 'em 9-12."

REALLY?! *rubs bearded chin* So...you're saying...if I can wrap my head around this amazing design element...that if I want less magic in my campaign....then...I should give the PCs...LESS magic items? Hnh. I never would have thought of that on my own and definitely need the DMG to spell it out for me. Do make sure you give me the specific numbers though...I can't possibly think of a number less than 6 or more than 8 without having it in the book! Gads, you guys are really swell. However do you DO it!

Aight. That was more than I wanted/really intended to say....

Here's the column...
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20140122

 

[ExploderWizard]

REALLY?! *rubs bearded chin* So...you're saying...if I can wrap my head around this amazing design element...that if I want less magic in my campaign....then...I should give the PCs...LESS magic items? Hnh. I never would have thought of that on my own and definitely need the DMG to spell it out for me. Do make sure you give me the specific numbers though...I can't possibly think of a number less than 6 or more than 8 without having it in the book! Gads, you guys are really swell. However do you DO it!

LOL!!!! Gotta spread some around dangit.


I think this article touches on a much bigger design issue than magic items. As you have so humorously pointed out, the idea of a particular concept being explained without quantifying everything to the nth degree seems to be a lost art.

After all what do the specific numbers mean anyway? All permanent items are not created equal. Ok so the guide says up to 8 permanent items, what if they are all artifact or near artifact level? Does this change anything?

Personally I think DMing guidelines should be geared more toward providing would-be DMs the tools for thinking critically for themselves instead of spoon feeding formulas and procedures.

 

[Dausuul]

I think it's quite interesting, and I like the way they're coming at this. Obviously an experienced DM doesn't need permission from the rules to decide how many magic items to give out. But a) not all DMs are experienced, b) it's useful to have a baseline for magic items that can be invoked when starting at higher levels, and c) even experienced DMs can benefit from some information about what kind of campaign will result from how many magic items.

 

[delericho]

Me? I've got nothing to say on the matter as my entire view of this is: If you're too stupid, dense and/or unimaginative to be able to see how/when adding magic items in your own low/average/high magic campaign works for your table or not, then you shouldn't be in the proverbial "big chair."

There is no reason, whatsoever, that I -or any DM- need to be told 'PCs should receive 6-8 permanent magic items over 20 levels. That makes the 'default' D&D game work. But if you want a lower magic game, then just give 'em 3-5. And if you want higher magic, give 'em 9-12."

Bear in mind that every edition is someone's first edition, and every DM has his own first campaign. So while guidelines may not be useful to you, they may well still be of huge value to other DMs.

Not to mention that adventure writers will need a guideline for how much treasure to include in the adventures they write, or we're going to end up with something hideously uneven. (And the article does note that the guidelines will be present for this use, too.)

Finally, the baseline math of the game will have to have been designed making some assumption as to how many items the PCs will have. It's far better that the DMG lays out those assumptions, so that the DM has a baseline to deviate from, rather than keep them hidden and just assume we'll magically 'get it'.

Where James Wyatt does go wrong, though, is in his statement that 1st and 2nd edition gave scant guidance as to the placement of treasure. He's right that the text says little on the matter, but what he neglects to note is that the game also assumed you were using the random treasure tables, and these were provided. So, all the guidelines you need are right there: use the tables.

(And, actually, 3e also provided tables, and it appears to have been playtested under the assumption that PCs would get their items by rolling on the tables - that very few PCs would buy or make items for themselves. This is one of the big flaws in 3e, because that assumption is plainly at odds with the reality of how a great many (most?) people actually played the game...)

Here's the column...
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20140122

I did wonder if you were going to include a link.

 

[Sadras]

I agree its a filler post, nothing special for experienced players, but that paragraph needs to be in the DMG as you would expect the creators to have playtested using parties with a various number of magical items and so the numbers are roughly guidelines of their playtests. Use them don't use them. Its inclusion is definitely necessary for newbies and 1st time DMs and especially those that cut their D&D teeth on 4e (given their exposure being limited only to treasure parcels).
Furthermore the monsters will be designed in order to cope with a party of a certain level of power - for encounter design I think its important to know what the average calibre of a party is (including no of magical items in possession).

As for it having to be highlighted, perhaps it needs to be, considering you have some posters complaining they have not seen a tactical module when the entire tactical module is littered throughout the playtest packets. I dunno, this constant bashing of anything WoTC puts out is getting kind of old now.

 

[Bluenose]

REALLY?! *rubs bearded chin* So...you're saying...if I can wrap my head around this amazing design element...that if I want less magic in my campaign....then...I should give the PCs...LESS magic items? Hnh. I never would have thought of that on my own and definitely need the DMG to spell it out for me. Do make sure you give me the specific numbers though...I can't possibly think of a number less than 6 or more than 8 without having it in the book! Gads, you guys are really swell. However do you DO it!

On the other hand, it's probably important to remind people that giving out fewer magic items means that spellcasters will be the main people with significant magic. That a "Low Magic" campaign is one where spellcasters are more significant and powerful than they are in a "High Magic" one isn't entirely intuitive to many people.

 

[Kinak]

To be fair, their guidelines are drastically different than what you'd see in 3rd or 4th Edition. They're also closer to what I'm looking for in a game, so that's nice.

The question, of course, being how items will affect balance at these various levels.

On the other hand, it's probably important to remind people that giving out fewer magic items means that spellcasters will be the main people with significant magic. That a "Low Magic" campaign is one where spellcasters are more significant and powerful than they are in a "High Magic" one isn't entirely intuitive to many people.

This is a very important point and one worth some elaboration. Many "low magic" campaigns end up being exactly the opposite for this reason.

Alternately, they can make items as important to casters as they are to non-casters. That would make things work more smoothly, especially if you're talking about supporting a range of magical item acquisition and expecting the classes to be comparable across that range.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[delericho]

Alternately, they can make items as important to casters as they are to non-casters.

That would be the ideal solution. Though I'm not certain it's possible while retaining the "D&D feel".

 

[am181d]

I couldn't quite wrap my head around "We are making no assumptions about how many magic items a party will have. And here are our assumptions about how many magic items a party will have."

Does the math REALLY assume NO magic items? And if so, what does adding magic items do to the math?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Alternately, they can make items as important to casters as they are to non-casters. That would make things work more smoothly, especially if you're talking about supporting a range of magical item acquisition and expecting the classes to be comparable across that range.

I think that's doable. The reason that fighter-types depended more on magic equipment in earlier e's was because that was essentially a big part of their class power: they get to use that cool magic sword or neat magic axe or awesome magic suit of armor, and the wizard doesn't. I think time has shown that this isn't a great trade-off, both because it relies on DM handing out candy, and because everyone likes finding magic loot (and probably for a few other reasons).

Fighters in 5e shouldn't depend on magic items to make them on par with spellcasters, IMO. At least not as a default.