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

[Mistwell]

[cut contentless drivel]Me? I've got nothing to say on the matter

Well, then I'd say know yourself better. You clearly had a lot to say on the matter. You go on for paragraphs after declaring how you have nothing to say.

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."

While you were busy having nothing to say when saying anyone who views things differently than you is stupid, or dense, or unimaginative, and should not be DMing, I think this paragraph explains it well.."But DMs still need guidelines, and hopefully guidelines that aren't quite as vague as the ones in the earliest editions of the game. And by "DMs," I also mean the professionals who write adventures for publication and organized play."

I think, as other have said, you can add the word "new" to "DMs" as well. Guidelines are helpful. If you don't need them, great, If you can't see why they might be helpful to others, well, perhaps you should not then be calling others stupid, dense, or unimaginative. Physician, heal thyself. If you're not too busy telling us how you have nothing to say, and then typing out "sigh" and "yawn" or "beard rubbing".

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."

Unless of course you're a "new DM," or "professionals who write adventures for publication," or "professionals who write adventures for organized play," in which case the guidelines are helpful as a baseline. Unimaginative indeed.

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?

Nope. Not what they are saying. That part was a given. What they are saying is "what should be the baseline averages for the three different styles of games, so when we write professional adventures catering to each style, we have a baseline to provide as editorial guidance."

Unimaginative indeed. Or, perhaps one of the other denigrating options you chose to describe others.

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

Well, you said you would say nothing, so I figured out alllll on my own that you were saying more than you intended. I mean I don't know why you possibly thought we needed to know that you intended to say less given you told us a number you planned to say (zero) and then proceeded to say many things. What do you call it, when people spell out things you think are unnecessary for anyone to know? Oh right, stupid, dense, and unimaginative. Did I do that right?

Sorry for the level of snark in this post. But I found the level of snark in your original post to be particularly unnecessary and attention-whoring, and decided to give you a small taste of your own medicine. Nothing genuinely ill meant by it - I am, for the most part, just teasing you with a mirror.

 

[Serendipity]

You know, I'm starting to think that the worst of these articles are going to be compiled, cleaned up, maybe given a polish of editing, and wind up a chapter in the next edition's DM's guide.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

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?

No, they're saying that if you want less magic in your campaign, then you should give the PCs FEWER magic items.

And then it gives some numbers to show what a good baseline is, which is quite useful advice.

 

[the Jester]

So I feel like that article basically didn't say anything at all. It struck me as the biggest piece of filler to come out of any of the 5e related columns yet.

It would be nice if they'd talked at all about how this relates to their proposed rarity system, or given us an example or two of some revised magic items. But this? To me, this was very much, "Campaigns give out some magic items... low magic, less so; high magic, more so", without any real substance to it. It was like a bologna sandwich with no meat, just that spread stuff that combines relish and mayo and mustard in one.

And I thought that this column was for talking about monsters. It seems that its theme has evolved, which is fine, but at least the monster columns felt like there was something to them.

 

[ccooke]

So I feel like that article basically didn't say anything at all. It struck me as the biggest piece of filler to come out of any of the 5e related columns yet.

It would be nice if they'd talked at all about how this relates to their proposed rarity system, or given us an example or two of some revised magic items. But this? To me, this was very much, "Campaigns give out some magic items... low magic, less so; high magic, more so", without any real substance to it. It was like a bologna sandwich with no meat, just that spread stuff that combines relish and mayo and mustard in one.

And I thought that this column was for talking about monsters. It seems that its theme has evolved, which is fine, but at least the monster columns felt like there was something to them.

I found it rather useful. Getting specific numbers for magic item expectations over the different editions was new information to me - yes, I could work it out, but I have never done so.
Giving an expectation of what the new edition is going to use for high, medium and low magic is also useful information. I'm running games with the system right now and using the treasure tables; it's a very good thing for me to know when and where I should be tweaking things so that party power stays within the expected region.

 

[TerraDave]

As an experienced DM, I thought it was fine.

But I may have very different expectations for these articles--or D&D as a whole--then some other seem to.

And, in olden D&D (actually pretty much pre 4E) magic items augmented a fighters power and extended a wizards power.

 

[I'm A Banana]

FWIW, I thought it was a pretty good summation of some stuff we already kind of knew, but in a way that anchored us going forward. The game assumes no magic items in the math, but understands that some will be given out, wants some to be given out, and understands that this will make PC's "more powerful" than the raw math assumes.

Then there's some numbers for what a typical table might see, adjusted to the table's tastes.

What I like about this is that it allows for interesting and long-lasting magic items. Okay, everybody knows +1 swords. In this model, that +1 sword never becomes useless. It always keeps you 1 ahead of the curve.

Now along comes a rust monster, and it can eat your +1 sword, and that's not a problem. You're just no longer ahead of the curve.

Meanwhile, your buddy with the axe that shoots fireballs doesn't feel like she needs to trade it in for an axe that can also hurt fire elementals, because she can tackle fire elementals just fine without the magic axe. Fireballs are pure icing on the cake.

And the third party member might have a +3 cursed shield that occasionally makes him loose sleep as he wanders about in a magicked haze. But it's a big bonus that puts him significantly ahead of the defensive curve. Is it worth sometimes not getting a full night's sleep? Maybe sometimes!

So much win in such a little change.

 

[Mistwell]

And the third party member might have a +3 cursed shield that occasionally makes him loose sleep as he wanders about in a magicked haze. But it's a big bonus that puts him significantly ahead of the defensive curve. Is it worth sometimes not getting a full night's sleep? Maybe sometimes!

Oooh I like that!

 

[Blackwarder]

I thought it was a very good article. Now, I might be too stupid, dense and/or unimaginative but I like having guidelines to fall upon, but heck I've only been DMing for 20 years so what do I know...

Warder

 

[ccooke]

FWIW, I thought it was a pretty good summation of some stuff we already kind of knew, but in a way that anchored us going forward. The game assumes no magic items in the math, but understands that some will be given out, wants some to be given out, and understands that this will make PC's "more powerful" than the raw math assumes.

Then there's some numbers for what a typical table might see, adjusted to the table's tastes.

What I like about this is that it allows for interesting and long-lasting magic items. Okay, everybody knows +1 swords. In this model, that +1 sword never becomes useless. It always keeps you 1 ahead of the curve.

Now along comes a rust monster, and it can eat your +1 sword, and that's not a problem. You're just no longer ahead of the curve.

Meanwhile, your buddy with the axe that shoots fireballs doesn't feel like she needs to trade it in for an axe that can also hurt fire elementals, because she can tackle fire elementals just fine without the magic axe. Fireballs are pure icing on the cake.

And the third party member might have a +3 cursed shield that occasionally makes him loose sleep as he wanders about in a magicked haze. But it's a big bonus that puts him significantly ahead of the defensive curve. Is it worth sometimes not getting a full night's sleep? Maybe sometimes!

So much win in such a little change.

Bah, must spread XP around etc etc.

However, that's exactly what I want out of this edition's treatment of magic items. I want them to matter. I want signature items that are iconic to my characters and the characters of my players.
I hadn't thought of compensating cursed items like that, either - it's a great idea. Definitely going to do that somewhere.

In terms of the system expecting or not expecting items, what I'm hoping for are tweaks to the encounter building guidelines so that you can add or remove XP from the budget based upon what the party has. Based on this article, I'd love to be thinking in a few months: "Hmm, well, the party just got two extra magic items last time which bumps them into the high magic column at the moment, so I need to add X to the encounter budget. Oh, nice, that means I can add a Gargoyle and still keep the challenge about right"