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

[ccooke]

Well, this goes back to the conversation I'm having with [MENTION=37579]Jester Canuck[/MENTION].

If the GM doesn't adjust difficulties on his/her side of things, then having a +1 weapon or armour just makes encounters easier, which (typically) makes them less interesting, which isn't really a bonus.

And if the GM does adjust difficulties (via upping the budget for encounters and/or adventures) then the magic item isn't really a bonus anymore (except in story terms), as the GM-side maths has been adjusted to accommodate it.

I think the point here is that it's not automatic. Magic items will make you noticably stronger against foes in the game, but the edition will contain *advice* for GMs in balancing adventure challenge based upon the number of magic items used.

I for one will be judging that advice based upon how much it enables the GM to choose an appropriate challenge level, rather than automatically compensating.

It's important that the players can be challenged by the situations they find themselves in, but this should be story-based (in my games, at least).

As an example... I'd want magic items to affect ths difficulty of plot-specific threats (those where an in-game entity is responding to the players' actions and skills) while not altering wandering monsters at all.

 

[Bluenose]

4 permanent magic items at level 20, yeah, that's low magic to me. At level 5 you would might have one magic item. What's low magic to you?

One person in a group of five/six having a magic item that doesn't have charges/need charging/have a cost to activate. It's a terrible idea in a D&D setting, of course, unless you're really determined to make casters much more significant than they already are.

 

[Starfox]

Well TBH this was kind of an unofficial rule for many 4e GMs.

In a game where magic items give players substantial bonuses, you have to make sure that the players don't get too many magic items.

In a game where gold can buy magic items, players will use gold to buy magic items.

Ergo you can't give players too much gold or they will buy tons of magic items and wreck the power curve.

Now nobody, not even stingy GMs, likes telling players they only found 200 gold coins in the dragon's hoard because that's all the magic item economy allows. So the solution is to make sure that giving the players gold won't wreck the power curve. In other words to make magic items something you can't buy, only acquire.

So, in what way is all that gold a reward? This is not me being snarky, it is an honest question. I often play money-less systems like Feng Shui, and a problem there is that treasure is no longer such a big motivation to adventure.

One of the things that is a bit of a paradigm shift from previous editions that keeps coming up around magic items is that magic items are not something you can buy/sell. I assume this is really only in regard to permanent items.

I felt the 2E to 3E transition was like going from the dark ages into renaissance. From a world where lieges and murky patrons handed out scarce magic items or spells from murky treasure chambers to a world of commerce and enlightenment where there were universities, trade organizations, and a world open to exploration. Sometimes a dark ages feel is what you want, but I know my players definitely appreciate the openness of 3E. And as pointed out in this thread, even the darkest of the dark age of vikings had trade.

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

Not at all my experience, I'd rather say the opposite. A wizard already knows how to do all kinds of stuff. A magic item might broaden his arsenal and increase his endurance, but it doesn't give him NEW stuff to do. To a fighter, items like wings of flying and chime of opening literally opens entire new options. Yeah, a +X sword or armor does argument him, but that's the boring stuff.

 

[Blackbrrd]

One person in a group of five/six having a magic item that doesn't have charges/need charging/have a cost to activate. It's a terrible idea in a D&D setting, of course, unless you're really determined to make casters much more significant than they already are.

In D&D terms, that's more like a no-magic setting than a low-magic one. It's not like it's something that has a common definition, so they are probably going with what they think are right for D&D. Looking at the poll results, it seems they hit quite well, but it's not as if you are wrong if you think one magic among 5-6 characters is wrong, it's just not the definition that's going to be used in 5e.

 

[Tuft]

Not at all my experience, I'd rather say the opposite. A wizard already knows how to do all kinds of stuff. A magic item might broaden his arsenal and increase his endurance, but it doesn't give him NEW stuff to do. To a fighter, items like wings of flying and chime of opening literally opens entire new options. Yeah, a +X sword or armor does argument him, but that's the boring stuff.

Yep, limiting magic items is handing a monopoly to the wizard (see my signature!). And I agree on the +X sword being boring for the player - especially as the DM can compensate immediately by just stocking his encounters with slightly higher AC monsters. In fact, the effect of the plus-items should immediately be removed by adding compensating monster adjustments if the DM wants to keep the encounters at the hazard level he desires. "Bigger toolkit items" like Wings of Flying, Slippers of Spider Climbing, or Cloak of the Manta Ray are not as easily rendered moot.

 

[Tuft]

So, in what way is all that gold a reward? This is not me being snarky, it is an honest question. I often play money-less systems like Feng Shui, and a problem there is that treasure is no longer such a big motivation to adventure.

Well, one can always do as we are right now trying to do in your campaign, [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION]; ransom the dragon's hoard back to him for his cooperation in our future endeavours...

 

[I'm A Banana]

In a world where spellcasters have an artificial, arbitrary limit on the number of spells they can know and cast, why not for magic items too? Seems consistent. Maybe base it on level, like spells?

I can buy it for magic spells because magic spells are an internal part of a character's power -- they're promised resources to use, that the character themselves gains.

Magic items are external, and not an assumed part of a character's power, so a limit makes a lot less sense for me there. It's like saying that PC's can only have 1,000 GP per level, or only stay at 3 different inn rooms or something. These aren't things that need to be mediated strictly by the rules, and it feels arbitrary to me.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, this goes back to the conversation I'm having with @Jester Canuck.

If the GM doesn't adjust difficulties on his/her side of things, then having a +1 weapon or armour just makes encounters easier, which (typically) makes them less interesting, which isn't really a bonus.

And if the GM does adjust difficulties (via upping the budget for encounters and/or adventures) then the magic item isn't really a bonus anymore (except in story terms), as the GM-side maths has been adjusted to accommodate it.

This logic only applies if you assume the DM calibrates all encounters to the PCs' power level. A different approach is to incorporate a range of monsters and hostile groups in any adventure, from the easily steamrolled to the invincible. The PCs can then choose whether or not to engage a given group of foes. Magic items give them the option to engage enemies they might otherwise have had to avoid.

 

[TerraDave]

Not at all my experience, I'd rather say the opposite. A wizard already knows how to do all kinds of stuff. A magic item might broaden his arsenal and increase his endurance, but it doesn't give him NEW stuff to do. To a fighter, items like wings of flying and chime of opening literally opens entire new options. Yeah, a +X sword or armor does argument him, but that's the boring stuff.

Thats kinda what I meant, but I am guessing from your reply your are focusing on 3E here? In 1E or 2E I think magic items were a key source of new abilities for spell caster. And "increasing endurance" was also big, as the number of spells for even mid level casters could be surprisingly small. Another quibble, other classes besides the fighter could use those items. But still, not that off from what I meant.

 

[Jester David]

Well, this goes back to the conversation I'm having with @Jester Canuck.

If the GM doesn't adjust difficulties on his/her side of things, then having a +1 weapon or armour just makes encounters easier, which (typically) makes them less interesting, which isn't really a bonus.

And if the GM does adjust difficulties (via upping the budget for encounters and/or adventures) then the magic item isn't really a bonus anymore (except in story terms), as the GM-side maths has been adjusted to accommodate it.

The difference small.
The rules don't change the difficulty, and the DM is just told how much to adjust encounters by. They're given advice that they can follow or ignore. And they'll likely be able to ignore on an encounter or adventure or campaign basis.
Which is very different than having to change the base math of the game or handing out inherent bonuses.