What is the essence of D&D

[Garthanos]

Encounter design.

I assume you are talking about characters who are 25 percent more powerful because of optimization.
Some players like to optimise some are not so interested (my players starting with a 16 in their primary stat not a big deal and yeh they are not interested in a stat under 10)

To me making the boring bags of hit points in 5e into interesting encounters seems like it would be rather more work.

 

[Garthanos]

* - for some inexplicble reason, enemy magic items suddenly not being magical any more once the PCs get them seems to be a baked-in assumption in 4e, or at least its published modules.

More enemies "magical" abilities are focus like than independently providing ability. Why did you assume that lightning bolt he was firing was from the staff. And you could use the same goblin bleeding blast wand if you were sanctified by the goblin priest every full moon while they sacrificed some innocent... hey want to become the monster?

I mean players have lots of abilities that do not come from devices... why assume NPCs are vastly different

Making an enemy magic item temporary only is also an option. So that its useful for helping get passed a certain barrier ... but its energies are supported by some other feature the NPC had.

 

[Garthanos]

Yeah, 4e 'treasure parcels' weren't exactly generous compared to other editions, at least in the modules I've read and-or run.

I actually found because my PCs do not over optimize or even bit fiddle their grab the loot behavior one can be a lot more generous than the default and it will work fine

Not everyone jumps online to find the latest light brigade cheese wiz to eke out more power. A DM making encounters more powerful for characters who are higher into that (is the grand difficulty of upping their level OR adding some minions - which can be played better or worse)

 

[Lanefan]

More enemies "magical" abilities are focus like than independently providing ability.

If this was the case, wouldn't the ability be written up as part of the monster?

Why did you assume that lightning bolt he was firing was from the staff.

You must have read my mind, as it's a particular shock-staff* in KotS - wielded by a Hobgoblin, I think - that's always been my go-to example for this.

I assume the shocking is being done by the staff as that's how the write-up parsed when I read it.

And you could use the same goblin bleeding blast wand if you were sanctified by the goblin priest every full moon while they sacrificed some innocent... hey want to become the monster?

Sure, and if that was given as part of the story in the module as to what makes that item tick that'd be great. But is it?

If it's not given in the module, how many DMs are likely to add something like this to an item's backstory? I'd wager very few indeed.

I mean players have lots of abilities that do not come from devices... why assume NPCs are vastly different

When writing up an opponent for a module the writer really needs to take a few basic things into consideration. The shock-staff, for instance: can the Hobgoblin still do (or even attempt?) the shock effect without the staff if he gets disarmed? If yes, then this needs to be made clear. If no, then the ability comes from the staff itself unless some other explanation is provided - which it isn't.

Making an enemy magic item temporary only is also an option. So that its useful for helping get passed a certain barrier ... but its energies are supported by some other feature the NPC had.

Yep, this works sometimes...but to do it every time would be a bit much.

* - I ran KotS (converted to our modified 1e system) in early 2009 and the party came out with that shock-staff in their treasury; and ten real-world years later that thing is still booting around in my game world somewhere (though I can't for the life of me remember which character has it these days).

 

[Garthanos]

I assume the shocking is being done by the staff as that's how the write-up parsed when I read it.

Sure, and if that was given as part of the story in the module as to what makes that item tick that'd be great. But is it?

If it's not given in the module, how many DMs are likely to add something like this to an item's backstory? I'd wager very few indeed.

When writing up an opponent for a module the writer really needs to take a few basic things into consideration. The shock-staff, for instance: can the Hobgoblin still do (or even attempt?) the shock effect without the staff if he gets disarmed? If yes, then this needs to be made clear. If no, then the ability comes from the staff itself unless some other explanation is provided - which it isn't.

Focus items work that way...the wizard has one at first level and does at-will effects with it.

My very first sentence... most NPC abilities are a function of being performance through a focus. (A focus item is like an ingredient required by a magic and do not simply provide that to whomever picks them up).

 

[S'mon]

I always took it than many items were crafted to only work for particular wielders, indeed this counts as a limitation which could make the items cheaper to craft.

 

[Garthanos]

I always took it than many items were crafted to only work for particular wielders, indeed this counts as a limitation which could make the items cheaper to craft.

The idea that items only function for particular bloodlines or races or individuals has plenty of legendary/mythic heritage. The treating magic items like they are just tools of technology anyone can use is not however

 

[Garthanos]

That reminds me one of the martial practices I made allowed one to bind ones magic item when created to a bloodline or tightly knit group... including the party who participated in either the blood bond practice or the ritual "comrades succor"

 

[Garthanos]

Yep, this works sometimes...but to do it every time would be a bit much.

You are right that is a case of coming up with a way to make something more significant to the story.... and making that particular adventure more interesting. This is what i want my DMing effort spent on, not fixing bags of hit points.

Or adjudicating on the fly every bloody use of a skill because the game system thinks DM decide is a better way.

 

[Garthanos]

And you could use the same goblin bleeding blast wand if you were sanctified by the goblin priest every full moon while they sacrificed some innocent... hey want to become the monster?

Sure, and if that was given as part of the story in the module as to what makes that item tick that'd be great. But is it?

If it's not given in the module, how many DMs are likely to add something like this to an item's backstory? I'd wager very few indeed.

TBH never have liked modules out of the box and the only way i would use them is to put in the extra effort so if the complaint is modules suck I consider that almost a D&D essence but on the other hand for me details get elaborated on "when I need them" most of the time as the rest of the time its a waste of brain power.