D&D (2024) What should be the Optimization and Magic Item Assumption of PCs be?

[Minigiant]

I guess this is a fair way as well, but I just miss the days when magic items were the DM's tools to balance the game.

The days when magic items were the DM's tools to balance the game.were days when player choices didn't matter or didn't exist because scores between 10-15 didn't do anything and 90% of the game options didn't exist.

That's the core issue: You can't have a D&D style game be:

1. Simple
2. Have player choice matter
3. Have no game balance assumptions for the DM

Simplicity comes at the cost of player choice or DM restriction.

 

[Shiroiken]

If One D&D is being backwards compatible, +X weapons and +Y armors are not going away.

Being backwards compatible doesn't mean reprinting all older options. A character with a +X weapon can still use it in 1D&D, while the DMG doesn't offer it as an item. That said, I know +X items won't go away because they're simple and most people like them.

 

[Minigiant]

Being backwards compatible doesn't mean reprinting all older options. A character with a +X weapon can still use it in 1D&D, while the DMG doesn't offer it as an item. That said, I know +X items won't go away because they're simple and most people like them.

What I meant is the 5e +X items would able to be used playing 1DnD and will appear if you play 5e adventures.

So we will be stuck with them as a community. So we have to acknowledge how the game is to use them and not run on assumptions no one actually uses.

 

[Raith5]

I voted Moderate Optimization and Many Numerical Bonus Magic Items as I like +1 magic items and dont quite understand the (what appears to be ) mounting dislike of numerical bonuses. Not only are +1 swords and the like classically D&D things but they ought to make balancing really easy for even newish DMs. And magical bonuses do not erase the capacity to add story and lore to magic items.

 

[Olrox17]

I voted Moderate Optimization and Many Numerical Bonus Magic Items as I like +1 magic items and dont quite understand the (what appears to be ) mounting dislike of numerical bonuses. Not only are +1 swords and the like classically D&D things but they ought to make balancing really easy for even newish DMs. And magical bonuses do not erase the capacity to add story and lore to magic items.

IMO, it’s mostly concerns about bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is awesome, because it allows a DM to keep using lower level creatures while still being able to present a challenge to the party. A character with +3 weapons, +3 armor and a +3 shield can undo that.

 

[Horwath]

IMO, it’s mostly concerns about bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is awesome, because it allows a DM to keep using lower level creatures while still being able to present a challenge to the party. A character with +3 weapons, +3 armor and a +3 shield can undo that.

it's mostly +X to armor. +X to weapons is not such a big deal.

even +1 armor, +1 shield and ring of protection will make most low level creatures non issue.

full plate+shield and defense style is AC21, for someone with +5 attack(very common for low CR monsters) turns 25% hit rate into 10%.

 

[aco175]

IMO, it’s mostly concerns about bounded accuracy. Bounded accuracy is awesome, because it allows a DM to keep using lower level creatures while still being able to present a challenge to the party. A character with +3 weapons, +3 armor and a +3 shield can undo that.

But the DM controls the magic and can choose to not give out +3 armor and +3 shields. I think the most I have given out is +1 light armor, maybe chain once as well, and +1 shields.

Maybe some DMs can go overboard, but they will learn with the next campaign.

 

[Olrox17]

But the DM controls the magic and can choose to not give out +3 armor and +3 shields. I think the most I have given out is +1 light armor, maybe chain once as well, and +1 shields.

Maybe some DMs can go overboard, but they will learn with the next campaign.

Well, yes, that’s what I do, but why should we lay bounded accuracy-destroying traps for the unsuspecting DM in the system? Not to mention published adventures.

 

[aco175]

Well, yes, that’s what I do, why should we lay bounded accuracy-destroying traps for the unsuspecting DM in the system? Not to mention published adventures.

I agree that published adventures are a problem. I'm running Against the Giants from the Yawning Portal book that claims it was updated to 5e, but I needed to cut more than half the treasure and items from the adventure to make it somewhat balanced. While I did give out a cool frostbrand weapon last session, nobody wants it since it is a greatsword. If we play the fire giant part, maybe someone will take it though.

I do see this problem worse in Adventures League. Not sure if there is less oversight over the authors of each adventure as to what is being given out. They do limit it some with a limit on how many items you can bring into each game. We have 12th level PCs for a convention coming up and all of them have +2/+3 armor, weapons, and maybe shields.

 

[Pauln6]

I think low end bonuses are fine but I think the range should be +0 to +2 rather than +1 to +3 and they need to keep a close eye (or ban) on armour bonus stacking.

I am also not a fan of items that give static ability scores. So Gauntlets of Ogre power should grant +2 strength (max 19) and treat as a large creature for carrying, grappling, and shoving etc rather than just granting Str19.