How is your group responding to no magic items?

[CyberThread]

As the title said.

[Baveboi]

My group just finished a level 1 run of a small dungeon and they already have 2 magic items (3 if you count a wannabe mcguffin). They also lost a Ring of Waterwalking that could give light like a lamp and made Water Elementals (and water outsiders) angry at them and an Ion Stone.

- One is a magic rapier made out of a sharp dark stone (it doesn't give any bonuses, it's just magic), but is the ill weapon of an assassin and has a history in the region, as well as much bad blood between a lot of people.

- The second is a drow-crafted crystal skull that can cast Animate Dead once each 24 hours, but is much stronger than the spell. Using the skull forces a concentration check, as well, since it harmlessly bites the hand of the wearer like a tiny spider. It allows the reanimated corpse keep some of its previous qualities (such as the ability to speak and memories of their previous lives). It was introduced as a plot-hook which the players used to reanimate the BBEG of the dungeon, a necromancer named Mathias, to have him reveal to the players more pressing truths about the overarching plot of the game. (Downside? Now my players love Mathias, since he is useful as ****, and care more for him than for their own lives!)

- The third is a mcguffin, a mysterious red candle that controlled a carpet trap (if not held while passing through it, the carpet would become a pit of boiling wax and engulf a player). Holding the candle against a source of light reveals a prophecy that only the bearer of this item can really defeat the Great Enemy and bring the land to lasting peace. It is, again, another plot-hook for the future.

- The Ion-stone did nothing but circle the player's head until spoken to in its own mother language, and then it would unlock the ability to understand and speak that language and give advantage on texts relating to it.

- The ring is self-explanatory. It allows the player to walk on a water-surface and can cast Light on itself at will, but it makes water-elementals hostile.

Sadly, two of the players died and their bodies were lost to the third, which was when they lost two of the items. They have since rolled new characters and carried on.
So yeah, they have magic items, they are not terribly (if all) useful, but they are items the players can enjoy as loot as well as giving them a sense of magic filling the air around them. Aside from that they found some potions, some salves, a bit of poison, alchemist fire and acid, and spent most of it during the game (it was a challenging dungeon).

[MustacheFart]

No magic items here yet. Just finished chapter 2 of HOTDQ. So far, it's been fun and haven't missed magic items. It's also a module and this is a new edition so it's less likely to affect me. In an open world campaign it may start to get to me after a while.

[Submortimer]

We've found a couple magic items so far. The Dwarven fighter gained a suit of animated full plate(doesn't really help him or hinder him...yet), and the rogue stole a crown that boosts her charisma(and makes her look fancy). Nothing crazy, just fun stuff.

[cobaltstarfire]

I think some of my group are disappointed, they keep trying to loot everything that isn't nailed down though, and are always sad when all they get is a crappy makeshift dagger, or some gold. (I don't really know what they're expecting out of Kobolds and low level cultists to be honest?)

I've talked to some other fellows who were thinking of joining who wouldn't care, they came from 3e/4e but they have never gotten many magic items in the past so lack of them in 5e doesn't bother them at all.

I personally don't care about the lack of magic items, it's fun to get them from time to time, but I wouldn't want to be swimming in them as is apparently the expectation of older editions, would make the magic items less magical to me, and therefore boring.

[Yorrin]

Half of my players are brand new to the game and don't know that magic items are a thing. The other half haven't mentioned it yet. I'll be throwing them their first magic item, other than potions, at the conclusion of the next story arc, though (they should be about level 3 by then). It'll be a magic rapier (mostly Dex based party) that gives it's wearer the ability to look like a wood elf (as well as having a +1 bonus). I fully expect the party's halfling rogue to be the one who ends up with it, though our human ranger might also make a bid for it. I'm looking forward to them musing as to it's backstory.

[Falka]

My group played 2 months and raised 4 levels before they found a +1 Glamoured Leather Armor. They were thrilled. Then we started HotDQ, we're playng it for about a month and a half, no items.

I may give them a magic item next session if they complete a Chapter 4 sidequest.

[SaintRidley]

I'm thinking level three might be where my groups get their first magic items. They're all level one still, so plenty of time to figure it out.

[Greylind]

We haven't started yet, but my only issue is that I'm adapting older modules into a new campaign, and I'd like to have magic items present where they are important in those modules, but not as overwhelmingly present as in earlier editions. so I guess I need to wait for December and the DMG to determine which ones stay and which ones break the system at earlier levels.

[CyberThread]

Honestly as a rogue, I will say it has affected myself. I am very much less enthuastic to open a chess now. Yeah sure ooo more gold... here let me put that in my non-magical bag that can only carry 100 of those.

[TheCrowing1432]

Bag of holding comes with HotDQ if i recall correctly.

[Envyus]

Honestly as a rogue, I will say it has affected myself. I am very much less enthuastic to open a chess now. Yeah sure ooo more gold... here let me put that in my non-magical bag that can only carry 100 of those.

Um you can still find Magic Items in chests. You just can't buy them, but you can find them. Bags of holding are not even that rare.

[Dralnu]

From what I understand, the intent is that they're cutting back on magic items that increase a PC's power in tangible ways, but little or highly situational magic items are still kosher.

I think finding magic items is part of the fun in D&D, so instead of removing them, I'd replace the +1 swords with less powerful but more flavorful options.

Off the topic of my head:
- a famous burglar's boots that leaves no footprints
- a human miner's pickaxe, commissioned by a dwarven mining company, gives the user the ability to understand dwarven and grants advantage to investigation checks targeting stonework/earth stuff
- a beautifully ornate set of full plate with patterns depicting benevolent dragons and outlined in sapphire, grants resist cold and keeps the wearer cool even in hot climates that would typically cause heat exhaustion, a gift from a silver dragon to a paladin of bahamut
- an elven sword of expert craft that glows when goblinoids are nearby...

I think that sort of stuff is still very exciting. It's all about the presentation. It doesn't even have to magical at all! You could describe an absolutely stunning piece of armor/weapon that was masterfully crafted and clearly unique looking and the players might like it over their mundane version.

I've also bookmarked some reddit threads that have more ideas. this one (http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2g7ax6/magic_items_for_5th_edition/) and this one (http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2g7760/treasure_idea_for_low_level_characters_limited/)

[Cambrian]

Where does this rumor of no magic items come from?

The DM Basic Rules (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules?x=dnd/basicrules) contain several magic items. They're near the back of the pdf.


The intent is to remove the expectation of easy acces to magic items (expectations of both players and the system's numerical balancing) either in loot, quick item creation, or through a "magic mart".

From what I've seen the system still expects magic weapons for martial characters (lots of damage resistance) but not necessarily in the first five or so levels. After that martial characters could really suffer if facing too much nonmagical damage resistance.

It also appears that magic items should be "more magical". You can still have a +1 to 3 enhancement (3 being an artifact) but it should also have all sorts of other magical qualities. Some perhaps would have a history, or have been referenced in myths and legends.

It's one of the greatest changes of the new system. It also comes with greater implied DM control over access to spells for wizards and other learning spellcasters.

[Naanomi]

From what I understand, the intent is that they're cutting back on magic items that increase a PC's power in tangible ways, but little or highly situational magic items are still kosher.

I think finding magic items is part of the fun in D&D, so instead of removing them, I'd replace the +1 swords with less powerful but more flavorful options.
This is what I have been doing, to good effect; as well as limited magic weapons (IE: they found a cache of Darts that are +1 but only VS aberrations) and armor (in the dungeon they are in there is a set of +2 padded armor that only functions in moonlight).

Semi-cursed items might be interesting again too, IE: magic armor that can't be removed or useful stuff that glows conspicuously

[Greylind]

This is what I have been doing, to good effect; as well as limited magic weapons (IE: they found a cache of Darts that are +1 but only VS aberrations) and armor (in the dungeon they are in there is a set of +2 padded armor that only functions in moonlight).

Semi-cursed items might be interesting again too, IE: magic armor that can't be removed or useful stuff that glows conspicuously

I'm thinking of turning the +1 shield that shows up early in the first adventure I'm adapting* into a magical normal shield that can cast Shield 1/day. Useful, but not gamebreaking. I may also name it and give it some history, but haven't decided what yet. I'll probably do the same for other similar items.

*Adaptation begins with a combination of Village of Hommlet, Return to the Keep on the Borderlands, and In Search of the Unknown. Hommlet is the village near the Caves of Chaos, the moathouse lies some distance from the river up a side stream, which continues on to the Caves. Quasqueton (the complex in ISOTU, not the town in Iowa) is located as noted on the RttKotB map, deeper into the forest than the old moathouse.) Basically, D&D has inspired me to resurrect a more 1st edition/BE feel campaign. For added complexity, I may set it in Golarion.

[Rilak]

From what I've seen the system still expects magic weapons for martial characters (lots of damage resistance) but not necessarily in the first five or so levels. After that martial characters could really suffer if facing too much nonmagical damage resistance.

LMoP actually gives out quite a lot of magic items (2~4 magic weapons by level 5, one of which is a +0 weapon). So the PCs should not have much problem killing foes with damage reduction in 5e. It depends a lot on the modules you are playing though.

[rollingForInit]

I think my group is more excited about the fluff of magical items than the pure power of them. I really hope that DMG includes the magic item creation that existed in the playtest, where you gave the items some character. History attributes, minor quirks and perks, etc. That sort of thing can make a mechanically weak item very fun to own.

[Sidmen]

LMoP actually gives out quite a lot of magic items (2~4 magic weapons by level 5, one of which is a +0 weapon). So the PCs should not have much problem killing foes with damage reduction in 5e. It depends a lot on the modules you are playing though.

Wait, did I just read that right/you typed it right? A +0 weapon? I've never thought such a thing would ever exist.

I mean, my players currently have an effectively +0 dagger (that becomes a +3 dagger vs. Ghosts), but I never considered just handing them a magic sword that did nothing.

[Rilak]

Wait, did I just read that right/you typed it right? A +0 weapon? I've never thought such a thing would ever exist.

I mean, my players currently have an effectively +0 dagger (that becomes a +3 dagger vs. Ghosts), but I never considered just handing them a magic sword that did nothing.

Well, it has more properties than just being +0 (d6 extra acid damage, spell charges). But there isn't really anything preventing you from creating a +0 magic weapon (this weapon was mass-forged to pierce the skins of an invading demon horde or some such fluff).

If you convert a module from a previous edition, instead of a +1 greatsword, you could consider a +0 greatsword that deals 1 point of fire damage on a hit (Trollslayer). The main problem with the +1 is that it adds accuracy after all. Some minor damage increase does not change balance a lot; static damage isn't even multiplied on a crit. Could also make it +0, 1d6 fire on a crit :)

[Sidmen]

Well, it has more properties than just being +0 (d6 extra acid damage, spell charges). But there isn't really anything preventing you from creating a +0 magic weapon (this weapon was mass-forged to pierce the skins of an invading demon horde or some such fluff).

If you convert a module from a previous edition, instead of a +1 greatsword, you could consider a +0 greatsword that deals 1 point of fire damage on a hit (Trollslayer). The main problem with the +1 is that it adds accuracy after all. Some minor damage increase does not change balance a lot; static damage isn't even multiplied on a crit. Could also make it +0, 1d6 fire on a crit :)

Ah, so it did have other powers. That surprises me much less. I've already introduced masterwork weaponry in my game that just increase damage, and minor enchantments that add 1d4 extra damage will appear soonish.

[Theodoxus]

I always hated the 'must have +1 before enchanting other stuff onto an item'. I'm glad they've taken that restriction off. I'm gonna have some fun building up items for my next campaign. These ideas look amazing.

[thereaper]

I don't buy the "PCs won't be needing magic items like before" line.

There's already a clear example that magic items are expected in the form of monsters that are immune to nonmagical weapons.

There's also an implied one when you do the math for saving throw DCs vs their progressions. A 20th level full caster with a 20 in their casting stat is going to be pumping out save DCs of 19. With three different saving throws likely to be targeted (four, if intelligence saves become a thing with Psionics), that means that any given character (even those who get an extra saving throw proficiency via that one feat) is likely to have at least one saving throw likely to be targeted whose bonus is going to be +2 or less. That means a 17 or higher is required to save! :smalleek:

I fully expect magic items of +X to saving throws (or at least +X to Y saving throws) are going to show up, and every character will need them after a certain point.

[Inevitability]

There's already a clear example that magic items are expected in the form of monsters that are immune to nonmagical weapons.

Magic Weapon is still a spell. Paladins of Devotion can make a weapon magical themselves. Just two examples, of which I'm sure there are more.

[thereaper]

And if neither of those are available to your party, as is quite likely?

The designers very clearly thought that PCs would have access to at least a +1 weapon after a certain point by including those monsters, just as Use Magic Device implies that there will be magic items with class and level requirements.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

if the developers thought your party would definitely have magic everything, then there wouldn't be a lot of point to requiring magic weapons to hurt things.

See: 3.5 Protection from arrows being useless

[Theodoxus]

I don't buy the "PCs won't be needing magic items like before" line.

There's already a clear example that magic items are expected in the form of monsters that are immune to nonmagical weapons.

There's also an implied one when you do the math for saving throw DCs vs their progressions. A 20th level full caster with a 20 in their casting stat is going to be pumping out save DCs of 19. With three different saving throws likely to be targeted (four, if intelligence saves become a thing with Psionics), that means that any given character (even those who get an extra saving throw proficiency via that one feat) is likely to have at least one saving throw likely to be targeted whose bonus is going to be +2 or less. That means a 17 or higher is required to save! :smalleek:

I fully expect magic items of +X to saving throws (or at least +X to Y saving throws) are going to show up, and every character will need them after a certain point.

It's not that players won't need magic items period - it's that they won't be walking like christmas trees glowing like they just survived a nuke strike. Where 3rd had need for +5 weapons to overcome some crazy immunities, now it's just magic or not. You don't even need +1, technically. Does your sword glow? Maybe confer advantage when decoding ancient dwarven texts.... whatever, as long as it's magical, it overcomes the resistance.

You have a point on the DCs against unproficient saves. There's been discussion raging since the basic rules came out and people were like, wtf? mate. But then again, needing a 17, 18, or 19 on a save, at 16th level+ is actually kind of cool. Way better than in Pathfinder, at 7th level, where nearly everyone in my party fails saves on a 1. I kinda like the implied danger of having a decent chance of failing. There are ways around it, if you're that concerned about it. And there are still items that improve saves. Heck, the Ring of Protection described in the Lost Mines of Phandelver grants +1 to both AC and saves, ala 2nd ed! I love that they're going way old school with some of the magic items.

What they don't do, is support the magic mart mentality. You can't just save up your pennies and go to the local magic shop and pick up a shiny +2 battleaxe. Nor can you sell your old gear without some side quest to do so. I'm not sure if WotC will be expanding on the idea of attuning magic items outside of the time it takes, but I can certain imagine doing so. I've been using a similar concept in my Skulls & Shackles game and it's been a blast watching the players wrack their brains on how to obtain some of the more arcane items on the ritual list. And their look of pure joy when the item finally becomes fully attuned and unlocks its powers for them - that's why it was worth doing.

[hymer]

The designers very clearly thought that PCs would have access to at least a +1 weapon after a certain point by including those monsters [...]

Well, no. That monsters with immunity to nonmagical weapons exist as stats does not mean that they must appear in the game world. If a group wanted to play with no magical items at all, the DM should take this into account when making the world and encounters.

[Xetheral]

It's one of the greatest changes of the new system.

It might well be. I rather like the change and see the appeal. On the other hand, the inability to buy magic items makes converting existing campaign settings from previous editions a real pain, and that may discourage adoption of the new edition. (Or maybe I'm just weird in having my homebrew setting from 3e days revolve fairly heavily around magic item economics.)

As for the question in the OP, my 3.5 group reacted to the news that magic items were not purchasable in the new edition with several variations on the theme of "but... I like shopping!" Impetus to change systems is currently rather low. I'm looking forward to the DMG to see what variant magic items rules there are that may appeal more to my players.

[thereaper]

It's not that players won't need magic items period - it's that they won't be walking like christmas trees glowing like they just survived a nuke strike. Where 3rd had need for +5 weapons to overcome some crazy immunities, now it's just magic or not. You don't even need +1, technically. Does your sword glow? Maybe confer advantage when decoding ancient dwarven texts.... whatever, as long as it's magical, it overcomes the resistance.

You have a point on the DCs against unproficient saves. There's been discussion raging since the basic rules came out and people were like, wtf? mate. But then again, needing a 17, 18, or 19 on a save, at 16th level+ is actually kind of cool. Way better than in Pathfinder, at 7th level, where nearly everyone in my party fails saves on a 1. I kinda like the implied danger of having a decent chance of failing. There are ways around it, if you're that concerned about it. And there are still items that improve saves. Heck, the Ring of Protection described in the Lost Mines of Phandelver grants +1 to both AC and saves, ala 2nd ed! I love that they're going way old school with some of the magic items.

What they don't do, is support the magic mart mentality. You can't just save up your pennies and go to the local magic shop and pick up a shiny +2 battleaxe. Nor can you sell your old gear without some side quest to do so. I'm not sure if WotC will be expanding on the idea of attuning magic items outside of the time it takes, but I can certain imagine doing so. I've been using a similar concept in my Skulls & Shackles game and it's been a blast watching the players wrack their brains on how to obtain some of the more arcane items on the ritual list. And their look of pure joy when the item finally becomes fully attuned and unlocks its powers for them - that's why it was worth doing.

Assuming that PCs get the magic items they need (which technically isn't really possible without lots of homebrew, but let's pretend for the moment that the other broken aspects of the system are houseruled away), then I have no problem with the removal of the walking christmas tree (I never liked that either).

[Naanomi]

It might well be. I rather like the change and see the appeal. On the other hand, the inability to buy magic items makes converting existing campaign settings from previous editions a real pain.
I had to make some adjustments as well, but it went smoothly. An 'Atlantis' like kingdom that had a big role in PC antics had to transform from 'the land of Artificers' to 'the land of Golems'; but kept the flavor in the end just fine.

As a note, the idea mentioned above of making the attuning process complicated for some items is a great idea. What if the relatively powerful sword you took from the Orc General has to be held by a hand while it kills an elf to attune? Or be blessed at a holy place of a certain God far off the beaten path? Or even just involve a prohibitively expensive ritual?

[Cambrian]

[T]he inability to buy magic items makes converting existing campaign settings from previous editions a real pain, and that may discourage adoption of the new edition.Perhaps.

I have no reason to assume my experience is universal but the changes to magic, math, and presentation are what motivated myself to switch. Campaign conversion difficulties might discourage players from switching immediately-- but, finishing a 3.x campaign that went as high as level 17 was more incentive than I could ever need.

Ultimately it comes down to this: is going from a Cloak of Resistance +3 to +4 ever exciting? It hasn't meaningfully enhanced your character-- the monster DCs just scale up to match. So its basically a gear treadmill like the stale theme-park MMO's, except a computer isn't processing the increasing modifiers-- you are.

[Abithrios]

Perhaps.

I have no reason to assume my experience is universal but the changes to magic, math, and presentation are what motivated myself to switch. Campaign conversion difficulties might discourage players from switching immediately-- but, finishing a 3.x campaign that went as high as level 17 was more incentive than I could ever need.

Ultimately it comes down to this: is going from a Cloak of Resistance +3 to +4 ever exciting? It hasn't meaningfully enhanced your character-- the monster DCs just scale up to match. So its basically a gear treadmill like the stale theme-park MMO's, except a computer isn't processing the increasing modifiers-- you are.

Those magic items are indeed boring in and of themselves, but they let you do exciting things. The fact that all of a 3.5 character's saves scale with level prevents the absurd situation in which the greatest warrior in the history of the world falls prey to an apprentice's magics just as easily as a common thug.

One thing I like about 3.5 is how great it is at simulating a wide variety of power levels. As characters grow, they turn from professionally good at what they do (level 1-2) to really good (3-5) to super-humanly good (6+) to veritable demigods (high level). By choosing a starting level and by adjusting PC growth (perhaps playing a variant such as E6 or similar) it is possible to find whatever sweet spot you want. I fear that the 5e engine might be far more limited in the variety of play it can support.

As for the question of if players should have magic items, I think 3.5's answer of "yes, and this is about how much as a function of level" satisfies me a lot more than the pre-DMG 5e answer of "maybe some, eventually". Without guidelines, every table has to reinvent the wheel when it comes to answering that question, and many well-meaning DMs will give the wrong amount of magic to their players, and thus fail to achieve the proper tone of the campaign they are going for (either making encounters not challenging enough or not letting their players be awesome enough). Naturally, there are some DMs who are even better than Wizards of the Coast at inventing wheels. They can simply ignore any guidelines and get exactly the results that best meet the needs of their players, whether their players prefer constant challenge and adversity or prefer to make awesome character that stomp everything they come across.

Also, being unable to sell stuff makes me think of it as worthless, not priceless. If I am the only member of the party that uses martial melee weapons, I might as well toss my old sword in a ditch if I ever find a newer, fancier one (probably in that ditch). A usable system for players to craft magic items makes it feasible for the fighter who comes from a proud family heritage of fighting to wield their family's ancestral sword and even add to their family's legacy by enchanting it. As it stands, the ancestral sword is just the same as a normal sword and gets tossed aside if you ever find a better one (not even sold, because what would you even want to save up for).


That was a bit of a long rant, and you can probably guess that I like 3.5. I am still deciding about 5e, despite my ranting against it in this post I like some of the simplified mechanics and better balance. I just hope they make high magic, high power scaling variant rules.

[Theodoxus]

As for the question of if players should have magic items, I think 3.5's answer of "yes, and this is about how much as a function of level" satisfies me a lot more than the pre-DMG 5e answer of "maybe some, eventually". Without guidelines, every table has to reinvent the wheel when it comes to answering that question, and many well-meaning DMs will give the wrong amount of magic to their players, and thus fail to achieve the proper tone of the campaign they are going for (either making encounters not challenging enough or not letting their players be awesome enough). Naturally, there are some DMs who are even better than Wizards of the Coast at inventing wheels. They can simply ignore any guidelines and get exactly the results that best meet the needs of their players, whether their players prefer constant challenge and adversity or prefer to make awesome character that stomp everything they come across.

For me, and I totally understand that it is just me - but maybe someone can see it and run with it too - obtaining that balance is a combination of system mastery (how do the various bits mesh with each other into a cohesive whole) and game time experience (how do players interact with various encounters (magical, mundane and monstrous). To facilitate that, especially the system mastery part, where in giving out higher powered items that have unforeseen potentially catastrophic effects on player power, I'm not giving out fully functional magic items, but oils and salves for weapons and armor - temporary effects that will help guide the learning process. Is a +1 weapon a huge boon at 2nd level? Well, this +1 oil of sharpness for your weapon that lasts a minute will help let us know. Might have an internal mechanism - some number of applications and the effect becomes permanent - won't tell the characters that, and might require some other ritual to induce the permanency - something they can find out through Lore... but the point is, if it's temporary, 1) they won't be tossing their weapon away at the first chance of finding something better and 2) if it's overpowered for their level, they mow through one encounter and start jonsing for another dose... but as DM, I can see it was too powerful, and they just don't find another dose until they level up. If it's too weak, they might find a stronger version - temper and repeat until you're satisfied with your own system mastery and the next campaign can begin doling out permanent magic items when you know it will be appropriate for your personal story.

In the magical list of Schrodinger's DMG, such a outlay would be very welcome. We'll just have to wait and see...

[HasLogic]

Magic Weapon is still a spell. Paladins of Devotion can make a weapon magical themselves. Just two examples, of which I'm sure there are more.

going from needing magic items, to needing magic items or certain spell casters (who are willing to spend spells and actions to help you when they could be using spells on your enemies directly) is not much of a step up.


It's not that players won't need magic items period - it's that they won't be walking like christmas trees glowing like they just survived a nuke strike. Where 3rd had need for +5 weapons to overcome some crazy immunities, now it's just magic or not. You don't even need +1, technically. Does your sword glow? Maybe confer advantage when decoding ancient dwarven texts.... whatever, as long as it's magical, it overcomes the resistance.

You have a point on the DCs against unproficient saves. There's been discussion raging since the basic rules came out and people were like, wtf? mate. But then again, needing a 17, 18, or 19 on a save, at 16th level+ is actually kind of cool. Way better than in Pathfinder, at 7th level, where nearly everyone in my party fails saves on a 1. I kinda like the implied danger of having a decent chance of failing. There are ways around it, if you're that concerned about it. And there are still items that improve saves. Heck, the Ring of Protection described in the Lost Mines of Phandelver grants +1 to both AC and saves, ala 2nd ed! I love that they're going way old school with some of the magic items.

What they don't do, is support the magic mart mentality. You can't just save up your pennies and go to the local magic shop and pick up a shiny +2 battleaxe. Nor can you sell your old gear without some side quest to do so. I'm not sure if WotC will be expanding on the idea of attuning magic items outside of the time it takes, but I can certain imagine doing so. I've been using a similar concept in my Skulls & Shackles game and it's been a blast watching the players wrack their brains on how to obtain some of the more arcane items on the ritual list. And their look of pure joy when the item finally becomes fully attuned and unlocks its powers for them - that's why it was worth doing.

how is it their place to do that? if I want to have a magic mart that is just as valid a playstyle as any other.

[DontEatRawHagis]

2 power gamer types in my group are craving magic items. One fluff player misses his sentient sword.

[Fwiffo86]

how is it their place to do that? if I want to have a magic mart that is just as valid a playstyle as any other.

Do you really need rules to assign something as trivial as prices? This is not a playstyle. This is an aspect of a game world at best. This is an exceptionally miniscule thing to be taking issue with.

[Knaight]

Do you really need rules to assign something as trivial as prices? This is not a playstyle. This is an aspect of a game world at best. This is an exceptionally miniscule thing to be taking issue with.

If by "as trivial as prices" you mean having an economic system, then yes, it's nice for a game to have them. 5e has a bit of a sloppy one - elephant prices stand out here - but it still needs one as it's hugely loot focused. Also having them for magic items makes sense, though the weirdly obligatory magic item market of 3e being gone is fine by me.

[obryn]

If your weapon-users don't have magic weapons, at a certain point they'll fall even further behind casters.

There's a heck of a lot of monsters who are resistant (or immune) to non-magical weapons, even appearing at low levels.

[randomodo]

For the campaign I'm planning, I've got a few things so far that will be accessible at around second or third level.

- First, not an item, but is a potential boon from a fey creature. Like most gifts from the fey, this comes at a cost. Each player will gain access to a d6 and a d12. Any time before the next new moon, a character can choose one of those dice to roll and add to any one of their rolls (after they see the roll, but before told whether it's a success). Whichever die they don't use goes away - they can use one or the other.

If they picked the d6, then that's some good luck for them, free and clear. If they chose the d12, then they'll lose some luck or be asked for a favor from the fey at a later date (haven't decided which, and it'll probably depend on the player in any event). Yep, this is a one-time use item, but it's a lot more interesting than most potions.

- Second, a spear. It's known (to people with a good history or arcana roll) as the former weapon of a notably aggressive (now long-dead) warlord. It grants +1 to hit and damage as it seems to warp itself around parries and into the chinks of armor of its own accord. It also gives Dex saving throws a -1 penalty, as it wants to keep being pointed at adversaries and the user has to fight it a bit to dodge.

Third, the Rod of the Martyr. A rod, usable a number of times per long rest equal to the user's wisdom bonus. Heals d8+ wisdom bonus to someone else (not usable on self). User takes damage equal to their own wisdom bonus.

The point of both of those is twofold: to provide RP flavor as much as mechanical effects, and to show that magic is strange and wonderful and dangerously double-edged.



(Writing a modified Mystara/Karameikos sandboxish campaign with some dark gothic warhammmerish flavor)

[Fwiffo86]

If your weapon-users don't have magic weapons, at a certain point they'll fall even further behind casters.

There's a heck of a lot of monsters who are resistant (or immune) to non-magical weapons, even appearing at low levels.

Magic Weapon
Shilleligh (sp?)

Just too examples of how to immediately overcome this. No magic item required.

[Z3ro]

going from needing magic items, to needing magic items or certain spell casters (who are willing to spend spells and actions to help you when they could be using spells on your enemies directly) is not much of a step up.


Only two classes, the barbarian and the sorcerer, lack access to some ability to make a weapon magical. Fighters and rogues can take the spell at level 8, monks get it automatically at level 6, warlocks can take pact of the blade, druids get shillelah, rangers have vaioru magical arrows. It's a speed bump, not a road block.



how is it their place to do that? if I want to have a magic mart that is just as valid a playstyle as any other.

I just laughed at this; they're the designers, I think that's actually their entire job, defining how the game is played. You may disagree, but that's literally their entire job.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

My groups have been easily distracted by "quarterstaff that balances perfectly on its end" items at low levels. Also, centering quests around minor magic items and the dungeons they are stored in has been great fun, and saved me a lot of trouble for motivating players. I like the new magic item changes, and I'm looking forward to designing high-magic campaigns in the future.


how is it their place to do that? if I want to have a magic mart that is just as valid a playstyle as any other.

I'm sure that "Magic Mart" rules with gold piece values will be in the DMG. We only have the PHB and the MM right now, so of course the magic item rules are lacking. Your complaint is not new, people were making all kinds of similar complaints during the playtest.

The point is not to restrict the GM. It's to give the GM more control over magic items in their game. If they do it right, it will be just as easy to run a Tippyverse game as it is to run a Conan The Barbarian game. Hard to say right now with the DMG not out. Besides, you can always homebrew something interesting and playtest it yourself.

I also want to say that one of the biggest complaints I saw about magic items from players in 3e was, "My GM has us as 14th level characters, and we only just now got our first masterwork item, and we're fighting CR 14+ encounters which are ripping us apart because their ACs are too high for us and our ACs are so low that we get ripped to shreds." Closely followed by, "I let the party's wizard make gloves of true strike for 2,000 gp and now he spent a month selling fifteen of them in the bazaar and the party is insanely rich and can snipe goblins around corners blindfolded." The magic item system in 3e caused more problems than it solved because GMs didn't realize they could exercise Rule Zero. I think that having a foolproof magic item system in the core rules is a good idea.

Also, Rule Zero. http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Rule_Zero

[Theodoxus]

going from needing magic items, to needing magic items or certain spell casters (who are willing to spend spells and actions to help you when they could be using spells on your enemies directly) is not much of a step up.



how is it their place to do that? if I want to have a magic mart that is just as valid a playstyle as any other.

It's their place, because it's their rules. In as much as it's their place to not have Force Powers and Jedi in the Player's Handbook. As a DM, you have every prerogative to include a magic mart - creating pricing as you see fit and crafting rules that support said mart. Just as you do to homebrew the Force and Jedi, if you so desire.

Nothing stops you from doing whatever the hell you want. But some things will require you to do more work. Heck, the things I outlined I'm planning on using are more work than just using the rules straight out the box. Put your big boy pants on and stop bemoaning changes that are outside your 'playstyle'. 3rd ed didn't go anywhere - and Pathfinder sounds like it's exactly what you like to play, and it's thriving. Have fun there!

[obryn]

Magic Weapon
Shilleligh (sp?)

Just too examples of how to immediately overcome this. No magic item required.
The first being a Concentration spell for one weapon-user and the second being for your Druid.

Resistance to nonmagical weapons was put in as an apparent safeguard against peasant hordes or armies of skelly bros. But it does mean that the game assumes primary weapon-users will have a way around it. If you don't give your weapon guys magic weapons, eventually spellcasters will regularly out-damage them with cantrips, kneecapping caster/non-caster balance even more thoroughly.

[Fwiffo86]

Not to sound uppity, but have we forgotten that the game is designed with at least 4 players? Meaning that the resources of the group are all one thing? Thus a melee needing a "magic" weapon is a spell away. That spell is as much the melee's resource as it is the wizards.

How about we try calculating things with the core four instead of calculating one vs. the other? Especially since no one here seems to get the concept of how the game was actually designed.

[hymer]

Resistance to nonmagical weapons was put in as an apparent safeguard against peasant hordes or armies of skelly bros. But it does mean that the game assumes primary weapon-users will have a way around it. If you don't give your weapon guys magic weapons, eventually spellcasters will regularly out-damage them with cantrips, kneecapping caster/non-caster balance even more thoroughly.

I don't agree with your assumption about the game's assumption. :smallwink:
I think the game has many options, one of which is a 'nearly no magical items' style. In that style, the DM will need to use creatures immune/resistant to non-magical weapons very judiciously and sparingly. That the stats are available in the game does not mean that the creature exists in any given game world.

[Daishain]

Not to sound uppity, but have we forgotten that the game is designed with at least 4 players? Meaning that the resources of the group are all one thing? Thus a melee needing a "magic" weapon is a spell away. That spell is as much the melee's resource as it is the wizards.

One magic weapon for one melee guy, and giving him that magic weapon via the spell means that the caster can't use any of his other concentration spells without taking that magic weapon away again. You are talking about a HUGE opportunity cost that is only very rarely worth the trade off.

[Fwiffo86]

I am talking about "group" resources. Not about one character's resources. Even if I were, the loss of a concentration spell (which is often only good for a round or two in my play experience) isn't much of an argument against, in my opinion.

[obryn]

Not to sound uppity, but have we forgotten that the game is designed with at least 4 players? Meaning that the resources of the group are all one thing? Thus a melee needing a "magic" weapon is a spell away. That spell is as much the melee's resource as it is the wizards.

How about we try calculating things with the core four instead of calculating one vs. the other? Especially since no one here seems to get the concept of how the game was actually designed.
Examining it for the group leads to the same conclusion. Except now, you are even better off without the melee dude eating up your concentration slot. (And your cantrips would out-damage him without it, anyway.)

If this is your solution, you're increasing the game's reliance on spells and spellcasting.


I don't agree with your assumption about the game's assumption. :smallwink:
I think the game has many options, one of which is a 'nearly no magical items' style. In that style, the DM will need to use creatures immune/resistant to non-magical weapons very judiciously and sparingly. That the stats are available in the game does not mean that the creature exists in any given game world.
There's the stated design goals and the actual design. The actual design basically necessitates magic weapons for its balance to function. Not in the form of +x to hit or +y to damage, but in the frequency of nonmagical-weapon-resistant enemies.

Yes, you can choose not to use them, but you're losing out on some very significant and iconic monsters if you do so.


I am talking about "group" resources. Not about one character's resources. Even if I were, the loss of a concentration spell (which is often only good for a round or two in my play experience) isn't much of an argument against, in my opinion.
Wait, so are you saying now that Magic Weapon isn't a sufficient solution, since it only lasts for a round or two and is likely just a wasted slot? :smallconfused:

[Fwiffo86]

Wait, so are you saying now that Magic Weapon isn't a sufficient solution, since it only lasts for a round or two and is likely just a wasted slot? :smallconfused:

Not at all. I was describing the fact that most of the SoS spells our group have attempted to use only operate for at most a round or two before they are broken. Leading to several of our casters wondering why they use them in the first place. Where the caster casting magic weapon on Borayjack the fighter has his spell run the entire combat, thus increasing the fighter's already substantial damage output, supplemented with non-concentration damage spells being used.

[Daishain]

I am talking about "group" resources. Not about one character's resources. Even if I were, the loss of a concentration spell (which is often only good for a round or two in my play experience) isn't much of an argument against, in my opinion.
Really? so you think that keeping your +1 magic weapon up and running is a better use of the party's resources than rendering the half dozen archers up on the cliff completely useless via Stinking Cloud? Or perhaps slaughtering an entire army via Storm of Vengeance? Or rendering the enemy spellcaster about as useful as the fighter would be without any gear at all via Silence?

I could keep going if you wish. If you haven't seen uses of duration spells that greatly outperform a minor weapon buff, you haven't worked with a spellcaster that knows what they're doing.

[Demonic Spoon]

Really? so you think that keeping your +1 magic weapon up and running is a better use of the party's resources than rendering the half dozen archers up on the cliff completely useless via Stinking Cloud? Or perhaps slaughtering an entire army via Storm of Vengeance? Or rendering the enemy spellcaster about as useful as the fighter would be without any gear at all via Silence?

I could keep going if you wish. If you haven't seen uses of duration spells that greatly outperform a minor weapon buff, you haven't worked with a spellcaster that knows what they're doing.

Magic Weapon lasts up to 1 hour, which means it will probably be cast before the fight begins. I don't know about stinking cloud because I'm AFB, but Silence does not move with your target. That spellcaster that you claim will be useless ceases to be useless as soon as he walks 20 feet.

Because you know that Magic Weapon will be active before you enter a fight, you can instead just cast a non-concentration spell on the enemy spellcaster instead.

[Fwiffo86]

Really? so you think that keeping your +1 magic weapon up and running is a better use of the party's resources than rendering the half dozen archers up on the cliff completely useless via Stinking Cloud? Or perhaps slaughtering an entire army via Storm of Vengeance? Or rendering the enemy spellcaster about as useful as the fighter would be without any gear at all via Silence?

I could keep going if you wish. If you haven't seen uses of duration spells that greatly outperform a minor weapon buff, you haven't worked with a spellcaster that knows what they're doing.

Or perhaps we aren't playing at this level? Just a thought. While I am sure those spells are useful, and they certainly make more of a difference than 1 magic weapon buff, I have trouble believing that a campaign that uses Storm of Vengeance to eradicate an army is a campaign where physically immune creatures are more common than the army.

[Daishain]

Magic Weapon lasts up to 1 hour, which means it will probably be cast before the fight begins. I don't know about stinking cloud because I'm AFB, but Silence does not move with your target. That spellcaster that you claim will be useless ceases to be useless as soon as he walks 20 feet.

Because you know that Magic Weapon will be active before you enter a fight, you can instead just cast a non-concentration spell on the enemy spellcaster instead.
Its a matter of playing to the environment, and making it work for you.

Stinking cloud also doesn't move, but forces the archers to give up their advantageous position. Given that they're also disoriented and effectively blind, several are likely to fall off that cliff I mentioned trying to flee the effect. Whether they do or not, the entire group is almost certainly going to be out of play until after the group is done slaughtering their friends, at which point you can focus on picking them off. The unlucky bastards who didn't find their way out of the cloud before you release it will likely find themselves surrounded by your party when it dissipates. Divide and Conquer tactics like that can trivialize otherwise difficult encounters.

The silence spell is not intended to be used in a case where the opposition is really free to move, and is an example of no save, just suck, unlike nearly every other spell you might fling their way. The spellcaster suddenly has a 40' diameter sphere in which he is mostly useless (some exceptions apply). The ideal usage involves casting it when the caster has no choice but to move towards your meat grinders, and or said meat grinders have just closed in on him.


Or perhaps we aren't playing at this level? Just a thought. While I am sure those spells are useful, and they certainly make more of a difference than 1 magic weapon buff, I have trouble believing that a campaign that uses Storm of Vengeance to eradicate an army is a campaign where physically immune creatures are more common than the army.
You didn't specify, regardless, SoV is an extreme example from the level nine end of the spectrum, but stinking cloud and silence are just level 3 and 2 respectively, not exactly high level play.

Even at level 1, you have stuff like Hex and hunter's mark (which do FAR more damage in much the same style as magic weapon), Fog cloud (which is only a step down from stinking in terms of BFC), and Hideous Laughter (which can remove a single troublesome enemy from the fight entirely)

[Fwiffo86]

Its a matter of playing to the environment, and making it work for you.


The environment is not being discussed. The discussion is changing our thinking to "group" resources instead of a single "character" resource.

[Xetheral]

Do you really need rules to assign something as trivial as prices? This is not a playstyle. This is an aspect of a game world at best. This is an exceptionally miniscule thing to be taking issue with.

I very much hope the DMG will have prices or robust rules for deriving them, because I think you're very much mistaken that prices are trivial or miniscule. Pricing items relative to each other and the game world's economics is extraordinarily complicated, because it involves weighing the relative value of the items in terms of their appeal to adventurers as well as the relative value of the items in terms of their ability to reshape the game world.

For a DM to go through the prospective list of magic items and assign a thoughtful price to each one is an incredible amount of work, and requires an extreme level of system mastery. And keep in mind that the DMs who want to do this to make the system work for their game are probably new to 5e--embarking on such a project with no play experience at all is, from my vantage point, nearly an exercise in futility.

A built-in price list or pricing method also has the virtue of establishing a baseline. Even if that baseline is flawed, it gives a common point of discussion for people to gauge houserules from, and to allow DMs to build on each other's work. If every DM that desires a robust magical economy in their games starts from scratch, the resulting pricing schemes may be too fragmented to enable effective collaboration. Over time, a dominant homebrew scheme may emerge that multiple people can rely on, but the value it would provide just underscores the need for such a scheme built-in to the rules from the start.

So here's hoping that the DMG has variant rules for pricing magical items. The daunting prospect of doing it myself might be enough to keep me from moving my group to 5e, despite becoming increasingly fond of the system's other improvements.

[Demonic Spoon]

Its a matter of playing to the environment, and making it work for you.

Stinking cloud also doesn't move, but forces the archers to give up their advantageous position. Given that they're also disoriented and effectively blind, several are likely to fall off that cliff I mentioned trying to flee the effect. Whether they do or not, the entire group is almost certainly going to be out of play until after the group is done slaughtering their friends, at which point you can focus on picking them off. The unlucky bastards who didn't find their way out of the cloud before you release it will likely find themselves surrounded by your party when it dissipates. Divide and Conquer tactics like that can trivialize otherwise difficult encounters.

The silence spell is not intended to be used in a case where the opposition is really free to move, and is an example of no save, just suck, unlike nearly every other spell you might fling their way. The spellcaster suddenly has a 40' diameter sphere in which he is mostly useless (some exceptions apply). The ideal usage involves casting it when the caster has no choice but to move towards your meat grinders, and or said meat grinders have just closed in on him.

If the encounter you are engaging it just happens to be A bunch of archers are on a cliff and shooting down at you or there is a single mage in a cramped space, sure. Rarely do you know in advantage that many specifics about the environment, though.


also, why would they fall off trying to flee the effect? Do they just lose their memory of what direction the cliff was when the stinking cloud hits?

[Scirocco]

Not seeing what the issue is; the rules assume no magic mart, not no magic items. By the time you get to non-magic weapon immune monsters your beatsticks are most likely going to have access to magic weapons one way or the other.

If there aren't magic mart rules in the DMG there will surely be some in the Eberron campaign setting.

[Daishain]

The environment is not being discussed. The discussion is changing our thinking to "group" resources instead of a single "character" resource.
No issue with that, I am simply arguing that magic weapon is almost always a poor use of resources given the way duration spells now work, regardless of whether they are considered individual or group resources. If a magic weapon is consistently needed, then acquire a magic weapon, don't limit your caster's ability to do his job in order to do your own.


If the encounter you are engaging it just happens to be A bunch of archers are on a cliff and shooting down at you or there is a single mage in a cramped space, sure. Rarely do you know in advantage that many specifics about the environment, though.


also, why would they fall off trying to flee the effect? Do they just lose their memory of what direction the cliff was when the stinking cloud hits?
Nothing to do with memory, save perhaps in terms of being able to apply it. They're effectively blind, in pain, unable to breathe properly, and nauseated. Most reasonable interpretations would include them having at least some difficulty being able to tell which way is which. Frankly, at that level of debilitation, they should have difficulty even walking, but I wouldn't be a stickler about that.

As for the environment, there are very few fights where you can't do something along those lines. I cite specific examples simply because it is very difficult to convey all possible scenarios and uses just for stinking cloud, much less all of the others, especially not within a reasonable time frame.

You play to the situation, and adjust your tactics accordingly, that is the essence of the art of war. Locking down your options with a minor buff does not allow you to do so.

P.S. Rooms that are FAR from being cramped would still be dominated by a 40' sphere, especially since in this case most would be unable to tell where the edges are without stepping over them.

[obryn]

Where the caster casting magic weapon on Borayjack the fighter has his spell run the entire combat, thus increasing the fighter's already substantial damage output, supplemented with non-concentration damage spells being used.
It's not increasing. It's leaving it at baseline. The formula for calculating Monster HP does not rely on whether the monster is resistant (or even immune) to non-magical weapons.


The environment is not being discussed. The discussion is changing our thinking to "group" resources instead of a single "character" resource.
You're not going far enough with this line of reasoning. If it's understood that a caster will need to regularly use their Concentration in order to keep their grogs at baseline effectiveness, you need to consider whether having them around is valuable in the first place.

[Fwiffo86]

*shrugs* Chalk it up to different thinking then. I don't look at my party as "The wizard can do X, Y, Z so we don't need class A, B, C. I think this logic is flawed due to the way the game was intentionally designed. And by intentionally, I mean the 4 character method. Not the one caster method.

I stick with my logic.Melee A is better served hitting 4 times and dealing damage each time (for no resource cost of his own) vs. casting 4 spells to deal damage instead of using a single concentration slot. Yes, you can argue the cantrips. But the baseline damage (minimal) will be superior in the favor of the melee. I trust that over "average" damage any day.

[hymer]

There's the stated design goals and the actual design. The actual design basically necessitates magic weapons for its balance to function. Not in the form of +x to hit or +y to damage, but in the frequency of nonmagical-weapon-resistant enemies.

Yes, you can choose not to use them, but you're losing out on some very significant and iconic monsters if you do so.

It's a pretty radical way to go to say 'no magical items'. Waving a magical sword or owning a ring that makes you invisible is pretty iconic too. Those who chose to go that way obviously have to take the whole step. So I still reject your assumption.

[obryn]

*shrugs* Chalk it up to different thinking then. I don't look at my party as "The wizard can do X, Y, Z so we don't need class A, B, C. I think this logic is flawed due to the way the game was intentionally designed. And by intentionally, I mean the 4 character method. Not the one caster method.
Right - it's designed for 4 characters to contribute. In order for this to occur - for four party members to contribute to the party's success - you have to allow weapon folks to get access to magic weapons. I don't care if it's a +0 sword that glows in the presence of termites (The Mighty Blade of Orkin), it needs to happen. The quantity of enemies resistant to non-magical damage sources is significant. And many of them are iconic.

[Fwiffo86]

Right - it's designed for 4 characters to contribute. In order for this to occur - for four party members to contribute to the party's success - you have to allow weapon folks to get access to magic weapons. I don't care if it's a +0 sword that glows in the presence of termites (The Mighty Blade of Orkin), it needs to happen. The quantity of enemies resistant to non-magical damage sources is significant. And many of them are iconic.

All Hail the mighty ORKIN!

What if you aren't using any of those monsters? For instance, 99% of the villains in my game are human(oids). Its about kingdoms and knights, and evil barons oppressing the weak. With the occasional supernaturally powered antagonist (werewolf, vampire, etc). Do you "need" a magic weapon then?

[Daishain]

What if you aren't using any of those monsters? For instance, 99% of the villains in my game are human(oids). Its about kingdoms and knights, and evil barons oppressing the weak. With the occasional supernaturally powered antagonist (werewolf, vampire, etc). Do you "need" a magic weapon then?
Perhaps not, but then you're significantly changing how often something pops up, and your ability to change the narrative that way applies just as easily to the availability of magic items when damage resistant creatures DO pop up.

[Daishain]

*shrugs* Chalk it up to different thinking then. I don't look at my party as "The wizard can do X, Y, Z so we don't need class A, B, C. I think this logic is flawed due to the way the game was intentionally designed. And by intentionally, I mean the 4 character method. Not the one caster method.

I stick with my logic.Melee A is better served hitting 4 times and dealing damage each time (for no resource cost of his own) vs. casting 4 spells to deal damage instead of using a single concentration slot. Yes, you can argue the cantrips. But the baseline damage (minimal) will be superior in the favor of the melee. I trust that over "average" damage any day.
The caster's job within the context of the party is not normally baseline damage. If it is, he can do a hell of a lot better than 4 per round. If it isn't, you're keeping him from doing his job in order to be able to do your own.

Its possible you missed my last post on the prior page, I suggest you take a look.

[Fwiffo86]

Aye, I understand your point. I'm not arguing against giving the melee a magic weapon. I'm simply pointing out that there is no "NEED" to give them one. Granted, monster slaying games are apparently vastly more common than I like to think, but that is neither here nor there.

If your going with Monster slaying as your standard, sure. Magic weapon them up. I have never needed to. So when I do give them a magic weapon, it has impact other than allowing the melee to fully damage the creature in question.

[MustacheFart]

To be honest, the magic items I found the most interesting/fun as a melee character or any character really, were the items that allow me to do things I otherwise couldn't do or travel in a means not otherwise available. Examples would be the 3.5 necklace that allowed you to use Mage Hand at will. An incredibly cheap item for what it gave. Throw it on a melee guy and congrats you've now got the force. Or items that let me fly. Hell, a bag of tricks was always a hoot to use.

[Fwiffo86]

I agree MoustacheFart. The same goes for me. I think I'm losing the fun aspect of D&D by reading all these arguments/discussions/theorycrafting.

[obryn]

I agree MoustacheFart. The same goes for me. I think I'm losing the fun aspect of D&D by reading all these arguments/discussions/theorycrafting.
I'd say this sort of discussion can be helpful for overall fun, so players can target potential points of pain.

I don't buy the argument that fun disappears if you look for it.

[Daishain]

I agree MoustacheFart. The same goes for me. I think I'm losing the fun aspect of D&D by reading all these arguments/discussions/theorycrafting.
Would you rather have the argument here, or midgame? Its likely to pop up in at least one of the two.

Personally? I come here to argue, to discuss, and to think. I also don't usually try to advance new ways to handle the game into an actual game session without some "trial by jury" testing done first.

[Cambrian]

I'd say this sort of discussion can be helpful for overall fun, so players can target potential points of pain.

I don't buy the argument that fun disappears if you look for it.I very much agree.

It's sometimes useful (e.g. non-magic weapon resistance and how prevalent it is by CR) and will allow the game to be better balanced. By understanding what can cause issues you can circumvent them more easily. As a DM it's a method to avoid learning the hard way.

Other times it's fun to see what ridiculous things theoretically work by RAW-- often if you only interpret this part a certain way(and most importantly, disregard all reason).

Lastly you have those who swear the sky is falling. The most entertaining is when one thread has a couple posters claiming casters are too powerful and the edition is ruined (Keep in mind technically the MM hasn't even been released yet...), while in another thread a couple posters are claiming casters can't compare because concentration is too limiting. Not looking to enact a false compromise, but it is potentially an early sign that things aren't too bad.

[archaeo]

I'd say this sort of discussion can be helpful for overall fun, so players can target potential points of pain.

I don't buy the argument that fun disappears if you look for it.

Nah, I'm kind of with them on this. No one is breaking new ground or establishing new facts w/r/t the caster vs. martial dispute. It's just an ongoing, never-ending argument that has basically been going strong since this board was just a serial thread on the main RPG board.

For what it's worth, I count 77 monsters in the MM that have resistance or immunity to nonmagical weapon damage, including those monsters for whom the resistance is bypassed by having a nonmagical silvered or adamantine weapon. That's, what, about 20% of the monsters listed? Without going all the way back through and checking, it also seemed like the vast majority of them were either a) above CR 10 or so or b) part of a wider group of monsters, like fiends or celestials, who all get the resistance.

Personally, I look at the problem of magic weapons as a nice opportunity for a plot hook. Gonna go fight monsters in the Abyss? It's dangerous to go alone! Take this [magic sword].

[Cambrian]

Nah, I'm kind of with them on this. No one is breaking new ground or establishing new facts w/r/t the caster vs. martial dispute. It's just an ongoing, never-ending argument that has basically been going strong since this board was just a serial thread on the main RPG board.The Caster/Martial debate is tiring when it's the unbridgeable gap with each side endlessly yelling the same things back and forth.

I do like when people are just interested in figuring things out (like your summary of non-magic weapon resistance) and everyone is more motivated by curiosity and good intentions.


Personally, I look at the problem of magic weapons as a nice opportunity for a plot hook. Gonna go fight monsters in the Abyss? It's dangerous to go alone! Take this [magic sword].
Thinking back about it I probably have been anything but representative with my viewing of the MM (thus thinking NMW-resistance is more common than it is). If it is around 20% then that is more reasonable-- especially with lower CRs remaining relevant. Just another aspect to keep in mind as the DM...