magic ring preview!!!

[CyberThread]

http://media.wizards.com/2014/images/dnd/articles/XTRALife_MagicRings.jpg


Come enjoy folks more magic items

[Ferrin33]

That Ring of Spell Storing is amazing, especially for warlocks in my opinion.

[MaxWilson]

That Ring of Spell Storing is amazing, especially for warlocks in my opinion.

Since cantrips don't have spell levels, how many Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blasts do you think a warlock buddy could store in that ring for you?

[Naanomi]

Since cantrips don't have spell levels, how many Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blasts do you think a warlock buddy could store in that ring for you?
None, since it specifically says spells level 1-5?

[CyberThread]

Not near my books but do invocations count may be a good question.

[Ferrin33]

Not near my books but do invocations count may be a good question.

Some invocations grant you the ability to cast certain spells using warlock spell slots. And I think the ring even works with racial spells.

[Gnomes2169]

Since cantrips don't have spell levels, how many Agonizing Repelling Eldritch Blasts do you think a warlock buddy could store in that ring for you?

Well seeing as cantrips still cost 1 sorc point to twin despite being considered level 0 spells by RAW, one would guess that they will count as 1 charge... So 5 of them. :smalltongue:

[edge2054]

Looking at Shooting Stars...

The thief archetype just gets better and better.

[squashmaster]

Some people were slagging on these rings. Those people are idiots. Although, I am slightly confused about the spell storing ring. It can store up to 5 levels worth of spells...that's...how many?

[Ziegander]

Some people were slagging on these rings. Those people are idiots. Although, I am slightly confused about the spell storing ring. It can store up to 5 levels worth of spells...that's...how many?

Any number of spells (not cantrips, because cantrips are cantrips and not spells) whose combined levels are less than or equal to five. It could store five 1st-level spells, one 2nd-level and one 3rd-level spell, or one 5th-level spell (among other combinations), but could not store, for example, three 2nd-level spells.

[squashmaster]

Ah, cool. Yeah, that thing is nice, and honestly, the resistance rings I think are underrated overall. They're absolute gold against caster monsters in a game like 5e where every little bit counts.

[Easy_Lee]

Some people were slagging on these rings. Those people are idiots. Although, I am slightly confused about the spell storing ring. It can store up to 5 levels worth of spells...that's...how many?

I think it means one fifth level, or one third and one second level, etc. Probably either can't store cantrips or they would be treated as one level.

[TheOOB]

I'm happy to see most magic items seem to require attunement. That *should* keep things from getting out of hand.

[Noldo]

Funny, interesting or nice, depending on your viewpoint, but due the concentration rules the ring of spell storing is best in the hand of a non-caster. A friendly mage can then cast a buff that requires concentration into the ring and let the beneficiary (rogue, fighter, barbarian) bear the responsibility to maintain the concentration while allowing the mage (or cleric) to cast another concentration buff.

[Stealthscout]

Just as important to keep in mind are two things most players aren't used to considering:


There is a definite push to not have characters rely on magical items so whether characters can ever expect to find one is largely up to the DM
Crafting things isn't as easy as it used to be without some DM discussion/approval. It is now possible (though unlikely) that we are going back to 2e rules which basically allowed 1-2 items created in your character's lifetime


They do look interesting, though I would warn any players that they shouldn't make any builds around something like this.

Sidenote: nice images to them. I could identify the purpose of each there except for the spell storing one - though I could fluff that one to show the text for each stored spell on the ring which flashes when used.

[Daishain]

And I'm sure no DM will ever give the party a ring of spell storing filled with a specially researched L5 spell called "neuter self" :smallbiggrin:

[Socko525]

The spell-storing ring is definitely something I'm excited for. Having the warlock be able to give armor of agathys to others, especially the melee types would be great or allowing non divine classes access to cure wounds could also be really useful. Also being able to give fighters access to certain smiting spells could also be very interesting, especially at low levels.

But...I guess that all depends on how "rare" a rare magic item actually is

[MustacheFart]

Here's a question, are you still limited to only 2 rings? I know you have a limit of 3 attuned magic items and it seems that the rings thus far all require this. Does this mean you could have 3 rings?

The ring of Spell storing is obviously nice and offers a lot of versatility but it also requires assistance from an external party if the owner isn't a caster.

I wouldn't mind a Ring of Resistance (Jade) for my bear totem barbarian. Then he literally would be resistant to ALL DAMAGE of every kind. The Shooting Stars ring would also be nice on a melee character such as that for giving them a bit of blast damage to use against packs of mooks.

[Person_Man]

I'm still annoyed and somewhat angry about the magic items rules.

Its abundantly clear now that the Christmas Tree effect is going to exist again in most games, because most DMs assume that magic items are a default part of playing D&D and fantasy roleplaying games in general. Saying that magic items are optional is "solves" the Christmas Tree Effect by canceling all holiday celebrations for everyone. Sure its possible, but that was always an option for all DMs in every previous edition of D&D. Make it a default assumption doesn't actually resolve anything.

Some D&D games start at mid-high levels, so its not unreasonable to assume that many players are going to request starting with some magic items, and some/most DMs will have some sort of approval process. But the lack of any rating/pricing system and the fact that some magic items don't require attunement is going to make starting at mid-high levels with magic items ridiculously difficult to manage.

[Ziegander]

I'm still annoyed and somewhat angry about the magic items rules.

Its abundantly clear now that the Christmas Tree effect is going to exist again in most games, because most DMs assume that magic items are a default part of playing D&D and fantasy roleplaying games in general. Saying that magic items are optional is "solves" the Christmas Tree Effect by canceling all holiday celebrations for everyone. Sure its possible, but that was always an option for all DMs in every previous edition of D&D. Make it a default assumption doesn't actually resolve anything.

Except that magic items really are optional. Which to me is an awesome selling point for this edition. In 3.5, sure, you could run a no magic item game, but it was much more difficult. The reason being that in 3.5 there was WEALTH BY LEVEL, which just assumed that PCs had a certain abundance of permanent magical gear from very early in the game. The game and the monsters were all balanced against this accepted notion that PCs had tons of magic items. But in 5e, the game is balanced against the notion that PCs do not have magic items. At all. The underlying math of the game already works without the players having any magic items in their stash. Now, the Devs likely assume that players will still have a few, just because they are fun, but since they are optional, those items simply make players more able to defeat level-appropriate encounters than before. If you wanted to play with no magic items in 3rd or 4th edition you were giving yourself TONS of additional work, but in 5e that work is already done for you.


Some D&D games start at mid-high levels, so its not unreasonable to assume that many players are going to request starting with some magic items, and some/most DMs will have some sort of approval process. But the lack of any rating/pricing system and the fact that some magic items don't require attunement is going to make starting at mid-high levels with magic items ridiculously difficult to manage.

First of all, there is some sort of rating system at work. Rarity. But since, secondly, the DMG isn't out yet, we can't know what it means, or if there are any additional rules, systems, or guidelines in place to handle or help DMs with these situations. In fact, the lack of a pricing system is part and parcel of eliminating the christmas tree effect. Would you rather have Wealth by Level guidelines back? That would murder the game, in my opinion.

[Segev]

While it is true that the game is balanced around the idea that players will not have magic items, that doesn't make the problem of "how do we balance having magic items?" go away. Instead of having a minimum WBL you must meet to run the game at "standard difficulty," you instead have magic items stepping in and making PCs overpowered for their level.

There will always need to be a way to measure - at least roughly - the impact of magic items on the power level of the characters. If the game is balanced such that a party of 10th level characters can take on, say, a beholder (I don't know a beholder's CR in 5e, so am making this up) without magic items, then a 10th level party with magic items will have an easier time against the beholder.

How much easier? Not sure. How do you judge whether to allow PCs starting at 10th level to start with magic items from their backstory, when it might make a PC actually able to take on a CR 11 challenge as easily as the same PC sans magic item could take on a CR 10 one?

Hopefully, the DMG will have guidelines on that as well as explaining what rarity means. Maybe even as part of it.

[MadGrady]

While it is true that the game is balanced around the idea that players will not have magic items, that doesn't make the problem of "how do we balance having magic items?" go away. Instead of having a minimum WBL you must meet to run the game at "standard difficulty," you instead have magic items stepping in and making PCs overpowered for their level.

There will always need to be a way to measure - at least roughly - the impact of magic items on the power level of the characters. If the game is balanced such that a party of 10th level characters can take on, say, a beholder (I don't know a beholder's CR in 5e, so am making this up) without magic items, then a 10th level party with magic items will have an easier time against the beholder.

How much easier? Not sure. How do you judge whether to allow PCs starting at 10th level to start with magic items from their backstory, when it might make a PC actually able to take on a CR 11 challenge as easily as the same PC sans magic item could take on a CR 10 one?

Hopefully, the DMG will have guidelines on that as well as explaining what rarity means. Maybe even as part of it.

My god I hope so. This, to me, has been the most difficult (and that is of course a relative term) part of learning 5e. For now, it's simply going to be trial and error to figure this out.

[Ziegander]

Instead of having a minimum WBL you must meet to run the game at "standard difficulty," you instead have magic items stepping in and making PCs overpowered for their level.

Only if the DM makes the conscious decision to put those magic items in their game in the first place. Magic items don't just randomly pop up in game. The DM has to put them there. The game itself states that magic items are an optional part of the game and the DM chooses whether or not he wants to use them at all. Since they are not factored into the default math of the game, and since the DM has to choose to include one, a hundred, or any whatsoever in his campaign, the only way the PCs are overpowered for their level is if the DM knew beforehand that giving the PCs magic items would make them overpowered and decided to do it anyway. I don't understand how that's an indictment of the system.


There will always need to be a way to measure - at least roughly - the impact of magic items on the power level of the characters. If the game is balanced such that a party of 10th level characters can take on, say, a beholder (I don't know a beholder's CR in 5e, so am making this up) without magic items, then a 10th level party with magic items will have an easier time against the beholder.

How much easier? Not sure. How do you judge whether to allow PCs starting at 10th level to start with magic items from their backstory, when it might make a PC actually able to take on a CR 11 challenge as easily as the same PC sans magic item could take on a CR 10 one?

Hopefully, the DMG will have guidelines on that as well as explaining what rarity means. Maybe even as part of it.

Some guidelines would be nice, and I do expect them to show up, but what I'm saying is, they are not required to play the game and if they show up in the form of some sort of wealth by level chart, then we're going to see another rise of the christmas tree effect where, by given levels, players simply expect, nay demand, that they have a magic item or a few, of some given rarity. What's so great to me about the game's use of magic items so far is that they aren't needed, the players don't expect them, and so they serve the plot and rule of cool rather than the needs/desires of the players. Finding magic items can be cool again, especially if they are truly unique treasures. In fact, my only dislike about how the DMG seems to be handling magic items is that they all seem too generic by my standards.

[Person_Man]

@Ziegander

If you only play with 1 DM, then you are absolutely correct. The DM can basically manage anything, because they are god of their game world, and anything can be fixed with smart DMing or by just talking to your players.

But what if you have rotating DMs, or if you take a character that you started in one game into another game? (Which is something WotC is trying to explicitly promote with organized play, their response to the Pathfinder Society). Different DMs have different conceptions of game balance. Some DMs might not use magic items, some might use them sparingly, some might use them liberally, and others may have very idiosyncratic ideas about balance and what is or is not allowed. Even if you only use a character with magic items in games with DMs that don't ban them, having to re-negotiate which ones you can and cannot use without any shared basis for cost or power level is a massive hassle.

Also, consider the impact that splat books will have on the system. Lets say I'm a DM and want to start a 15th level game. I have six players, and each of them has bought at least one splat book I don't own. I like and want to include magic items in my game, because magic items are awesome, and they fit the fluff of my campaign world. I also do not want to ban splat books, because then those players basically wasted their money on something they can't use in most D&D games and can't add new interesting options to the game. (Some players also feel cheated or picked on if they're not allowed to use their favorite splat book. Just ask anyone who loved the Tome of Battle but was banned from using it for whatever reason).

As a DM I now have to read all of the magic items for all of the players, compare the relative added power/flexibility/etc that each player added to their build with their choice of magic items, and then approve or disapprove the each player's package of magic item selections, or start knocking out choices on a case by case basis. And remember, players are not limited to 3 magic items, because there are plenty of magic items that don't require attunement, that many players will want or need to fill up on such items to fine tune or fill gaps in their build.

Consider Darkvision. If a player doesn't get it from their race, and the DM has decided to care about and pay attention to the illumination rules, then the player must either play a race with Darkvision, get access to the Darkvision spell, risk giving away their position to enemies using magical or mundane light, or get a magic item that grants Darkvision. If I as a player opt to just add a Googles of Darkvision (or whatever) to my new 15th level Fighter, but the DM then knocks it out for whatever reason, I now have to change my race or class choice to get Darkvision, or I risk being at a serious tactical disadvantage. Now consider applying a similar process to your weapon, armor, movement speed(s), camping/rest routine, Skills, etc.

[obryn]

Except that magic items really are optional....But in 5e, the game is balanced against the notion that PCs do not have magic items. At all. The underlying math of the game already works without the players having any magic items in their stash. Now, the Devs likely assume that players will still have a few, just because they are fun, but since they are optional, those items simply make players more able to defeat level-appropriate encounters than before.
Attack/defense math is one thing. Gameplay is another. A weapon-using character really must have a magic weapon at some (potentially early) point, or else other means of bypassing remarkably common non-magical-weapon resistance. (The Magic Weapon spell is way too costly, concentration-wise, for it to be a realistic option.)

I'm not sure any other sort of magic item reaches that level of necessity. Just make sure you give the swordy guys their sparkly swords. It doesn't even need to be +anything; it just needs to be magic.


If you wanted to play with no magic items in 3rd or 4th edition you were giving yourself TONS of additional work, but in 5e that work is already done for you.
3e maybe? But in 4e this simply couldn't be further from the truth. Inherent bonuses are incredibly easy, and there's even a quick toggle for them on the character builder. Compared to balancing out items and staying on the treadmill, it substantially reduces the DM workload.

[Ziegander]

@Ziegander

If you only play with 1 DM, then you are absolutely correct. The DM can basically manage anything, because they are god of their game world, and anything can be fixed with smart DMing or by just talking to your players.

Don't just dismiss my argument as Rule 0. It's way more than that, and to treat it as such as basically ignoring me and patronizing me all at once. :smallannoyed:


But what if you have rotating DMs, or if you take a character that you started in one game into another game? (Which is something WotC is trying to explicitly promote with organized play, their response to the Pathfinder Society). Different DMs have different conceptions of game balance. Some DMs might not use magic items, some might use them sparingly, some might use them liberally, and others may have very idiosyncratic ideas about balance and what is or is not allowed. Even if you only use a character with magic items in games with DMs that don't ban them, having to re-negotiate which ones you can and cannot use without any shared basis for cost or power level is a massive hassle.

How is that any different than trying to accept a player from a different DM that allowed Gestalt? Or half wealth by level, or double? Or from one game that banned all Tier 1 and 2 classes into one that bans Tier 4 and higher ones? It's in fact easier to deal with than those problems.


Also, consider the impact that splat books will have on the system. Lets say I'm a DM and want to start a 15th level game. I have six players, and each of them has bought at least one splat book I don't own. I like and want to include magic items in my game, because magic items are awesome, and they fit the fluff of my campaign world. I also do not want to ban splat books, because then those players basically wasted their money on something they can't use in most D&D games and can't add new interesting options to the game. (Some players also feel cheated or picked on if they're not allowed to use their favorite splat book. Just ask anyone who loved the Tome of Battle but was banned from using it for whatever reason).

As a DM I now have to read all of the magic items for all of the players, compare the relative added power/flexibility/etc that each player added to their build with their choice of magic items, and then approve or disapprove the each player's package of magic item selections, or start knocking out choices on a case by case basis. And remember, players are not limited to 3 magic items, because there are plenty of magic items that don't require attunement, that many players will want or need to fill up on such items to fine tune or fill gaps in their build.

Okay, your argument seems to be that 5e's magic items rules suck because splat books that aren't out yet will probably have magic items in them and if you choose to allow both all splat books and all magic items, then it becomes a hassle for you to read and approve all of these items because you're also allowing the players to simply choose what magic items they have and how many... This is not a legitimate complaint about the game system, and if you can't see that you're blind. The solutions to this situation are legion, and I imagine there will be some guidelines for it in the DMG, in fact, I imagine that's exactly what the rarity system is for, so that they can then provide a table that says, "if you are using magic items, you may refer to the following table," and then by character level provides a number of each rarity of magic item that a player can be "expected" to have. Maybe even multiple charts for "low magic, standard, and high fantasy" settings. But whatever. Since you chose to allow magic items and you chose to start a game at a very high character level, I don't think it's the game system's duty to hold your hand and tell you how to do that. You could, just as easily, tell your players to choose any three Common magic items, any two Uncommon magic items, and any one Rare magic item, and that's it, that's all they get. You could say, "I will choose magic items for you," and I don't think that would be crazy, because it's not 3.5 where the PCs can walk into town and order a Holy Avenger off the menu at McArties. In 5e, if the DM is using magic items, they place them when and where they want to, so it only seems reasonable that a high-level start work off the assumption that if the PCs start with magic items that the characters stumbled across them at some point in their adventuring career.


Consider Darkvision. If a player doesn't get it from their race, and the DM has decided to care about and pay attention to the illumination rules, then the player must either play a race with Darkvision, get access to the Darkvision spell, risk giving away their position to enemies using magical or mundane light, or get a magic item that grants Darkvision. If I as a player opt to just add a Googles of Darkvision (or whatever) to my new 15th level Fighter, but the DM then knocks it out for whatever reason, I now have to change my race or class choice to get Darkvision, or I risk being at a serious tactical disadvantage. Now consider applying a similar process to your weapon, armor, movement speed(s), camping/rest routine, Skills, etc.

Since magic items aren't a part and parcel of the players' presupposed mathematical viability as characters, then players shouldn't get to build their characters on the assumption that they have certain, player-chosen magic items. Since the very existence of magic items depends upon the choice of the DM, I'm really leaning toward the notion that, unless the DM says so the PCs shouldn't ever start a game saying, "I have a Holy Avenger," and they especially shouldn't metagame their entire build around the possession of one or more magic items of their choosing. That just seems pretentious and rude. Saying that its the game fault that there might be DMs who allow their players to railroad them and make their game that much more difficult also seems, to me, to be missing the point entirely.

[obryn]

Since magic items aren't a part and parcel of the players' presupposed mathematical viability as characters
I'll expand on my point above here, because you can't just look at the probability pass/fail end of the equation. Damage is also part of a character's mathematical viability - especially a "martial" character's, in 5e.

If a 15th level Fighter is frequently doing half as much damage as she should be, because she doesn't have a sparkly sword and everything she's fighting is resistant to non-sparkly swords, that's not "mathematically viable."

What's more, the other end of the equation gets crazy swingy. If she suddenly has a really powerful +3 sword, do the math on what it means for her effective damage output. (Hint: It's not 15%, and it's not even 30%) :smallsmile: That's a mathematical problem in the other direction, further weakening an already weak and wonky CR system.

(For the record, I like magic items, and I respect what 5e tried to do with them. However, their reluctance to eliminate +X weapons, their reliance on damage resistance/immunity to non-magic weapons, etc., smacks of weak design rigor rather than design towards a philosophy.)

[Ziegander]

I'll expand on my point above here, because you can't just look at the probability pass/fail end of the equation. Damage is also part of a character's mathematical viability - especially a "martial" character's, in 5e.

If a 15th level Fighter is frequently doing half as much damage as she should be, because she doesn't have a sparkly sword and everything she's fighting is resistant to non-sparkly swords, that's not "mathematically viable."

What's more, the other end of the equation gets crazy swingy. If she suddenly has a really powerful +3 sword, do the math on what it means for her effective damage output. (Hint: It's not 15%, and it's not even 30%) :smallsmile: That's a mathematical problem in the other direction, further weakening an already weak and wonky CR system.

(For the record, I like magic items, and I respect what 5e tried to do with them. However, their reluctance to eliminate +X weapons, their reliance on damage resistance/immunity to non-magic weapons, etc., smacks of weak design rigor rather than design towards a philosophy.)

Admittedly, I haven't played at the level where that has been an issue whatsoever, so I don't know how real or imaginary of a problem it is yet. But I have a feeling neither you or Person_Man have played at that level either.

I have seen an abundance of high level threats with all sorts of resistances, not only to nonmagic weapons but also to often multiple elements at once as well as a host of condition immunities, if not outright advantage against magic. Dealing half damage, half of the time only becomes not mathematically viable if the characters cannot survive against reasonable encounters. If they can, than a Fighter without a magic weapon certainly is viable and the existence of theoretical +3 weapons is not evidence that 5e is inherently unbalanced because it is inherently balanced in the assumption that those things don't exist unless the DM says so.

Right now I'm just choosing to trust the math that the Devs say is there and works, rather than assume it doesn't without any practical experience or second-hand reports to tell me otherwise.

[EvilAnagram]

(For the record, I like magic items, and I respect what 5e tried to do with them. However, their reluctance to eliminate +X weapons, their reliance on damage resistance/immunity to non-magic weapons, etc., smacks of weak design rigor rather than design towards a philosophy.)

I've noticed that 5e is extremely reliant on damage resistance and immunity, with almost no weaknesses to damage at all. It's a really annoying design philosophy that punishes players for having the wrong tools instead of rewarding them for being prepared, while attempting to accomplish the same design goal (making certain types of damage more effective). It makes it less fun for players, and it conflicts with the stated design goal of reducing the availability of magic items.

I was extremely pleased with the PHB, but some aspects of the MM are really annoying me.

[Stealthscout]

Sorry I hijacked the thread with this topic - this should have been about the rings.

We are likely to see some good basic rules with the magic items 'variant' in the DMG. Thinking conspiratorially, this might be the reason they delayed the DMG for us - make us play without real magical items to realize you really don't automatically need the numeric sword/armor/cloak combo from previous editions. :smallamused:

Since most items are not needed, this could be as simple as "At X level you get Y number of common items and Z uncommon items. Rare and above are DM fiat or plot points". You bet that fighters will go for a magic sword, but then +1 is all they can get for their level. And the smart ones would go for really functional options like the darkvision goggles or better yet a magical set of brewing tools which allow you to make half-cost healing potions.

'Magical' doesn't necessarily mean what we think either. Maybe a basic magic sword is no plus to hit but it does d4 fire damage or up your initiative by +2. Fun, but not throwing off your power level much on it's own. That would be a good option for tables afraid of items throwing off the balance.

I'm sure that any table group will come up with their own rules like this as a good guideline.

[obryn]

Admittedly, I haven't played at the level where that has been an issue whatsoever, so I don't know how real or imaginary of a problem it is yet. But I have a feeling neither you or Person_Man have played at that level either.
Well, I don't need to break my arm to know that a broken arm hurts, either. :smallsmile:

Folks have "mathed out" the expected class contributions over many levels; cutting damage in half is obviously a big deal. (You can likewise just see the number of monsters with resistance/immunity to nonmagical weapons by paging through the MM.)


Right now I'm just choosing to trust the math that the Devs say is there and works, rather than assume it doesn't without any practical experience or second-hand reports to tell me otherwise.
Seeing the final results of monster building and the whackadoodle CR/challenge system, I'm rather less convinced.


I've noticed that 5e is extremely reliant on damage resistance and immunity, with almost no weaknesses to damage at all. It's a really annoying design philosophy that punishes players for having the wrong tools instead of rewarding them for being prepared, while attempting to accomplish the same design goal (making certain types of damage more effective). It makes it less fun for players, and it conflicts with the stated design goal of reducing the availability of magic items.

I was extremely pleased with the PHB, but some aspects of the MM are really annoying me.
Yeah, I think the huge number of resistances to non-magical stuff is a combination of both (1) a weird drive towards 'realism', and (2) a balance counter to Necromancer Ned's Skelly Bros.

[Segev]

While I think this point was eventually gotten, I want to reiterate it because somebody seemed to be trying to refute what I was saying in a manner that indicated they misunderstood my point.

Of course the DM decides what, if any, magic items are in the game. However, if, as has been intimated, the game is truly balanced with no magic items at all, then the addition of any magic items alters that balance. This was as true in 3e, honestly: having WBL higher than your level was intended to made you indisputably stronger than your level supposedly indicated. (The fact that classes were not well balanced made this sometimes more invisible, since a fighter with triple wealth for his level might barely be catching up with a druid with VoP, but still.)

In 5e, the classes are much more closely balanced, at least for now. Magic items will make those with them stronger than those without, and make parties equipped more-or-less uniformly with them more powerful than their level indicates. How much more powerful would be nice to have quantified, at least to a rough degree.

That's why this shift to 0 WBL rather than scaling WBL as the default doesn't inherently change the problem of balancing loot. It just makes it easier to "get right" if you're just aiming to pit CR-appropriate encounters against the party. Rather than carefully distributing loot to get the party to the prescribed level, you just hand out none.

That doesn't change the question of what happens when a magic item is given, and how that impacts the party's effective CR.

[edge2054]

Even for more monty haul-esque games I think the new attunement rules are going to put a damper on how reliant the players are on magic items.

It's like concentration reigning in casters. We have (most of) the same spells we've always had but you can no longer have Haste, Slow, Hypnotic Pattern, Web, etc. etc. all going at once.

It's a new approach to game balance that WotC seems to be taking and I've been quite happy so far with it myself.

*edit*

And in case anyone missed it, bonus action shooting stars on a thief! Can't wait to play a rogue in non-AL game.

[archaeo]

But what if you have rotating DMs, or if you take a character that you started in one game into another game? (Which is something WotC is trying to explicitly promote with organized play, their response to the Pathfinder Society).

Just as an aside, organized play seems based around WotC-published adventures, which give proscribed items. Presumably, a well-crafted adventure will account for the magic items found within it


What's more, the other end of the equation gets crazy swingy. If she suddenly has a really powerful +3 sword, do the math on what it means for her effective damage output. (Hint: It's not 15%, and it's not even 30%) :smallsmile: That's a mathematical problem in the other direction, further weakening an already weak and wonky CR system.

(For the record, I like magic items, and I respect what 5e tried to do with them. However, their reluctance to eliminate +X weapons, their reliance on damage resistance/immunity to non-magic weapons, etc., smacks of weak design rigor rather than design towards a philosophy.)


Seeing the final results of monster building and the whackadoodle CR/challenge system, I'm rather less convinced.


That's why this shift to 0 WBL rather than scaling WBL as the default doesn't inherently change the problem of balancing loot. It just makes it easier to "get right" if you're just aiming to pit CR-appropriate encounters against the party. Rather than carefully distributing loot to get the party to the prescribed level, you just hand out none.

That doesn't change the question of what happens when a magic item is given, and how that impacts the party's effective CR.

We still don't really know what the plan is for the DMG w/r/t "balancing" magical items. Can someone point me to where the designers explicitly said "the game is balanced for no magical items" and not "there is no magic mart"? Because otherwise, I'm pretty sure that the MM seems to suggest that players are expected to get magical weapons, at the very least.

There's virtually no way the DMG is just going to dump a pile of magic items into DMs' laps and say, "You can hand these to your players, and we're not going to tell you how they impact the game's balance." It remains to be seen if the magic items are built into the CR assumptions or if the encounter builder will somehow account for items; you could, in theory, add an XP budget modifier for parties with magic items, though it'd be cumbersome.

But yeah, I'm not ready to cry foul on how WotC has handled magic items until we actually know how WotC plans to handle magic items. :smallbiggrin:

[Person_Man]

I wonder when they made the decision to make no magic items the default, or if they've gone back and forth on whether it should or should not be.

Conjured/Animated creatures can be extremely potent. Also, some playtesters hate the idea of X Commoners being able to defeat powerful monsters. The solution to this issue was to give many powerful monsters various Resistances and Immunities. Therefore, its assumed that mid-high level players that don't have access to spells must have access to magic weapons, or they will suck terribly against many powerful monsters.

So what should a DM that does not want to use magic items do in a mid-high level game with a Champion Fighter and a Necromancer Wizard? Do you choose not to use monsters with Resistances/Immunities and let the Necromancer Wizard run wild? Do you use them and screw the Fighter? Do you not use more enemies and have them target the Necromancer's mooks just to punish him for using a stronger option?

Also, one of the Thief Rogue's base class abilities is "Use Magic Device." Why make a default class ability in the Basic Rules for an iconic class something that is not an assumed part of the game?

I can think of a number of homebrew solutions. But I just strongly dislike the disjointed design.

[archaeo]

I wonder when they made the decision to make no magic items the default.

Again, could you possibly point to where the designers said this? It's certainly true that it's a forum truism -- we've been talking about "no magic items needed!" for awhile now -- but I feel like all Mearls ever said was there wasn't going to be a magic mart. If they're taking up 100+ pages of the DMG to cover magic items, I assume that handing them out will be "core."


So what should a DM that does not want to use magic items do in a mid-high level game with a Champion Fighter and a Necromancer Wizard? Do you choose not to use monsters with Resistances/Immunities and let the Necromancer Wizard run wild? Do you use them and screw the Fighter? Do you not use more enemies and have them target the Necromancer's mooks just to punish him for using a stronger option?

Hand out scrolls of magic weapon? Have the Necromancer write said scrolls for the Champion's use? Vary the settings, so that the Necromancer can't always bring the whole army along?

I certainly wouldn't let a Necromancer have access to enough magic weapons to arm their entire skeleton army, in any case. I also don't think "just to punish him for using a stronger option" is the only reason enemies might be targeting the undead horde before them. :smallcool:


I can think of a number of homebrew solutions. But I just strongly dislike the disjointed design.

It just seems impossible that WotC plans on just hoping the DM can wing it as far as balancing magic item use goes. As I said, it could be built into the CR assumptions in some way, or three attuned items is meant to keep it balanced, or something. Either way, it strikes me as too early to write it all off as "disjointed."

[CyberThread]

I wonder when they made the decision to make no magic items the default.

Conjured/Animated creatures can be extremely potent. Also, some playtesters hate the idea of X Commoners being able to defeat powerful monsters. The solution to this issue was to give many powerful monsters various Resistances and Immunities. Therefore, its assumed that mid-high level players that don't have access to spells must have access to magic weapons, or they will suck terribly against many powerful monsters.

So what should a DM that does not want to use magic items do in a mid-high level game with a Champion Fighter and a Necromancer Wizard? Do you choose not to use monsters with Resistances/Immunities and let the Necromancer Wizard run wild? Do you use them and screw the Fighter? Do you not use more enemies and have them target the Necromancer's mooks just to punish him for using a stronger option?

I can think of a number of homebrew solutions. But I just strongly dislike the disjointed design.

I disagree, in so much , that I think player pressure will force DM's to allow cool toys and weapons. Much like I think player pressure will have feats in most games.


But I also heavily agree.


They are having a bit of identity issue. This edition seems to be low magic, low item creation , yet the default setting is about as high fantasy magical setting as you can get.




I think they are falling into the trap of modern gameplay. The character is a peaceful person, who thinks war is bad, yet the entire gameplay is gears of war bloodshed.

[AgentPaper]

I can think of a number of homebrew solutions. But I just strongly dislike the disjointed design.

I don't want to make it seem like this is a non-issue, but there are things you can do.

For one, allow the other party members to recruit followers, low level soldiers and such that everyone has minions to order around.

Then, make situations where using said army is impractical or impossible: narrow corridors, places you need to fly to reach, environmental hazards that lesser men can't handle, or simply enemies with AoE spells or attacks that grind through the minions. Corpses are not an unlimited resource, especial ally if you rule that most remains in cemetaries are too old and rotted to even make skeletons out of.

Or hey, maybe people realized that buried remains can be easily reanimated, and star Ed the very reasonable practice of cremation to ensure their loved ones are not turned into shambling horrors to fulfill the whims of whatever necromancer wanders along.

With all that, your necromancer is now limited to corpses he makes, and he can't just solve every problem by throwing more zombies at it. He'll still have a decent supply of undead to play around with, just not an unlimited amount as many seem to assume any necromancer will be able to get a hold of with little or no effort.

[AgentPaper]

What's more, the other end of the equation gets crazy swingy. If she suddenly has a really powerful +3 sword, do the math on what it means for her effective damage output. (Hint: It's not 15%, and it's not even 30%) :smallsmile: That's a mathematical problem in the other direction, further weakening an already weak and wonky CR system.

Ok, I did the math, and no it isn't 30%, it's a ~21-24% increase in damage to get +3 to your attack roll. Getting +3 damage is actually (very) slightly better at many levels. Both of them together translates into a ~50% increase in damage per round at all levels. If you take maneuvers into account (which don't care about hit chance because you apply them after a hit), the effect diminishes even further. I haven't tested this for non-fighters, but seeing as they have only less attacks, I can't see it being anything but less impactful for them.

+3 weapons are certainly powerful, but not game-breakingly so by any means.

[MaxWilson]

There will always need to be a way to measure - at least roughly - the impact of magic items on the power level of the characters. If the game is balanced such that a party of 10th level characters can take on, say, a beholder (I don't know a beholder's CR in 5e, so am making this up) without magic items, then a 10th level party with magic items will have an easier time against the beholder.

How much easier? Not sure. How do you judge whether to allow PCs starting at 10th level to start with magic items from their backstory, when it might make a PC actually able to take on a CR 11 challenge as easily as the same PC sans magic item could take on a CR 10 one?

A 10th level party with good stats will also have an easier time against the beholder, as well a 10th level party which good tactical acumen and well-chosen feats and smooth teamwork and good intel capability. We don't have a rating system that adjusts CR for stats and feats, so you eyeball things and/or accept that your party is more capable than your average level per se would suggest. Adding magic items to the mix is just more of the same. A +1 magic sword is like having rolled really well on your STR, right?

Levels really aren't fungible anyway. 5E tries to make them moreso, but five 7th-level Moon Druids simply don't have the same tactical profile at two 7th-level Thieves and three 7th-level Champion Fighters and shouldn't go up against the same threats.

[mephnick]

ue. This edition seems to be low magic, low item creation , yet the default setting is about as high fantasy magical setting as you can get.

I found out the setting was Forgotten Realms after I had already read a bunch of the rules and my first thought was "really?...why the hell.."

[MaxWilson]

Well, I don't need to break my arm to know that a broken arm hurts, either. :smallsmile:

Folks have "mathed out" the expected class contributions over many levels; cutting damage in half is obviously a big deal. (You can likewise just see the number of monsters with resistance/immunity to nonmagical weapons by paging through the MM.)

Of course cutting damage in half is a big deal. If weapon resistance were intended to be trivially bypassed, it would be pointless. If you start handing out magical swords like popcorn, then abilities like the Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon and the Eldritch Knight's ability to cast Magic Weapon (or get it cast by someone else for him) lose most of their appeal.

On another note, EvilAnagram has an interesting point about how the game would be more interesting with more vulnerabilities instead of resistances. It would actually be kind of cool if werewolves had vulnerability to silver weapons and rakshasas had vulnerability to, I dunno, salt. I would argue further that it would be even more interesting if vulnerability were something other than "double damage in melee," since a peasant hitting a vampire with a clove of garlic is unlikely to do significant damage even after doubling. This is the kind of thing I'd like to see in splatbooks though: the Complete Book of Vampires detailing all the things vampires cannot do, and what they must do to survive, and what kinds of things vampire hunters like to do to them.


And in case anyone missed it, bonus action shooting stars on a thief! Can't wait to play a rogue in non-AL game.

"Shooting Stars: you can expend 1 to 3 charges as an action *snip*..." Am I missing some kind of additional rule about thieves getting to do this as a bonus action? Where is it?


Conjured/Animated creatures can be extremely potent. Also, some playtesters hate the idea of X Commoners being able to defeat powerful monsters. The solution to this issue was to give many powerful monsters various Resistances and Immunities. Therefore, its assumed that mid-high level players that don't have access to spells must have access to magic weapons, or they will suck terribly against many powerful monsters.

If this were true, they wouldn't have bothered to build in vulnerability to adamantine non-magical weapons for the Iron Golem (CR 17 IIRC), because everyone would be assumed to have magic weapons at that point. There's a clear implication in the MM that some level 17 characters should be expected to NOT have magic weapons and to fall back to adamantine to fight golems.


So what should a DM that does not want to use magic items do in a mid-high level game with a Champion Fighter and a Necromancer Wizard? Do you choose not to use monsters with Resistances/Immunities and let the Necromancer Wizard run wild? Do you use them and screw the Fighter? Do you not use more enemies and have them target the Necromancer's mooks just to punish him for using a stronger option?

I don't even see why this is a problem, from either the Fighter's perspective or the Necomancer's. The Fighter gets to do 40+ points of damage per round with relatively little chance of ever being outnumbered by a superior foe. The Necromancer gets the headache of trying to maintain a small army of undead, which can't be shown in public, and remembering to re-cast Animate Dead on them every single day at the right time of day to prevent them from going berserk. He has to replenish his supply of corpses after every few battles. He also probably relies on the Fighter for protection in public places/stealthy scenarios where you can't take skeletons. When something is resistant or immune to magical weapons, the Necromancer casts Magic Weapon on the Fighter's blade while ordering his skeletons to grapple the enemy prone. Like, honestly, what's the problem here? I could have fun as either member of this duo. It sounds like a fun team. (I am also the kind of guy who would take Inspirational Leadership as the fighter so I could stack on an extra 10-20 HP for each of my skeleton meat shields. It's crazy, but it just might work.)

[Soular]

Sorry I hijacked the thread with this topic - this should have been about the rings.

We are likely to see some good basic rules with the magic items 'variant' in the DMG. Thinking conspiratorially, this might be the reason they delayed the DMG for us - make us play without real magical items to realize you really don't automatically need the numeric sword/armor/cloak combo from previous editions. :smallamused:

Since most items are not needed, this could be as simple as "At X level you get Y number of common items and Z uncommon items. Rare and above are DM fiat or plot points". You bet that fighters will go for a magic sword, but then +1 is all they can get for their level. And the smart ones would go for really functional options like the darkvision goggles or better yet a magical set of brewing tools which allow you to make half-cost healing potions.

'Magical' doesn't necessarily mean what we think either. Maybe a basic magic sword is no plus to hit but it does d4 fire damage or up your initiative by +2. Fun, but not throwing off your power level much on it's own. That would be a good option for tables afraid of items throwing off the balance.

I'm sure that any table group will come up with their own rules like this as a good guideline.

My games have been littered with items both magical and mundane that have abilities tied to them that are not of the +X variety. I whole-heartedly agree!

I don't really see any problem with the way 5E has handles magic items up til now. I got a +1 longsword and breastplate from the Phandelver adventure, but it turns out HAM doesn't work with medium armor, so another player will get it during the next game. So really I got one +1 magic item in the grind to fourth level. The flavor text does a great job of illustrating that this was the weapon of a famed hero. Setting the standard that great heroes often used +1 items. I have no doubt that it will be a long time before I upgrade that weapon.

I wonder why there is so much consternation over combat effectiveness with magic items. The sword has numerically made my fighter better, but he still can't hit the broad side of a barn, even from the inside. Combat has been remarkably streaky for us, and it's always feast or famine with the dice. This is one of the things I love about D&D. We had an encounter with an ochre jelly that had the monk thoroughly upstaging my fighter with regards to damage, especially since I kept whiffing. But my last punch finally connected and killed the beast, and I made sure to make eye-contact with the monk as I did it. I then used about 50 GP to commission a small tapestry of the event, so that I can hang it in my home so that whenever anyone enters my home they will see the picture of Pitor pushing the monk away and slaying the ochre jelly with a single punch.

That, to me, is what makes combat exciting. Not just telling the DM each turn how much damage I did. I don't see magic items getting in the way of that at all. 5E, thus far, has done a great job of making magic items seem like unique, and highly prized treasures with elaborate histories, and not the simple (yet necessary) tools they were in previous editions.

[MaxWilson]

But my last punch finally connected and killed the beast, and I made sure to make eye-contact with the monk as I did it. I then used about 50 GP to commission a small tapestry of the event, so that I can hang it in my home so that whenever anyone enters my home they will see the picture of Pitor pushing the monk away and slaying the ochre jelly with a single punch.

I just want you to know that this is inspired awesomeness. :) It makes me want to commission some tapestries when I get rich.

[Townopolis]

"Shooting Stars: you can expend 1 to 3 charges as an action *snip*..." Am I missing some kind of additional rule about thieves getting to do this as a bonus action? Where is it?

PHB 97. Fast Hands

[JoeJ]

The solution to this issue was to give many powerful monsters various Resistances and Immunities. Therefore, its assumed that mid-high level players that don't have access to spells must have access to magic weapons, or they will suck terribly against many powerful monsters.

That doesn't necessarily follow. If every member of the party is expected to be able to bypass the monster's damage resistance, then it might as well not have that resistance. That could very well mean the monster is no longer a challenge. It might be worthwhile to run some test combats, both with and without magic items, to see how easy it is for a party of the expected level to defeat that monster.

[obryn]

That doesn't necessarily follow. If every member of the party is expected to be able to bypass the monster's damage resistance, then it might as well not have that resistance. That could very well mean the monster is no longer a challenge. It might be worthwhile to run some test combats, both with and without magic items, to see how easy it is for a party of the expected level to defeat that monster.
No; you merely need to look at expected hit points for a monster of that CR.


Of course cutting damage in half is a big deal. If weapon resistance were intended to be trivially bypassed, it would be pointless. If you start handing out magical swords like popcorn, then abilities like the Devotion Paladin's Sacred Weapon and the Eldritch Knight's ability to cast Magic Weapon (or get it cast by someone else for him) lose most of their appeal.
I can't believe Magic Weapon is seriously intended to be a replacement for magic weapons over all levels of play. And I'd hardly call it a major perk of being an Eldritch Knight.

As a response to both - resistance to non-magic weapons serves an important role in a 5e campaign, anyway. It locks out Necromancer Ned pretty efficiently.

[Demonic Spoon]

I can't believe Magic Weapon is seriously intended to be a replacement for magic weapons over all levels of play. And I'd hardly call it a major perk of being an Eldritch Knight.

As a response to both - resistance to non-magic weapons serves an important role in a 5e campaign, anyway. It locks out Necromancer Ned pretty efficiently.


It isn't? By your own admission, a magical weapon will more than double your damage output against certain enemies. How is that not a major perk(assuming you don't already have a magical weapon)?

If you don't have a magical weapon, then clearly magic weapon is worth it in the circumstances where you are fighting a monster with nonmagical damage resistance.

If you do, then you don't need magic weapons.


Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to say that the baseline assumption of 5e is that there will be no magic weapons. That's blatantly false based on published adventures and, as Obryn and others have noted, the proliferation of "resistance to nonmagical damage" monsters. Finding sweet magical stuff has always been one of the core aspects of D&D, and 5e certainly didn't just do away with it.

What 5e did do is make the system more flexible. A mid-level party of adventurers can get away without having any magic items - they won't just be sunk (though depending on the monsters they face, they very well may benefit from a magic weapon spell). On the contrary, if your party finds a really powerful artifact at level 3, it's not going to throw the math off to the point that it trivializes encounters.

[Segev]

A 10th level party with good stats will also have an easier time against the beholder, as well a 10th level party which good tactical acumen and well-chosen feats and smooth teamwork and good intel capability. We don't have a rating system that adjusts CR for stats and feats, so you eyeball things and/or accept that your party is more capable than your average level per se would suggest. Adding magic items to the mix is just more of the same. A +1 magic sword is like having rolled really well on your STR, right?Actually, while the default of rolling for stats does mean that power levels creep up a bit, there are rules for measuring that impact based on how many points it takes to buy the stats. It may not be a whole level's worth of difference, but you at least have a gauge.

As for feats, while again it's not perfect in practice, there is at least the rough estimation that all feats are equivalent in the amount of power they add to a character. You spend character resources on them.

In 3.5, WBL could easily have as many traps as feats do in both editions, but it still provided a good measure for at least roughly identifying if they're facing things of appropriate CR for their level and gear-loadout.

All I'm hoping for is something that similarly measures how much relative power characters have with more or less magic items. A way to identify what is "expected" and, if that is "no magic items," hopefully some guidance as to how much violating that expectation leads to an increase in the CR that presents an appropriate challenge. Again, it doesn't have to be perfect. I'm just asking for something rough to work with that's a little more concrete than "eyeball it."

[edge2054]

PHB 97. Fast Hands

Apparently I was wrong. Fast Hands won't cover using magic items at all. Tweeted Jeremy Crawford for a clarification on rather casting from a magic item was Casting a Spell or Use an Object and he said that magic items won't fall under either of those actions.

So much for the thief archetype.

[MaxWilson]

So are you looking for CR adjustment guidelines, which don't exist for either attributes or feats, or just for some kind of quantifiable metric for magic items? (BTW, you can't quantify rolled stats by point buy because they have different ranges: point buy can only get you stats from 8-15.)

If you're just looking for a way for the designer to communicate intent to you ("this item is supposed to be really powerful"), do the rarity guidelines work for you, common/rare/etc.?

You're always going to have to eyeball CR but it seems you're not actually looking for CR guidance per se, apparently you want something else, a way to evaluate intended power relative to other magic items in the same way that feats vs. half-feats communicate the feat designer's opinion of the feat utility.

[Easy_Lee]

Apparently I was wrong. Fast Hands won't cover using magic items at all. Tweeted Jeremy Crawford for a clarification on rather casting from a magic item was Casting a Spell or Use an Object and he said that magic items won't fall under either of those actions.

So much for the thief archetype.

I'd say he's flat wrong. Tricks like this are the only reason not to play a caster. Even if you have your heart set on rogue, I can't imagine taking thief over assassin or arcane trickster unless you know ahead of time that your DM loves magic items. At least they can't retconn thieves using any magical item.

[edge2054]

I'd say he's flat wrong. Tricks like this are the only reason not to play a caster. Even if you have your heart set on rogue, I can't imagine taking thief over assassin or arcane trickster unless you know ahead of time that your DM loves magic items. At least they can't retconn thieves using any magical item.

He said the DMG clarifies and specifically mentions fast hands. I agree, there's no reason to play a thief. Possibly won't even be able to drink a potion with fast hands. Arcane Trickster if you want to go pure rogue. Assassin if you want to multiclass. Thief is garbage and I think it's a terrible ruling that should be errated (funny that, book hasn't even been released).

[obryn]

It isn't? By your own admission, a magical weapon will more than double your damage output against certain enemies. How is that not a major perk(assuming you don't already have a magical weapon)?
Because it's not so much a perk as putting you back to baseline. It's not like the monster's HP were cut down in order to balance out resistance.

[JoeJ]

Because it's not so much a perk as putting you back to baseline. It's not like the monster's HP were cut down in order to balance out resistance.

Do you have some numbers to back that up? I see, for example, that a CR 4 banshee, which has resistance to nonmagical weapons, has 58 hp and does 12 damage/round plus Horrifying Visage and a 1/day Wail, while a CR 4 chuul, which does not have resistance, has 93 hp and does 22 damage/round plus grapples and poison.

I just picked the first same-CR with/without pair of monsters that I found so it's possible these are outliers. Has anybody looked more rigorously at the differences between monsters with and without resistance?

[Segev]

So are you looking for CR adjustment guidelines, which don't exist for either attributes or feats, or just for some kind of quantifiable metric for magic items? (BTW, you can't quantify rolled stats by point buy because they have different ranges: point buy can only get you stats from 8-15.)

If you're just looking for a way for the designer to communicate intent to you ("this item is supposed to be really powerful"), do the rarity guidelines work for you, common/rare/etc.?

You're always going to have to eyeball CR but it seems you're not actually looking for CR guidance per se, apparently you want something else, a way to evaluate intended power relative to other magic items in the same way that feats vs. half-feats communicate the feat designer's opinion of the feat utility.

Perhaps I can illustrate by example.

Feats cost something from the character build to have. In theory, a feat is worth a stat increase, and you know how many of those you should have by a certain level.

Attributes are fuzzier, because as you note, they're variable. However, there is a bound range on which they vary under normal circumstances, and at least in 3.5, when they were pushed by bonuses or penalties outside of that normal range, they contributed directly to LA.

In 3.5, you could roughly tell if somebody had the right amount of gear for the kinds of challenges they were supposed to face according to their level by comparing the value of their gear to the WBL of their level. If they were over by a significant degree, you knew they likely could handle CRs above their level.

I am hoping for something like that for 5e. The trouble is, if it's true that 5e's "default" is NO magic items, then any magic item becomes a distortion upwards. And that's harder to gauge in terms of CR boost than having excessive WBL was, since there's always going to be a sense that you're supposed to have magic items to some degree, even if the game claims otherwise (while showing you cool items you're not "supposed" to have).

I'm hoping there will be indications of expected items-by-level despite the apparent lack, OR some hint as to how much N magic items of X rarity might push the ECL of the party up. I don't know the best way to do this. I just hope they have something to help gauge how much stronger a given magic item makes the character over the expected baseline.

[Cambrian]

The artwork in the DMG continues to impress. I like all of these magic items so far. Really would like to see how RoP and RoR work-- the art is such a tease.


I'm still annoyed and somewhat angry about the magic items rules.
...
[T]he lack of any rating/pricing system and the fact that some magic items don't require attunement is going to make starting at mid-high levels with magic items ridiculously difficult to manage.
3e's gp value system was mediocre from a game balance perspective. Sure there were values attached to items, but the appropriateness of the pricing was usually questionable.

Compare trying to evaluate a magic item or two per character (5e) versus allowing characters to bring a shopping list of magical gear (3e)-- The former is much easier to eyeball balance than the later, even if there's no numbers at work.

As a response to both - resistance to non-magic weapons serves an important role in a 5e campaign, anyway. It locks out Necromancer Ned pretty efficiently.And the poor BM Ranger gets caught in the cross fire...

[Easy_Lee]

And the poor BM Ranger gets caught in the cross fire...

There are ways around that. Please see my sig, Breaking BM.

[obryn]

Do you have some numbers to back that up? I see, for example, that a CR 4 banshee, which has resistance to nonmagical weapons, has 58 hp and does 12 damage/round plus Horrifying Visage and a 1/day Wail, while a CR 4 chuul, which does not have resistance, has 93 hp and does 22 damage/round plus grapples and poison.

I just picked the first same-CR with/without pair of monsters that I found so it's possible these are outliers. Has anybody looked more rigorously at the differences between monsters with and without resistance?
You will find that monster HP and damage are literally all over the place, because 5e's CR system has almost no apparent thought put into it. The Chuul/Banshee is a factor of monster size, which determines HD size; and Constitution, which gives a bonus. Neither of these are factored into CR.

[Daishain]

There are ways around that. Please see my sig, Breaking BM.
Your character concept is interesting and powerful in its own right. But ultimately its a niche build. For everyone that just wanted to play a classic ranger with a furry companion, this is still an issue.

[MaxWilson]

Hi Segev,

I read your whole post, but I think this is the crux of it:


I am hoping for something like that for 5e. The trouble is, if it's true that 5e's "default" is NO magic items, then any magic item becomes a distortion upwards. And that's harder to gauge in terms of CR boost than having excessive WBL was, since there's always going to be a sense that you're supposed to have magic items to some degree, even if the game claims otherwise (while showing you cool items you're not "supposed" to have).

Distortions upward are easier to gauge than distortions downward. They are also more fun. Is it more fun to be in a 4th level party taking on CR 10-14 threats through good tactics, feat selection, good attributes (thanks to good rolling), and good intel--or to be in a 10th level party fighting threats rated CR 6 because the DMG assumes everyone will start with all 18s in every ability and you're using 3d6? I happen to think the CR guidelines are too lenient on a per-encounter XP basis (I don't have a strong opinion on the daily XP ratings yet, since so much depends on how difficult each encounter is) but I'd much rather have them erring low than high.

Because I am used to having encounters that are "too high" on a CR basis, it doesn't really blow my mind that magic items might let you handle other threats that are technically "too high" for your level. Either way the DMG isn't really giving me any guidance on the high end, just a floor on what is definitely too easy to be a challenge.

[MaxWilson]

You will find that monster HP and damage are literally all over the place, because 5e's CR system has almost no apparent thought put into it. The Chuul/Banshee is a factor of monster size, which determines HD size; and Constitution, which gives a bonus. Neither of these are factored into CR.

But obryn, weren't you just arguing a minute ago that CR is and should be a reliable gauge of HP, independent of weapon immunity?


That doesn't necessarily follow. If every member of the party is expected to be able to bypass the monster's damage resistance, then it might as well not have that resistance. That could very well mean the monster is no longer a challenge. It might be worthwhile to run some test combats, both with and without magic items, to see how easy it is for a party of the expected level to defeat that monster.


No; you merely need to look at expected hit points for a monster of that CR.

JoeJ's (tentative, non-systematic) numbers support the contention that giving magic items to everyone is actually imbalancing by making certain monsters only half as durable as they "should" be.

It would be interesting to see a more systematic analysis, but the burden of proof is on you, Obryn.

[obryn]

But obryn, weren't you just arguing a minute ago that CR is and should be a reliable gauge of HP, independent of weapon immunity?
Yeah, I had meant HD.

[Pex]

The solution to "The Christmas Tree Problem" is not no magic items at all. There's no need to replace one extreme with another.

[JoeJ]

You will find that monster HP and damage are literally all over the place, because 5e's CR system has almost no apparent thought put into it. The Chuul/Banshee is a factor of monster size, which determines HD size; and Constitution, which gives a bonus. Neither of these are factored into CR.

And yet, the one of the pair that has resistance to nonmagical attacks also has fewer hit point and does less DPR than the one that doesn't have resistance. I can't say whether a banshee and a chuul would be equally challenging for a party with no magic items, but I also can't say that one or the other is unquestionably more challenging.

If this case is typical (and I don't know whether or not it is), then we can't legitimately say that not having magic weapons makes a party sub-par against monsters with resistance. So far, I'm not seeing any support for the claim that monster hit points and/or attacks weren't adjusted to take resistance into account.