I Did The Thing! (DMG Acquired!)

[TrompeOeil]

Hullo!, TrompeOeil here, long (looooong) time lurker of these forums. I play primarily D&D, and so far it's been a lovely 5 years playing the game. Only thing is I've been a PC only twice through those years and a DM all the rest due to the only member of my group of friends that had the interest in doing it.

I regret nothing!

Today I announce my existence in a rather cliche thread from what I've been seeing during my times of lurking. I run DnD Encounters at my local game shop, and I'm the only DM there for 10-12 people. It gets hectic quite quickly but I've becoming quite proficient at taming my table and from what I'm told I do quite a good job.

Regardless, enough background fluff. The store owner gave me a free copy of the DMG for all my hard work (and I have no hesitation in saying it's hard work), from what I've gathered I'm one of the few to have it this early seeing not many stores have the early access thing. So I'm quite happy to share what's in it with those who frequent these forums.

Without further ado, any specific questions on it?

[Madfellow]

Hey, cool. :smallsmile: Your store owner sounds like a swell guy.

Can you tell me a little bit about the deities section? Does it give example pantheons?

[TrompeOeil]

Hey, cool. :smallsmile: Your store owner sounds like a swell guy.

Can you tell me a little bit about the deities section? Does it give example pantheons?

Roughly 3 pages long, quite early in the book.

While it doesn't give pantheon examples (such as Greek, Egyptian, etc) like the PBH does, what it does give is 'styles' of religious systems where it goes in depths on topics such as animism and dualism. It also gives a brief 'help' section on ways gods could influence the mortal world such as via aspects or physical incarnations that walk among men.

[Starsinger]

Is gestalt a thing? They said gestalt would be a thing, and then I heard gestalt wouldn't be a thing... so... I inquire as to the thingitude of gestalt.

[Madfellow]

Roughly 3 pages long, quite early in the book.

While it doesn't give pantheon examples (such as Greek, Egyptian, etc) like the PBH does, what it does give is 'styles' of religious systems where it goes in depths on topics such as animism and dualism. It also gives a brief 'help' section on ways gods could influence the mortal world such as via aspects or physical incarnations that walk among men.

Cool, thanks.

[Jlooney]

The big question I have is does it give any additional info that should have been in the phb. Be that races feats classes basic rules etc etc?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Hyrbid classes? Weapon Tables? Alternative Spell Casting Systems?

[TrompeOeil]

Is gestalt a thing? They said gestalt would be a thing, and then I heard gestalt wouldn't be a thing... so... I inquire as to the thingitude of gestalt.

Well, to be honest with you I'm not even completely sure what gestalt is. Some psychology term according to my google shenanigans, but I don't think that's what you were trying to ask.. D=


The big question I have is does it give any additional info that should have been in the phb. Be that races feats classes basic rules etc etc?

In terms of races/feats/classes there's nothing new for it here, same with 'basic' rules. (With my term of basic being what you need to play the game straight off the bat, the PHB does a good job of that).

What it does do is expand on the vague rules such as downtime and what you can do, travel, how time should pass during the various phases of play (exploration, fighting, the in between).

[TrompeOeil]

Hyrbid classes? Weapon Tables? Alternative Spell Casting Systems?

Nothing for classes, as for tables there's only really the super duper long section on magic items and when it comes to Spell Casting the only thing I could find was in the world building section where the DMG explains the logic behind 'low magic' worlds.

[Demonic Spoon]

Well, to be honest with you I'm not even completely sure what gestalt is. Some psychology term according to my google shenanigans, but I don't think that's what you were trying to ask.. D=


Gestalt was a 3.5 rule from Unearthed Arcana that allowed players to effectly have two classes at the same time. Every time you leveled, you got all the class features of two classes and picked the higher of the two for things like hit points and saves and such.

[Shadow]

Nothing for classes, as for tables there's only really the super duper long section on magic items and when it comes to Spell Casting the only thing I could find was in the world building section where the DMG explains the logic behind 'low magic' worlds.

Some of the answers you're giving already conflict with the information given in these three articles (http://www.examiner.com/review/fifth-edition-dungeon-master-s-guide-sneak-preview-part-1-master-of-worlds).
Namely, tables. You claim it's only magic items. This guy claims the entire second section is absolutely filled with them.
Perhaps you should look over the book in a bit more detail before taking questions.

"This is also the section with a million charts. After a brief discussion of types of adventures, we get table after table of goals, villains, allies, introductions, and even an adventure climax."

[TrompeOeil]

Gestalt was a 3.5 rule from Unearthed Arcana that allowed players to effectly have two classes at the same time. Every time you leveled, you got all the class features of two classes and picked the higher of the two for things like hit points and saves and such.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. There's nothing of the sorts in the DMG.


Some of the answers you're giving already conflict with the information given in these three articles (http://www.examiner.com/review/fifth-edition-dungeon-master-s-guide-sneak-preview-part-1-master-of-worlds).
Namely, tables. You claim it's only magic items. This guy claims the entire second section is absolutely filled with them.
Perhaps you should look over the book in a bit more detail before taking questions.

"This is also the section with a million charts. After a brief discussion of types of adventures, we get table after table of goals, villains, allies, introductions, and even an adventure climax."

Yes, that's the "super duper long" magic item section I was referring to earlier in this thread. I was asked about weapon tables so I answered what I read on the weapon tables. Maybe I should have been more clear on that aspect, if so my apologies! D= It's essentially to create your own magic items and the tables are to give it various quirks, personalities, curses or even it's origin in the world.

[Kane0]

Does Adamantine, mithril and other materials make an appearance?
Does the word 'masterwork' appear at all?
Are there more classes or class options?
Are there more spells, skills, feats, etc?

Edit: How about potions and scrolls?

[Slipperychicken]

Do magic items have pricing guidelines?

Does making magic items require any rolling or feats?

Is there Wealth By Level?

Are there rules for disarming or sundering?

What does the rest variant section say?

I've heard flanking gives advantage. Is this true in the DMG?

Are there skill DCs listed?

[TrompeOeil]

Does Adamantine, mithril and other materials make an appearance?
Does the word 'masterwork' appear at all?
Are there more classes or class options?
Are there more spells, skills, feats, etc?

Edit: How about potions and scrolls?

Adamantine is a magic item now, it's medium/heavy armor and makes crits into normal hits. Mithril also makes an appearance and influences the Dex disadvantages some players get.

Masterwork has some appearances in the "Magic Items" section but just in reference to the fact it's of exquisite craft. (No actual stat changes, for example).

Classes/Spells/Skills/Feats, none of that in here. The DMG is quite true to it's title and is solely to help DM's create worlds, adventures, NPCs, etc, etc.


Do magic items have pricing guidelines?

Does making magic items require any rolling or feats?

Is there Wealth By Level?

Are there rules for disarming or sundering?

What does the rest variant section say?

I've heard flanking gives advantage. Is this true in the DMG?

Are there skill DCs listed?

Yes to pricing guidelines, it's based on the rarity.

For making magic items it's based on expending spell slots and having the needed level requirements to meet the rarity of the item you're trying to make. Also the cost.

There's no official Wealth by Level table, but rough guesses can be made based on other tables and there's also the PHB version that let's you start with gold based on level.

Yes to rules on disarming, it's basically a skill contest roll. As for sundering there's nothing that I could find.

Could you be a little more clear on the "rest variant"? I'm either too tired to understand it or too daft at the moment.

Flanking is an optional rule in one of the sections, it grants combat advantage and whether or not it's there is up to the DM.

Skill DCs do have an appearance based on difficulty level.

[silveralen]

What's your overall opinion?

What new combat options did they add?

[Giant2005]

Are there any decent non-metal armor types for Druids, with prices?

[Slipperychicken]

Could you be a little more clear on the "rest variant"? I'm either too tired to understand it or too daft at the moment.


This DMG leak had a section labeled "Rest Variants" right next to the firearms/futuristic weapons section. I imagine it lets you modify the time required for short and long rests.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=64733&d=1414184511

[Totema]

I also have the DMG (with my store being one of the "preferred" ones, probably due to it being the only major one in my area) so I can also clarify things. :smallsmile:


This DMG leak had a section labeled "Rest Variants" right next to the firearms/futuristic weapons section. I imagine it lets you modify the time required for short and long rests.

They mention a "heroic" rest variant (SR = 5 minutes, LR = 1 hour) and a "gritty" rest variant (SR = 8 hours, LR = 7 days).

[TrompeOeil]

What's your overall opinion?

What new combat options did they add?

The way they split it up into 3 overall parts is very well done.

Master of Worlds, Master of Adventures and Master of Rules.

It reads very easily, as in it's not like you're reading a textbook but like you're instead reading a novel (if you understand what I'm trying to convey). As an owner of all 3.5, and 4e DM guides I must admit this one is probably going to take a first place spot as the days and weeks go by. My only complaint is that, like prior DMG, it stumbles a bit in trying to explain how to play the part of the DM for those that are new to the task. That problem though, is something a simple book can't fix.

As for combat options the only really new ones (not covered by the PBH) are: Flanking, Mounting a larger enemy, disarming, tumbling, and overrunning (The last two are ways to get through hostile squares without granting OA).


Are there any decent non-metal armor types for Druids, with prices?

There's no new armor types that I can find right now, the magic item list is quite long though so this might just be an error on my part. Sorry if that's the case! There are though a lot of nifty magic helms/gloves/robes.


This DMG leak had a section labeled "Rest Variants" right next to the firearms/futuristic weapons section. I imagine it lets you modify the time required for short and long rests.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=64733&d=1414184511

Right, those. There are two, one where short rests are 5 minutes and long rest 1 hour. They describe this as used for more battle oriented campaigns, but suggest making the fights a lot tougher.

The other one is the polar opposite making short rests 8 hours long and long rests 7 days long. Used for the more roleplaying based campaigns.

-------------------------

EDIT: Sleepy time for me! Until tomorrow folks.

[odigity]

Master of Worlds, Master of Adventures and Master of Rules.

It reads very easily, as in it's not like you're reading a textbook but like you're instead reading a novel (if you understand what I'm trying to convey). As an owner of all 3.5, and 4e DM guides I must admit this one is probably going to take a first place spot as the days and weeks go by.

I look forward to reading the first two sections once, as I'm sure it will be enjoyable. But they don't sound like something I would need to return to frequently (unlike the third section which is an actual reference).


As for combat options the only really new ones (not covered by the PBH) are: Flanking, Mounting a larger enemy, disarming, tumbling, and overrunning (The last two are ways to get through hostile squares without granting OA).

I don't understand why they broke off some of the combat rules and put them in the DMG instead of in PHB with the rest. I guess because they're optional, but still. It's not like they followed that practice perfectly anyway -- there are several optional rules in the PHB already.

[tcrudisi]

Did they add rules for the players to gain advantage through tactics (such as flanking)?

[MaxWilson]

Did they add rules for the players to gain advantage through tactics (such as flanking)?

Yes. The Flanking option on 251 says that when two allies are on opposite sides of the target (whether square grid or hex), both of them gain advantage on attacks against that target.

There are some additional tactical options under Combat Options ("the main risk of adding some of these rules is slowing down play"). There are Action options for:

Climbing Onto a Bigger Creature: use your action to make an Acrobatics or Athletics check, opposed by the creature's Acrobatics check. If you succeed, you climb aboard, and instead of preventing its movement per grappling, you get advantage on all attacks. The creature can use its action to make an Athletics check to scrape you off (opposed by your Athletics or Acrobatics).

Disarm: attack roll contested by Athletics or Acrobatics to make defender drop item. Disadvantage on attack roll vs. a two-handed grip. Disadvantage on Athletics/Acrobatics if attacker is larger, advantage if attacker is smaller.

Mark: when you attack someone in melee you can "mark" them so that AoO'ing them does not cost a reaction. However, you can still only AoO once per turn. It's unclear to me whether you can have multiple creatures marked at once, but a strict reading of the rules says that a 5th level monk can Flurry of Blows to attack 4 creatures once each and mark them all; then when they all try to run away or move past, he AoOs each of them, each on its respective turn.

Overrun/Tumble: move through a hostile creature's space. Either Athletics opposed by Athletics (Overrun) or Acrobatics opposed by Acrobatics (Tumble).

Shove Aside: instead of shoving backward, move enemy anywhere within your reach--but you are at disadvantage on your shove check.

[D.U.P.A.]

I have 3 questions:

1. Are there any rules for armies combat, ship combat or any other unconventional battles?
2. Anything about artisan tools and their uses and crafting. Can you create anything useful out of it or it's just fluff like being in a guild?
3. I doubt this thing, but are there any sign of skill challenges like they were in 4e?

[RedMage125]

Under the section for creating new races, I would be curious as to the other racial stats of the Aasimar (besides +2 CHA and +1 WIS), and also interested if there are any other completely built races provided in there (besides Eladrin, of course). If it helps, the preview says it's around page 286.

[MaxWilson]

Under the section for creating new races, I would be curious as to the other racial stats of the Aasimar (besides +2 CHA and +1 WIS), and also interested if there are any other completely built races provided in there (besides Eladrin, of course). If it helps, the preview says it's around page 286.

Darkvision, necrotic/radiant resistance; light cantrip; 3rd level, Lesser Restoration 1/long rest; 5th level, Daylight 1/long rest. No other example races besides Aasimar, or subraces besides Eladrin.

I haven't seen any information on ship-to-ship combat or army combat, but I have yet to read the whole book. Ditto on crafting proficiencies.

[silveralen]

Mark: when you attack someone in melee you can "mark" them so that AoO'ing them does not cost a reaction. However, you can still only AoO once per turn. It's unclear to me whether you can have multiple creatures marked at once, but a strict reading of the rules says that a 5th level monk can Flurry of Blows to attack 4 creatures once each and mark them all; then when they all try to run away or move past, he AoOs each of them, each on its respective turn.

Ooh yay, I like this. Should make sentinel builds more fun.

Thanks to both of you!

[RedMage125]

Darkvision, necrotic/radiant resistance; light cantrip; 3rd level, Lesser Restoration 1/long rest; 5th level, Daylight 1/long rest. No other example races besides Aasimar, or subraces besides Eladrin.

I haven't seen any information on ship-to-ship combat or army combat, but I have yet to read the whole book. Ditto on crafting proficiencies.

Thank you. The delayed release date puts the book so close to Christmas that I can't justify buying it for myself with all the holiday shopping, but my wife knows it's my #1 xmas list item, lol.

[Socko525]

Is there any table/information on magic items tied to a specific class? Or is it all just mixed together? I.e. some of the items in the DM rule pdf had specific attunement requirements

[MaxWilson]

Incidentally, while there are rules for modifying classes/archetypes, there are no rules for creating new classes. This may indicate that 5E doesn't intend to add new classes beyond what's in the PHB, which would be an interesting design choice, rather like AD&D 2nd edition, which added kits but hardly any classes. (The only non-PHB class I can think of is the Gladiator class from Dark Sun, which gave up the Fighter's 9th level followers feature in exchange for automatic proficiency in all weapons and the ability to specialize in more than one weapon.)


Is there any table/information on magic items tied to a specific class? Or is it all just mixed together? I.e. some of the items in the DM rule pdf had specific attunement requirements

It's hard to prove the nonexistence of a table, but I haven't seen any table, I've just seen it noted in some item descriptions. Most items don't have restrictions on atunement, but some items do require you to have a certain proficiency (e.g. Horn of Valhalla works off of weapon/armor proficiencies) or a certain class (Staff of Healing requires attunement by bard, cleric, or druid).

[TrompeOeil]

MaxWilson also did the thing apparently, ^.^.


I have 3 questions:

1. Are there any rules for armies combat, ship combat or any other unconventional battles?
2. Anything about artisan tools and their uses and crafting. Can you create anything useful out of it or it's just fluff like being in a guild?
3. I doubt this thing, but are there any sign of skill challenges like they were in 4e?

I think the only unanswered question you have here is in regards to skill challenges, they don't make an appearance in the DMG.

[ghost_warlock]

Incidentally, while there are rules for modifying classes/archetypes, there are no rules for creating new classes. This may indicate that 5E doesn't intend to add new classes beyond what's in the PHB, which would be an interesting design choice, rather like AD&D 2nd edition, which added kits but hardly any classes. (The only non-PHB class I can think of is the Gladiator class from Dark Sun, which gave up the Fighter's 9th level followers feature in exchange for automatic proficiency in all weapons and the ability to specialize in more than one weapon.)

It's amusing to me that you'd mention the gladiator class as being a non-PHB-class specifically from Dark Sun, but also fail to mention the frigging psionicist! :smalltongue:

[Socko525]

It's hard to prove the nonexistence of a table, but I haven't seen any table, I've just seen it noted in some item descriptions. Most items don't have restrictions on atunement, but some items do require you to have a certain proficiency (e.g. Horn of Valhalla works off of weapon/armor proficiencies) or a certain class (Staff of Healing requires attunement by bard, cleric, or druid).

Awesome thanks!

How about expanded spellcasting service info/prices? Like if i wanted to find a wizard and pay them to use fabricate to make me a suit of plate mail.

[MaxWilson]

Awesome thanks!

How about expanded spellcasting service info/prices? Like if i wanted to find a wizard and pay them to use fabricate to make me a suit of plate mail.

There's no entry in the index for "spellcasting" or "services". Do you have a suggestion from the table of contents as to where you want me to look? Proving a negative is quite difficult but I could search a small section.

[Ghost Nappa]

Awesome thanks!

How about expanded spellcasting service info/prices? Like if i wanted to find a wizard and pay them to use fabricate to make me a suit of plate mail.

Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but there's small section on Hirelings on DMG p. 94...that basically tells you to read the PHB's 5th and 6th chapters.

[TrompeOeil]

Awesome thanks!

How about expanded spellcasting service info/prices? Like if i wanted to find a wizard and pay them to use fabricate to make me a suit of plate mail.

Nothing of the sort sadly. The closest equivalent I could find was the "Creating a Magic Item" downtime activity that you could potentially refluff into an NPC doing it instead of you, but as for more services and the likes it seems the PHB covers all of it at the moment.

[Socko525]

Ah ok bummer. Just a heavy armor guy trying to find a way to bypass the 100-300 day craft timw on full plate.

I suppose i can try and get my DM to look at the cost of associated level spells in the AL guide and as long as I'm giving the wizard the appropriate amount of materials, i think that could work...

How about a description of magical item rarity? I.e. what is uncommon, rare, very rare, etc defined as?

[MaxWilson]

Ah ok bummer. Just a heavy armor guy trying to find a way to bypass the 100-300 day craft timw on full plate.

I suppose i can try and get my DM to look at the cost of associated level spells in the AL guide and as long as I'm giving the wizard the appropriate amount of materials, i think that could work...

How about a description of magical item rarity? I.e. what is uncommon, rare, very rare, etc defined as?

Hey, if I were a wizard with Fabricate and armor crafting proficiency, and someone offered me materials for plate armor + 750 gp to Fabricate him a suit of armor, I'd say, "Sure!" The armorcrafter's guild can't even get mad at me because I'm not even undercutting their prices.

Uncommon/rare/etc. seem to affect primarily 1.) crafting time/cost, and 2.) available starting items for characters starting above 11th level in a Standard Magic campaign, or above 5th level in a High Magic campaign. Random treasure tables aren't written using the rarity categories, they're written with specific items like "Vorpal Sword".

[Slipperychicken]

I heard someone mention a lingering wounds table. What sort of wounds are there? Any that have mechanical effects? How hard are they to remove?

[TrompeOeil]

I heard someone mention a lingering wounds table. What sort of wounds are there? Any that have mechanical effects? How hard are they to remove?


There's a section on diseases, another on madness, but nothing on wounds that I can spot.

EDIT: MaxWilson (below) has a handle on things, I on the other hand probably need more coffee before I should answer questions. Hat goes off to him.

[MaxWilson]

Lingering Wounds are page 272. If DM chooses to use this system, then at DM's discretion (examples/suggestions given are: when a critical hit is rolled; when a creature drops to 0 HP but is not killed outright; when a death saving throw is failed by 5 or more) you may suffer a lingering wound. There's a d20 table for effect. If you roll 3 or lower you will lose a hand/foot/eye, anything above that is a cosmetic or temporary debility like a nasty scar or broken ribs (DC 10 Con save every time you attempt to act, or you lose your action/reactions for the next turn; heals over 7 days).

[silveralen]

Incidentally, while there are rules for modifying classes/archetypes, there are no rules for creating new classes. This may indicate that 5E doesn't intend to add new classes beyond what's in the PHB, which would be an interesting design choice, rather like AD&D 2nd edition, which added kits but hardly any classes. (The only non-PHB class I can think of is the Gladiator class from Dark Sun, which gave up the Fighter's 9th level followers feature in exchange for automatic proficiency in all weapons and the ability to specialize in more than one weapon.)

Plus a scaling AC bonus!

Really gladiator was more like a skills and powers variation of (buffed) fighter than a new class.

[Slipperychicken]

Lingering Wounds are page 272. If DM chooses to use this system, then at DM's discretion (examples/suggestions given are: when a critical hit is rolled; when a creature drops to 0 HP but is not killed outright; when a death saving throw is failed by 5 or more) you may suffer a lingering wound. There's a d20 table for effect. If you roll 3 or lower you will lose a hand/foot/eye, anything above that is a cosmetic or temporary debility like a nasty scar or broken ribs (DC 10 Con save every time you attempt to act, or you lose your action/reactions for the next turn; heals over 7 days).

I'm quite pleased to hear this. I've always wanted to have permanent/semi-permanent wound mechanics in D&D.

[twas_Brillig]

The Warforged is supposed to be in the DMG, right? A quick Google didn't find any teasers, but I haven't exactly been keeping up with them myself. Anything you can share there?

[archaeo]

The Warforged is supposed to be in the DMG, right? A quick Google didn't find any teasers, but I haven't exactly been keeping up with them myself. Anything you can share there?

These aren't going to be in the DMG after all; presumably, they got bumped for space. Mearls or somebody has said that, as finished content, they'll be appearing online here in the near future.

[MeeposFire]

Plus a scaling AC bonus!

Really gladiator was more like a skills and powers variation of (buffed) fighter than a new class.

Also a chart bonus on unarmed attacks. NOt that too many people cared (though they should punching was one of the few areas in 2e with some real melee potential).

[Frenth Alunril]

What is the witty disclaimer on the publishing page?

[Shadow]

What is the witty disclaimer on the publishing page?

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast does not officially endorse the following tactic, which are guaranteed to maximize your enjoyment as a Dungeon Master. First, always keep a straight face and say OK no matter how ludicrous or doomed the players' plan of action is. Second, no matter what happens, pretend that you intended all along for everything to unfold the way it did. Third, if you're not sure what to do next, feign illness, end the session early, and plot your next move. When all else fails, roll a bunch of dice behind your screen, study them for a moment with a look of deep concern mixed with regret, let loose a heavy sigh, and announce that Tiamat swoops from the sky and attacks.

taken from here. (http://www.examiner.com/review/fifth-edition-dungeon-master-s-guide-sneak-peek-part-3-master-of-rules?CID=examiner_alerts_article&no_cache=1417114814)

[MaxWilson]

What is the witty disclaimer on the publishing page?

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast does not officially endorse the following tactics, which are guaranteed to maximize your enjoyment as a Dungeon Master. First, always keep a straight face and say OK no matter how ludicrous or doomed the players' plan of action is. Second, no matter what happpens, pretend that you intended all along for everything to unfold the way it did. Third, if you're not sure what to do next, feign illness, end the session early, and plot your next move. When all else fails, roll a bunch of dice behind your screen, study them for a moment with a look of deep concern mixed with regret, let loose a heavy sigh, and announce that Tiamat swoops from the sky and attacks.

[Zweisteine]

Am I the only one who read "did the thing" and immediately thought of this (http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=6&p=004881) thing? (Homestuck's "do the windy thing.")

As for questions... What is there about races? I know they didn't add monstrous races, and used Aasimar for the example race, but did they say anything really useful in there?

To be specific to a not-quite-absurd degree...

Did they say anything about creating races besides the one paragraph on page 286 (http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/DMG_286.pdf)?
If they did, did they say anything besides recommendations for balance?
(What I really want to know is this: Did they give any advice on converting monsters to playable races?)

And all the same questions for subrace creation rules.


And that disclaimer is great.

[Invader]

Are there any more feats or path choices for classes, or anything that allows to specialize even more within the available classes?

[MaxWilson]

As for questions... What is there about races? I know they didn't add monstrous races, and used Aasimar for the example race, but did they say anything really useful in there?... (What I really want to know is this: Did they give any advice on converting monsters to playable races?)

Nope, and nope. All they have in there is obvious to an experienced DM: don't do anything crazy overpowered, and try to make it roughly comparable to existing races.

[Baptor]

Here's my burning question:

Magic weapons. Can you give me some examples? Does there seem to be any rhyme or reason to how many abilities or pluses a magic weapon has? For example in 3e such weapons were balanced in that you could have a lot of pluses (+1) or a lot of abilities (flaming, wounding) but not both. It seems from the examples we've seen that there is no real structure to how magic weapons are designed. Thanks!

[Strill]

Regardless, enough background fluff. The store owner gave me a free copy of the DMG for all my hard work (and I have no hesitation in saying it's hard work), from what I've gathered I'm one of the few to have it this early seeing not many stores have the early access thing. So I'm quite happy to share what's in it with those who frequent these forums.

What a jerk. That's like giving a janitor a mop for their birthday. "Hey we appreciate everything you do. Now get back to work slacker!"

[MaxWilson]

Here's my burning question:

Magic weapons. Can you give me some examples? Does there seem to be any rhyme or reason to how many abilities or pluses a magic weapon has? For example in 3e such weapons were balanced in that you could have a lot of pluses (+1) or a lot of abilities (flaming, wounding) but not both. It seems from the examples we've seen that there is no real structure to how magic weapons are designed. Thanks!

I've seen some weapons like Lifedrinker that have both (+2 AND life-draining on a natural 20) and some that have only one (Flametongue has no plus that I noticed, just +fire damage, IIRC 2d6). I haven't read the blurb yet on customizing your own magic items so I don't know whether there is a hidden underlying structure.

[Slipperychicken]

I've seen some weapons like Lifedrinker that have both (+2 AND life-draining on a natural 20) and some that have only one (Flametongue has no plus that I noticed, just +fire damage, IIRC 2d6). I haven't read the blurb yet on customizing your own magic items so I don't know whether there is a hidden underlying structure.

If you could do that for us, that would be great. Magic item creation guidelines seem like the kind of thing I'd expect either in the DMG or the magic item book.

[Baptor]

I've seen some weapons like Lifedrinker that have both (+2 AND life-draining on a natural 20) and some that have only one (Flametongue has no plus that I noticed, just +fire damage, IIRC 2d6). I haven't read the blurb yet on customizing your own magic items so I don't know whether there is a hidden underlying structure.

How does that life-draining property work?

[MaxWilson]

If you could do that for us, that would be great. Magic item creation guidelines seem like the kind of thing I'd expect either in the DMG or the magic item book.

Okay, I read the DMG section, and there really isn't any crunch. It says that adding powers to an item might alter the rarity, but has no crunch guidelines for doing so. It says you can freely alter the type of an item without changing rarity (e.g. crown into wand), but doesn't explain why in that case the Ring of Protection +1 (rare, attunement) is identical to the Cloak of Protection +1 (uncommon, attunement) except for its type. It does explain that an item should probably have attunement if:

1.) It would be disruptive for party members to be passing the item around between each other, or
2.) It has a bonus that could potentially stack.

So, it is still basically up to you and your intuition to decide on item rarity.

HTH,
-Max


How does that life-draining property work?

It looks like I misremembered on the Sword of Life-stealing, this one has no plusses. It is just a rare/attunement sword which, when you hit on a natural 20, deals an extra 10 necrotic damage while also giving you 10 temporary hit points at the same time.

[JoeJ]

Is there anything about demographics? How common characters of a particular level are, how many spellcasters are in a city, that sort of thing?

[MaxWilson]

Is there anything about demographics? How common characters of a particular level are, how many spellcasters are in a city, that sort of thing?

It's hard to prove a negative, and I haven't closely read much more than the "optional rules" section at the end, but so far I haven't seen anything that specific. The general sense I get from the DMG is that that sort of thing would be a setting detail, but in the various setting blurbs I've read covering Epic Fantasy vs. Heroic Fantasy vs. Dark Fantasy vs. Wuxia vs. etc., none of them have specified any demographic information or expectations. I'd bet 3 for 1 that there is no such information in the DMG--but that's just a guess.

[Baptor]

It looks like I misremembered on the Sword of Life-stealing, this one has no plusses. It is just a rare/attunement sword which, when you hit on a natural 20, deals an extra 10 necrotic damage while also giving you 10 temporary hit points at the same time.

Whoa, that is its only power?

[MaxWilson]

Whoa, that is its only power?

Correct. It's pretty lame in my opinion, certainly not worth taking 200 days and 5000 gp to forge. Spend that money on giant snake venom instead.

[Baptor]

Correct. It's pretty lame in my opinion, certainly not worth taking 200 days and 5000 gp to forge. Spend that money on giant snake venom instead.

I am starting to really doubt WotC's ability to make magic weapons and rules regarding them that makes any sense in this edition.

I mean they say that magic items aren't assumed and give us characters totally capable of handling anything on their own without enhancements then still give out magic weapons with potency comparable to those of at least 2e and some that would have been nice even in 3e and expect that to somehow "work out."

You've got this life-drinker crap sword and a boomstick like the flame tongue (2d6 fire = extra greatsword) and haizrawn which is +2 AND +2d6 damage with wounding. What in the world!

[Gnome Alone]

I am starting to really doubt WotC's ability to make magic weapons and rules regarding them that makes any sense in this edition.

I mean they say that magic items aren't assumed and give us characters totally capable of handling anything on their own without enhancements then still give out magic weapons with potency comparable to those of at least 2e and some that would have been nice even in 3e and expect that to somehow "work out."

You've got this life-drinker crap sword and a boomstick like the flame tongue (2d6 fire = extra greatsword) and haizrawn which is +2 AND +2d6 damage with wounding. What in the world!

Suffice to say that, as per usual, they couldn't balance their own game even with ten playgrounds full of see-saws?

[Shadow]

You've got this life-drinker crap sword and a boomstick like the flame tongue (2d6 fire = extra greatsword) and haizrawn which is +2 AND +2d6 damage with wounding. What in the world!

Different types of magic weapons for different types of games.
If the lifedrinker is too weak for your game, tweak it or don't use it.
If the haizrawn is too powerful for your game, tweak it or don't use it.
The DM is under no obligation to hand out magic items willy nilly. The players can't just head over to Magic Mart and buy whatever they want.
Use what works for your game. Or better yet, make your own and use those.

[Baptor]

Different types of magic weapons for different types of games.
If the lifedrinker is too weak for your game, tweak it or don't use it.
If the haizrawn is too powerful for your game, tweak it or don't use it.
The DM is under no obligation to hand out magic items willy nilly. The players can't just head over to Magic Mart and buy whatever they want.
Use what works for your game. Or better yet, make your own and use those.

I understand that. I already have begun work on it. My problem is that I shouldn't have to. They made a game that assumes no magic swords and then flooded a book with all manner of magic swords.

If the game is balanced and assumes no magic swords then there shouldn't be a whole book full of magic swords in it. There should be a very small blurb about "some people may like a game where the players get unbalanced magic swords, here is an example of that" and provide like one magic sword example.

A good comparison is the page on firearms and futuristic weaponry. This is a facet of the game not assumed by the core game mechanics/assumptions. But hey, if you want guns, here are some guns. Shoot if you want aliens and positron rifles, here's some quick rules on how to do that too! But they don't take up half the book with such things. A 1-2 page blurb on how magic weapons with pluses and extra damage dice would work would have been nice and neat.

But instead a huge portion of the DMG is dedicated to these things. If by default the game assumes no magic swords, then why does their first published adventure line contain a magic weapon so obviously overpowered as Hazirawn?

From the way they go on and on about how magic items aren't an assumption in this edition, they sure do keep throwing them in our face. It feels less like I have to houserule magic items into the game and more like I am houseruling them out.

It just don't make sense is all.

[Shadow]

They made a game that assumes no magic swords
<snip>
If by default the game assumes no magic swords, then why does their first published adventure line contain a magic weapon so obviously overpowered as Hazirawn?

Everyone keeps saying that. Over and over and over again. They made a game that assumes no magic swords.
Really?
Is that really what they did? Or is that just one more thing for people to complain about?

Bounded accuracy doesn't *assume* no magic swords.
This is friggin D&D, fer crissake! Of COURSE they assumed magic swords. The claims that they didn't may possibly be the most asinine rumor running around this forum at the moment.
Bounded accuracy doesn't "assume no magic swords." Bounded accuracy removes the *requirement of* magic swords.
That's a far cry from assuming they won't be in play.

[Anderlith]

Can anyone tell me what stats eldarin get?

[Baptor]

Everyone keeps saying that. Over and over and over again. They made a game that assumes no magic swords.
Really?
Is that really what they did? Or is that just one more thing for people to complain about?

Bounded accuracy doesn't *assume* no magic swords.
This is friggin D&D, fer crissake! Of COURSE they assumed magic swords. The claims that they didn't may possibly be the most asinine rumor running around this forum at the moment.
Bounded accuracy doesn't "assume no magic swords." Bounded accuracy removes the *requirement of* magic swords.
That's a far cry from assuming they won't be in play.

You are kinda splitting hairs there. We are basically saying the same thing, you just see it as a positive and I a negative. Bounded Accuracy does not take into account magic swords. It simply does not. The books say that. Giving any character, even a level 20, a +1 sword makes them better than the numbers of the game assume he should be. A CR 17 was designed to fight level 17 characters with no magic items. If any of the party members have items, especially magic swords, it tips the odds heavily in their favor.

With no rules or regulations on how to introduce magic items and at what level, I have no idea if giving my level 7 fighter a +1 longsword will make him ridiculously powerful or not. Since BA doesn't assume magic swords and the DMG has failed to give any kind of guidance I can't be certain as a DM what to give my players without breaking my game.

I love 5e, really I do, but I do not understand this one aspect of it. I hated the monty haul in 3.5, but at least the prices and tables helped me to know that giving a level 5 character a +5 sword was OP, while giving a level 15 a +1 sword was vendor trash.

The way 5e rules look, even giving a level 20 a +1 sword will be overpowering him. Given that me and my players have always liked things fair and balanced, that means we won't be using any magic swords ever again.

[Envyus]

I am starting to really doubt WotC's ability to make magic weapons and rules regarding them that makes any sense in this edition.

I mean they say that magic items aren't assumed and give us characters totally capable of handling anything on their own without enhancements then still give out magic weapons with potency comparable to those of at least 2e and some that would have been nice even in 3e and expect that to somehow "work out."

You've got this life-drinker crap sword and a boomstick like the flame tongue (2d6 fire = extra greatsword) and haizrawn which is +2 AND +2d6 damage with wounding. What in the world!

It makes perfect sense. The magic stuff is fine they are not assumed and you don't need them or expect to have them. But when you do get them it's cool and nice and gives you a boost.

There are multiple different types of weapons and powers.



The way 5e rules look, even giving a level 20 a +1 sword will be overpowering him. Given that me and my players have always liked things fair and balanced, that means we won't be using any magic swords ever again.

No you don't get how this works. It won't overpower him it will make him better.

Getting magic items is a treat that improves characters in this edition. They will always be helpful but they are not needed like they used to be. However having them can seriously help.

[Strill]

You are kinda splitting hairs there. We are basically saying the same thing, you just see it as a positive and I a negative. Bounded Accuracy does not take into account magic swords. It simply does not. The books say that. Giving any character, even a level 20, a +1 sword makes them better than the numbers of the game assume he should be. A CR 17 was designed to fight level 17 characters with no magic items. If any of the party members have items, especially magic swords, it tips the odds heavily in their favor.

With no rules or regulations on how to introduce magic items and at what level, I have no idea if giving my level 7 fighter a +1 longsword will make him ridiculously powerful or not. Since BA doesn't assume magic swords and the DMG has failed to give any kind of guidance I can't be certain as a DM what to give my players without breaking my game.

I love 5e, really I do, but I do not understand this one aspect of it. I hated the monty haul in 3.5, but at least the prices and tables helped me to know that giving a level 5 character a +5 sword was OP, while giving a level 15 a +1 sword was vendor trash.

The way 5e rules look, even giving a level 20 a +1 sword will be overpowering him. Given that me and my players have always liked things fair and balanced, that means we won't be using any magic swords ever again.

The DMG DOES give suggestions for what level to give players magic items, and suggestions for how many magic items to give. It's in the wealth by level section.

[TrompeOeil]

Oh, in response to whoever mentioned demographics (sorry for the lack of quote I'm on my phone and in a bit of a time crunch)

There is a section early in the book (pg. 15) called Settlements where it gives size examples along with population, defense and the commerce available in such settlements. You can use the context from this section to have the DM make assumptions on how many magical services are offered 'methinks.

[Inevitability]

Climbing Onto a Bigger Creature: use your action to make an Acrobatics or Athletics check, opposed by the creature's Acrobatics check. If you succeed, you climb aboard, and instead of preventing its movement per grappling, you get advantage on all attacks. The creature can use its action to make an Athletics check to scrape you off (opposed by your Athletics or Acrobatics).

Meanwhile, inside of Dire-Stirge's mind... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWB8P4jbsAA)

[mr_odd]

What about building encounters and XP budgets? Are they any different than in 3.5?

[MaxWilson]

I love 5e, really I do, but I do not understand this one aspect of it. I hated the monty haul in 3.5, but at least the prices and tables helped me to know that giving a level 5 character a +5 sword was OP, while giving a level 15 a +1 sword was vendor trash.

The way 5e rules look, even giving a level 20 a +1 sword will be overpowering him. Given that me and my players have always liked things fair and balanced, that means we won't be using any magic swords ever again.

You can go by the magic item tables here. Having a +3 sword show up in the treasure hoard of a CR 1 monster would be overpowered, but having one show up in the treasure hoard of a CR 20 dragon would not be that unusual. (I say this without looking up the specific random treasure table in question but I think it's true.)

Note that there are other options for treasure that you can use instead. There's a section on things like Entitlements. Instead of a +3 sword, you could have them find the deed to a duchy, or a legal document giving them James Bond-style License To Kill in a given kingdom.

That said, yeah, there are clearly some design issues. Cloak vs. Ring of Protection is just one: why is the Cloak uncommon and the Ring rare even though they do exactly the same thing?


What about building encounters and XP budgets? Are they any different than in 3.5?

I never played 3.5 so I don't know how it was different, but the encounter and XP budget rules have already been publicly released in the DMG 0.2 free PDF, and there are even free tools (http://kobold.club/enc) for building encounters with them.

[Starsinger]

That said, yeah, there are clearly some design issues. Cloak vs. Ring of Protection is just one: why is the Cloak uncommon and the Ring rare even though they do exactly the same thing?

Rings of Warmth are Uncommon give you resistance to cold damage and let you be comfortable up to -50 F... Rings of Cold Resistance are Rare and only give resistance to cold damage.

[Baptor]

You can go by the magic item tables here. Having a +3 sword show up in the treasure hoard of a CR 1 monster would be overpowered, but having one show up in the treasure hoard of a CR 20 dragon would not be that unusual. (I say this without looking up the specific random treasure table in question but I think it's true.)

Note that there are other options for treasure that you can use instead. There's a section on things like Entitlements. Instead of a +3 sword, you could have them find the deed to a duchy, or a legal document giving them James Bond-style License To Kill in a given kingdom.

That said, yeah, there are clearly some design issues. Cloak vs. Ring of Protection is just one: why is the Cloak uncommon and the Ring rare even though they do exactly the same thing?

Thank you for at least acknowledging that my claim has some merit and I am not crazy here.

I decided to see how two level 20 fighters compare from previous editions. I've been crunching the numbers on DPR for a level 20 fighter in 3.5 with best equipment (for his level) and a 20th level fighter in 5e with a +3 weapon. So far it looks like the 3.5 fighter is actually better in terms of raw damage per round in full gear (which in 3.5 was assumed). Maybe a +3 weapon isn't that bad after all.

I will ask this though, is anyone as concerned as me about this? Or are the majority of DMs out there cool with the magic weapons as-is? Is anyone tweaking them? Banning them? If I am alone I may convert.

[silveralen]

Everyone keeps saying that. Over and over and over again. They made a game that assumes no magic swords.
Really?
Is that really what they did? Or is that just one more thing for people to complain about?

Bounded accuracy doesn't *assume* no magic swords.
This is friggin D&D, fer crissake! Of COURSE they assumed magic swords. The claims that they didn't may possibly be the most asinine rumor running around this forum at the moment.
Bounded accuracy doesn't "assume no magic swords." Bounded accuracy removes the *requirement of* magic swords.
That's a far cry from assuming they won't be in play.

Well, the problem is:

Bounded accuracy both assumes that players don't need numerous boosts to accuracy and assumes they won't consistently have access to such items.

The game's balance i based on that assumption.

Magic items break that assumption.

Magic items break the inherent balance of the game, forcing DM's to increase the difficulty of things artificially or else not challenge the players (which may make the campaign less fun if the players don't feel challenged).

So adding magic items effectively creates more work for the DM as the default assumption doesn't involve them. Probably more work than just making sure you had the right level of magic item in the player's hand.

Then again the fact other monsters have AC based on non magic weapon bounded accuracy yet take half damage from non magic weapons (or have outright immunity) makes zero sense, unless they are balanced as such to assume that their health is drastically lower than an equivalent CR monster without this ability (looking through the MM, the assumption isn't present).

They handled magic items badly this edition. The rules both assume and do not assume magic items in conflicting areas, and including such a huge selection of +x items in the DMG further reinforces that scattered "we didn't have a clear vision" people are getting about the subject.

If they at least made an attempt for the majority of magic items to fit bounded accuracy, with a few exceptions, it'd be one thing, but the majority of magic weapons do have static +1 or more bonuses, same with armor. If the majority of items were flametongues and adamantium armor they could have claimed some attempt to follow their vision, but they didn't.

What's even more odd is these weapons don't need those small bonuses. Look at holy avenger for example. Extra damage versus demons and undead for most people, paladin's gain an extra aura that grants advantage versus spells. That's the exact sort of magic item you would expect in this edition, until you notice it is also a +3, which doesn't need to exist.


No you don't get how this works. It won't overpower him it will make him better.

A +1? Maybe. A 5% chance here and there won't overly change things.

A +3? That is a 15% increased chance to hit. That's going to really shift the difficultly of encounters around noticeably. That's going to make encounters that should be challenging turn into a cakewalk.

[Sartharina]

I am starting to really doubt WotC's ability to make magic weapons and rules regarding them that makes any sense in this edition.

I mean they say that magic items aren't assumed and give us characters totally capable of handling anything on their own without enhancements then still give out magic weapons with potency comparable to those of at least 2e and some that would have been nice even in 3e and expect that to somehow "work out."

You've got this life-drinker crap sword and a boomstick like the flame tongue (2d6 fire = extra greatsword) and haizrawn which is +2 AND +2d6 damage with wounding. What in the world!Haizrawn's possibly better than Lifedrinker. Lifedrinker's better than Flametongue.

Or did you miss the point where it gives you +10 damage (just below the average roll of 3d6), and also gives +10 Temp HP? A fighter would love the potential of up to 40 temp HP/round, and +10 damage per hit (Better than the effect of Great Weapon Master, because it doesn't require a -5 to hit)
The DMG DOES give suggestions for what level to give players magic items, and suggestions for how many magic items to give. It's in the wealth by level section.There's a wealth-by-level section? :smallyuk: That was the bane of a lot of people's enjoyment of 3e and 4e.

[Baptor]

Well, the problem is:

Bounded accuracy both assumes that players don't need numerous boosts to accuracy and assumes they won't consistently have access to such items.

The game's balance i based on that assumption.

Magic items break that assumption.

Magic items break the inherent balance of the game, forcing DM's to increase the difficulty of things artificially or else not challenge the players (which may make the campaign less fun if the players don't feel challenged).

Exactly! That is our major concern!


So adding magic items effectively creates more work for the DM as the default assumption doesn't involve them. Probably more work than just making sure you had the right level of magic item in the player's hand.

That is truly my biggest disappointment, the fact that it was easier[I] to balance this stuff in earlier editions when magic items were assumed and there were clear-cut tables and values to measure it by. If you really didn't want them you could do inherent bonuses. Now it's clear the only way to have a balanced game is to not have items at all, which is sad.


They handled magic items badly this edition. The rules both assume and do not assume magic items in conflicting areas, and including such a huge selection of +x items in the DMG further reinforces that scattered "we didn't have a clear vision" people are getting about the subject.

That was my thought exactly when I found out how the magic weapons were handled in the DMG. Haphazard with no regards to balance or anything. Sad.


If they at least made an attempt for the majority of magic items to fit bounded accuracy, with a few exceptions, it'd be one thing, but the majority of magic weapons do have static +1 or more bonuses, same with armor. If the majority of items were flametongues and adamantium armor they could have claimed some attempt to follow their vision, but they didn't.

What's even more odd is these weapons don't need those small bonuses. Look at holy avenger for example. Extra damage versus demons and undead for most people, paladin's gain an extra aura that grants advantage versus spells. That's the exact sort of magic item you would expect in this edition, until you notice it is also a +3, which doesn't need to exist.

Interesting. My thoughts as well. In your estimations, would simply removing the static (+x) bonuses but keeping the rest (added fire damage or the above mentioned HA) fix the issue? Simply adding a bit of damage doesn't seem as game breaking as to-hit bonuses. Thoughts?


A +3? That is a 15% increased chance to hit. That's going to really shift the difficultly of encounters around noticeably. That's going to make encounters that should be challenging turn into a cakewalk.

Yeah when it comes to attack bonus increases, any amount is almost too much.


Haizrawn's possibly better than Lifedrinker. Lifedrinker's better than Flametongue.

Or did you miss the point where it gives you +10 damage (just below the average roll of 3d6), and also gives +10 Temp HP? A fighter would [i]love the potential of up to 40 temp HP/round, and +10 damage per hit (Better than the effect of Great Weapon Master, because it doesn't require a -5 to hit)There's a wealth-by-level section? :smallyuk: That was the bane of a lot of people's enjoyment of 3e and 4e.

I am not sure it means what you think it means. According to the poster, Lifedrinker's 10 vampiric damage only procs on a critical hit. Which means 95% of your hits are nothing special. LD is worse than all of those weapons by a long shot.

[Shadow]

Bounded Accuracy in no way assumes that players will not have consistent access to magic items. You're inferring things that aren't true.
This is friggin D&D. Of course the PCs will have consistent access to magic items. FULL STOP.
There is a whole wide world of difference between not having a Magic Mart then becoming an assumption that the players will not consistently find magic items.
Your entire argument is a fallacy.
This is just one more thing for players to complain about, when there is really nothing wrong with it, and your complaint is based on a fallacy.

I laugh when people try to say that a standard D&D game will not have magic items, or was assumed to not have consistent access to magic items.
It's ridiculous, and it's simply not true.

[Baptor]

Bounded Accuracy in no way assumes that players will not have consistent access to magic items. You're inferring things that aren't true.
This is friggin D&D. Of course the PCs will have consistent access to magic items. FULL STOP.
There is a whole wide world of difference between not having a Magic Mart then becoming an assumption that the players will not consistently find magic items.
Your entire argument is a fallacy.
This is just one more thing for players to complain about, when there is really nothing wrong with it, and your complaint is based on a fallacy.

I laugh when people try to say that a standard D&D game will not have magic items, or was assumed to not have consistent access to magic items.
It's ridiculous, and it's simply not true.

Except that Mearls himself has said many times the game was designed under the assumption the PCs would have no magic items and the Playtest at least (I don't yet own the DMG) says that it is assumed in the challenges that the PCs have no particular magic items and that any magic item given out will result in the player or players being more powerful than the game assumes.

In a thread a few weeks back (Enhancement Issues (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?384947-Enhancement-Issues)) I asked if anyone could prove mathematically that magic items would not invalidate the balance of the game as written, and no one could do this. Everyone basically said, "Well yeah the game is balanced without magic items and therefore magic items would make the PCs more powerful than they are supposed to be but hey you gotta do what you gotta do." Only one person tried to say that the game did assume that the PCs would need magic items eventually and he was assaulted for his beliefs. The general consensus of that thread that went on for four pages was that the game did not assume magic swords and that any group of players playing from 1-20 should not expect any magic swords unless the DM just really wanted to throw a wrench in his game.

It's quite simple really, either they are assumed (and therefore needed to meet the challenges) or they are not assumed (and therefore make the challenges easier than they were designed to be).

You are saying they are assumed but not necessary, and that sir is impossible.

(I'd actually love for you to prove me wrong, because it would solve my problem, but so far you only argument is "because D&D" which is unfortunately not sufficient. If you have hard evidence please present it, as I'd love to drop this.)

[Demonic Spoon]

Except that Mearls himself has said many times the game was designed under the assumption the PCs would have no magic items and the Playtest at least (I don't yet own the DMG) says that it is assumed in the challenges that the PCs have no particular magic items and that any magic item given out will result in the player or players being more powerful than the game assumes.


That is not the same as assuming that most games won't have magic items. That means that the game is balanced with no magic items being the baseline, and everything after that is above the baseline.

It is easier to scale up encounters based on your party's magic items than it is to adjust up or down depending on how many magic items you've handed out.


In a thread a few weeks back (Enhancement Issues) I asked if anyone could prove mathematically that magic items would not invalidate the balance of the game as written, and no one could do this. Everyone basically said, "Well yeah the game is balanced without magic items and therefore magic items would make the PCs more powerful than they are supposed to be but hey you gotta do what you gotta do." Only one person tried to say that the game did assume that the PCs would need magic items eventually and he was assaulted for his beliefs. The general consensus of that thread that went on for four pages was that the game did not assume magic swords and that any group of players playing from 1-20 should not expect any magic swords unless the DM just really wanted to throw a wrench in his game.


You can't prove a negative.

[mr_odd]

Is it just me, or is this a non-issue? As a DM, you are in charge of what you give out. You give out what you want to, and if it requires you to adjust encounters, then adjust your encounters. You can tweak everything. Don't like bonuses to hit? Get rid of them. The DM is in control of everything.

[Madfellow]

Okay, I feel like this conversation has gotten off track a bit. For the moment, let's assume that Mearls' development comments about magic items not being necessary did not carry over into the final version of the game. I say this because yeah, there are quite a few monsters that are resistant (or immune) to non-magical weapons. There are ways for PCs to get magic weapons without finding them as loot, but those abilities aren't available to every class.

So PCs are expected to have at least a couple magic items, just not nearly as many as in 3e or 4e. Luckily, we have this handy dandy chart to use as a guideline:

http://tribality.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/20141126_213140.jpg

[Baptor]

Is it just me, or is this a non-issue? As a DM, you are in charge of what you give out. You give out what you want to, and if it requires you to adjust encounters, then adjust your encounters. You can tweak everything. Don't like bonuses to hit? Get rid of them. The DM is in control of everything.

As I've said, I'm already adjusting it in my games as needed, as I've had to do in every edition I've DMed. My point was in this edition I had hoped I wouldn't have to. Some of us hoped this edition wouldn't be full of holes we'd have to fix.
Another goal I'm trying to reach is for one of these "working as intended" folks to actually show me how magic swords are balanced with BA instead of dismissing my questions out of hand. I don't want to houserule if I don't have to, but my fear is that I must.

[Shadow]

Another goal I'm trying to reach is for one of these "working as intended" folks to actually show me how magic swords are balanced with BA instead of dismissing my questions out of hand.

We're not dismissing them out of hand. The concept of D&D as a whole is. The Starting Equipment table in the DMG is.
We're dismissing them because they're fallacious.

Houserules in RPGs are the norm. If you expected to be able to run a gaming group with no houserules, then you will forever be disappointed.

[TrompeOeil]

>.<

I made this thread for the purpose of answering the questions of curious folks, not to have debates on the finer points of DnD logic when pertaining to magical items. Could we go back on topic pretty please?

[Baptor]

>.<

I made this thread for the purpose of answering the questions of curious folks, not to have debates on the finer points of DnD logic when pertaining to magical items. Could we go back on topic pretty please?
My apologies. To get back on topic, is there a section that helps you design new spells? If so what's it like?

[TrompeOeil]

My apologies. To get back on topic, is there a section that helps you design new spells? If so what's it like?

^.^, thank you.

There is indeed a section, and while it's left mostly open to the imagination of the spell creator there is a Spell Damage Table to follow based on the spell level so that you can give it level appropriate damage and number of targets (if it's AoE). There's also a few bullet points to help the creator along the way that are mostly "things to not do" (Such as giving a sorcerer a healing spell).

[mr_odd]

My original question was not answered, how is encounter building with challenge rating/xp budgets? Is it relatively the same as 3.5? Would using previous edition encounter calculators work just fine?

[Madfellow]

My original question was not answered, how is encounter building with challenge rating/xp budgets? Is it relatively the same as 3.5? Would using previous edition encounter calculators work just fine?


I never played 3.5 so I don't know how it was different, but the encounter and XP budget rules have already been publicly released in the DMG 0.2 free PDF, and there are even free tools (http://kobold.club/enc) for building encounters with them.

There you go.

[MrUberGr]

In regards to magic items, does the "Oathbow" exist? If it does could you post or pm me the stats? We've been using it, but we only had the beta stats and I'd like to know if it's the same.

[Sir Chuckles]

Climbing Onto a Bigger Creature: use your action to make an Acrobatics or Athletics check, opposed by the creature's Acrobatics check. If you succeed, you climb aboard, and instead of preventing its movement per grappling, you get advantage on all attacks. The creature can use its action to make an Athletics check to scrape you off (opposed by your Athletics or Acrobatics).

I'm sold. That's all I needed. Thank you.

[mr_odd]

There you go.

Thank you, I completely missed that!

[MaxWilson]

^.^, thank you.

There is indeed a section, and while it's left mostly open to the imagination of the spell creator there is a Spell Damage Table to follow based on the spell level so that you can give it level appropriate damage and number of targets (if it's AoE). There's also a few bullet points to help the creator along the way that are mostly "things to not do" (Such as giving a sorcerer a healing spell).

Also, the Spell Damage table is wildly incompatible with existing spells like Meteor Swarm, which does something like double the damage the table says it should. So I plan on ignoring the table completely.