Magic Items: Absolute Evil or Essential Component?

[Regitnui]

Over in the "Versatile" thread, the topic came up whether magic weapons are good or bad when playing 5e. Many of us agree they should be found, but the main point of debate seems to be how the DM should handle them.

My opinion is that the DM has the responsibility to offer the players appropriate magic items or weapons as they level up. Magic weapons and items are part of the world, so the DM and players should know that acquiring a magic longsword for the fighter is an option. Whether discovered in a legend's tomb, given by important NPCs, or bartered for with an extremely skilled artificer/blacksmith, the players can acquire and use magic weapons or items of their choice. Others claim this amounts to 3.5's Magic Shop Economy.

Another opinion is that Players should just use what they find. Magic items here aren't offered by the DM, but by the roll of the dice. Players can't be sure of what they get, if they get anything at all, and so the verisimilitude and tension of actually opening a long-lost treasure box is preserved. Magic items in this case are almost always rare, historical artefacts, and each of them has a history of its own. On the other hand, this can leave your party at the mercy of the dice fall; the first magic greatsword is a delightful surprise, the fourth, not so much.

The last opinion that came up was the 5e does not do magic items and WBL anymore. Stop using them. A few people pointed out that, like feats and Inspiration, magic items are entirely optional and players can reach epic without even using one. The opposite side of the coin here is that you might have the players feel less motivated if they're as well equipped as they're ever going to get.

So, gentlemen, ladies, indeterminates and others, what's your opinion on 5e's magic items?

[DracoKnight]

I love 'em. I like getting them when I'm playing, and I love givin' 'em out when I'm DM. They add a layer to the game that would be otherwise missing. It would be like playing The Legend of Zelda without ever acquiring the Master Sword: it just wouldn't be the same.

[Tanarii]

I prefer random determination of magic items. But without a preference as to the amount of 'loot drops'. Also no preference on the ability to craft. As long as the rules as well defined for frequency of drops and crafting (if it exists), and have reasonable power balancing (which never seems to happen) I'm happy. But that's a personal preference. And it stems from my preference for a neutral DM arbiter-judge in a sandbox & combat-as-war environment.

Essentially, the heroes should be fighting to overcome the challenges of a neutral game. Not living in a DM determined world, be it benevolent or hostile. Actually it better not be hostile, 'cause PCs in that campaign won't last long. ;)

By the way, kudos on a fair representation of the positions without too much bias, given you have fairly strong feelings about which way it should be done.

[DersitePhantom]

I lean mostly towards the first option in that I will happily give occasional magic items to my players. When I do so, I choose an item that is appropriate for the character and for the player and is balanced (I would be very against rolling for magic treasure due to the potential disruption to balance.) I would also never let my players fully choose what magic item they get, mainly because that would require them to have/read the DMG and would add a ridiculous amount of complexity to the game for them.

Despite that being my opinion, I disagree with this:


the DM has the responsibility to offer the players appropriate magic items or weapons as they level up

If I was playing in a campaign and the DM just never gave out magic items, I would not consider them to have done anything wrong. While I prefer to have some magic items in the game, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is the DM's responsibility to give them out.

[Tanarii]

If I was playing in a campaign and the DM just never gave out magic items, I would not consider them to have done anything wrong. While I prefer to have some magic items in the game, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is the DM's responsibility to give them out.He means appropriate to their class / build, weapon & armor preferences, feats, etc.

[DersitePhantom]

He means appropriate to their class / build, weapon & armor preferences, feats, etc.

Oh. If this is the case, then I apologize for the misinterpretation.

[Regitnui]

He means appropriate to their class / build, weapon & armor preferences, feats, etc.

And that the offer is there. Not necessarily the item.

[CNagy]

Recently, I've changed how I allocate treasure to hoards and loot on foes. If a magical weapon is going to be found on the body of an enemy, I roll that up randomly before the encounter, and then describe that creature as using that weapon.

Classes get broad proficiency with weapons and armor for the most part, so it makes sense that Fate isn't necessarily guiding their favorite type of sword or armor to their pack. I roll up random items, weapons, and armor and the party distributes it generally with effectiveness being the primary factor in who-gets-what. Then, after they make due with what they've gotten, I pick and choose later treasure finds to fill in the holes a bit and this stuff will be guided by their preferences. Once that has been done sufficiently, it is back to randomized treasure.

I find I like this better than "...you, the Rapier-wielding Dex fighter, find a magical rapier while you, the Shortsword-wielding Rogue, find a magical shortsword. The Breastplated Paladin finds a magical breastplate. The archer finds a magical crossbow."

[hymer]

I generally use random generation of treasure when I can for monster lairs. It usually gets modified, particularly in fluff, to suit the particular area and monster. I also reroll a lot to get something I feel is more appropriate (scrolls in a library, sure, but less likely in a water elemental's lair, e.g.).
But I also add in some DM-determined loot. When you complete a quest for the dwarf king, it makes sense that he rewards you with a particularly fine dwarf-made shield if he sees you using a bog standard steel shield. These kinds of rewards I tend to use to make sure every melee gets a magical melee weapon, e.g.
I also note to my players that they do have the option of going after specific items, if they feel they need them badly. They can't buy them, but they can probably hire sages to get some clues about where they can find the sort of thing they need. Maybe some legendary archmage or volcano-dwelling smith (who will all expect to paid in quests, no doubt) , but more likely it'll be an indication that a shipment of the best crossbows were stolen by hobgoblins eighty years ago, and likely some of them are still in the possession of the hobgoblin captains of X.
So far, my players don't use this sort of option much. They prefer to pursue story goals, which is fine with me. Just so long as they know they have the option.

[JellyPooga]

My opinion is that the DM has the responsibility to offer the players appropriate magic items or weapons as they level up. Magic weapons and items are part of the world, so the DM and players should know that acquiring a magic longsword for the fighter is an option. Whether discovered in a legend's tomb, given by important NPCs, or bartered for with an extremely skilled artificer/blacksmith, the players can acquire and use magic weapons or items of their choice. Others claim this amounts to 3.5's Magic Shop Economy.

There's varying degrees of availability, though. Offering character-appropriate items doesn't necessarily lead to the Magic Shop problem (and for me, Magic Shops are a problem; not that I'm saying they;re a bad thing for other peoples games) and I would argue that it detracts from it slightly, if anything. After all, if you're getting the items you want as loot, then you don't need a magic item economy to get them otherwise.


Another opinion is that Players should just use what they find. Magic items here aren't offered by the DM, but by the roll of the dice. Players can't be sure of what they get, if they get anything at all, and so the verisimilitude and tension of actually opening a long-lost treasure box is preserved. Magic items in this case are almost always rare, historical artefacts, and each of them has a history of its own. On the other hand, this can leave your party at the mercy of the dice fall; the first magic greatsword is a delightful surprise, the fourth, not so much.

See, now this puzzles me. Games that use random items tend not to give them lavish backgrounds and in my experience, also tend to have them be more common rather than less.

My personal preference regarding magic items is to have them be relatively rare; PC's might have one permanent item apiece for approximately every 5 levels they possess if they follow normal sort of plot-lines. This does, however, ignore quest-items and it also assumes that the players don't go item-hunting. If they decide to actively go looking for powerful items, they'll find them.

I populate the world with items and the PC's will encounter them, or not, as they do quests. This typically means items are not tailored to the party, but rather to what I think would be appropriate. I'm not going to change the Spear of the Sun, which I've already got a detailed a history and description for, to a Sword just because there's a player who prefers to use a longsword.

Consumable items (like potions and scrolls), I tend to be bit more generous with; for instance, a village might have a skilled herbalist that has a handful of Healing Potions for sale, a town probably will and in a city you can definitely get your hands on them. They are still relatively rare; whilst you can probably get hold of healing potions in a city, you'll not find them lining every shelf; you might find half a dozen, at most, for sale in the swankiest shop in the best part of town. You'll rarely find a scroll for sale and if ever you do, it will be just that one, single, scroll. "Random" drops of consumables on enemies are more common, depending on their type; you won't find a healing potion on Orc#3, but you might on the Orc Warboss (assuming he doesn't use it) and the Necromancer might well have a couple of scrolls (and if he's a Wizard, a spellbook).

As for selling (permanent) magic items; I don't have an economy for it. They cost thousands of gold. That's "get a mortgage" territory for most. Only the very wealthy can afford to buy them. You want to sell an item, you need to find someone A)wealthy enough and B)interested in buying it. This will typically not be easy, but possible.

This is just how I run games. Thought I'd mention it as it doesn't seem to fit into either of the OP's categories.

[MrStabby]

So I tend to use quite a lot of magic rings and amulets etc. but not from the DMG as I find them too powerful and non-specific. Once every few encounters there may be a new trinket - a ring that gives advantage on Int saving throws or a belt that adds ensnaring strike to the spell list of the wearer whilst worn. I am much less a fan of the +1 swords and other powerful items.

My worry on powerful items is that everyone needs to have one otherwise you introduce a power disparity between characters If you are handing them out one per person they don't feel as special as they should (in my view).

I also like to hand out a lot of consumables. These add a bit more of a complex dynamic to encounters as players have to manage reniewable resources and non reniewable resources in encounters and I play a style that would be pretty lethal if players just hoarded their consumables.

[DanyBallon]

When designing an adventure I set treasure randomly for appropriate foe, and if a magic item come up on the table, I check what makes most senses, if the creature is usually wielding longsword, I won't give him a magical great axe, because that's what my player is using. But from time to time I set particular foe that will stand out and might have a better suit magic item.
i.e. A band of 4 generic orcs, one is acting as the leader, but I don't want to use the orc boss stats, so I will give him different gear. Such gear could be a more appropriate loot for my player, or not. If a player decide to play a fighter that uses only axes (hand axe for range, battle axe and/or great axe) because of his background story, then I may be inclined to let that orc wield an axe.

In the end, most of the magic item found won't be tailored to the players, but once in a while it may happen.

[JackPhoenix]

I mostly play in Eberron, and I use a combination of styles. Most of the items are really minor, to fit with the setting, and random... magic swords that don't have any bonuses, but never rust and always stay sharp, enchanted mug that keeps the beer inside cool, wand that can start fire more easily then tinderbox, cloak that protects perfectly against rain and cold...

Sometimes, they found random items that the enemies are using...not just consumables, but 2 "bosses" they fought had a magic longsword and a spear, even though the sorcerer doesn't use weapons, paladin prefers flail (or shield bash, after she lost one of her hand) and the elf is an archer...the spear was taken by the elf, even though she doesn't use it much.

And few times, they actually get the items they want, maybe as a reward...elf got better bow after they destroyed an aberrant cult and retrieved stolen relics of the Silver Flame, paladin will get a shield made with dragon scales from a collector (actually a dragon himself who orchestrated the whole situation for prophecy-related reasons and to make the group trust him) they will save from another cult in the next session...

I'm perfectly fine with 5e default being low- or no item, if there was one part of 3.5/PF I hated as a GM, it was the need to watch party WBL so they don't fall behind on necessary bonuses. I want the magic items to feel magical and unique, not being a mandatory tool of the adventurer's trade with few pluses to some number. But that may be because my GMing is more story-driven and less of a dungeon-crawling treasure hunt...there are lot few opportunities to actually get the items they need to keep to WBL.

[Zalabim]

the DM has the responsibility to offer the players appropriate magic items or weapons as they level up.
The appropriate magic items based on class, build, race, and level is always none. They aren't assumed, or required for any character of any class of any level. In mundane items, characters who wear heavy armor should be finding access to better armor as they level to keep their AC ahead of characters who do not wear heavy armor and have high dexterity.

For a player or character that wants to find magic items, that's a hook. It can be the object of a quest itself, or a tool to entice that character to go on another quest. An appropriate magic item can also be a tool for the PCs to take on a particularly powerful enemy, or one with rare immunities or resistances. The party finds themselves in Castle Ravenloft at level 6, so they'll need to find the Sun blade before they can defeat the count.

Link always finds the Master Sword because it's the only thing that can put down Ganon. Mario finds magic items on his adventures too, but they come around semi randomly (especially as they change from game to game) and it takes some thought to put them to use at times. It's always possible to defeat Bowser and rescue the princess without even a mushroom, though it certainly helps. The different power ups enable finding secrets, collecting bonuses, and taking alternate paths through levels and the game.

Whether decided randomly, tailored for a specific character, or tailored for a specific situation, giving the PCs magic items is a boost in their capabilities. It's nice if a DM takes that into account, but still not a responsibility.

Consideration: Around CR 17, Resistance or Immunity to common damage types (non-magic weapons) no longer qualifies for any modification to an enemy's HP, so it may be that a party will generally be broadly capable enough to circumvent that, or that even totally mundane characters have a basically equivalent magical weapon to use by now. That's still down to the DM choosing to use such adversaries, and not an expectation for every party to meet.

[Shaofoo]

Over in the "Versatile" thread, the topic came up whether magic weapons are good or bad when playing 5e. Many of us agree they should be found, but the main point of debate seems to be how the DM should handle them.

My opinion is that the DM has the responsibility to offer the players appropriate magic items or weapons as they level up. Magic weapons and items are part of the world, so the DM and players should know that acquiring a magic longsword for the fighter is an option. Whether discovered in a legend's tomb, given by important NPCs, or bartered for with an extremely skilled artificer/blacksmith, the players can acquire and use magic weapons or items of their choice. Others claim this amounts to 3.5's Magic Shop Economy.

Another opinion is that Players should just use what they find. Magic items here aren't offered by the DM, but by the roll of the dice. Players can't be sure of what they get, if they get anything at all, and so the verisimilitude and tension of actually opening a long-lost treasure box is preserved. Magic items in this case are almost always rare, historical artefacts, and each of them has a history of its own. On the other hand, this can leave your party at the mercy of the dice fall; the first magic greatsword is a delightful surprise, the fourth, not so much.

Personally I am of the camp that the players should be proactive in actually getting items. Even an item that no one can use can be transformed into another item given enough time and resources in my games but the player will have to actually make the initiative to make it work. Things like transfering the +1 from a dagger to a greatsword requires minimal time and a bit of investment to transfer. You can even make a +1 dagger into a wand of fireballs if you want but that would require a lot of time and materials and probably a chance of failure but the option is there. If the player cares then he should try to ask, otherwise I'll just assume that he doesn't care much for loot or is happy with what there is; the DMs have enough in their plate to start worrying about the player character's optimization as well.

The DM being responsible for giving player relevant items is the standard in 4e actually. In fact the game made the players write down wish lists for the DM.


The last opinion that came up was the 5e does not do magic items and WBL anymore. Stop using them. A few people pointed out that, like feats and Inspiration, magic items are entirely optional and players can reach epic without even using one. The opposite side of the coin here is that you might have the players feel less motivated if they're as well equipped as they're ever going to get.

I don't see how players would be less motivated because magic items aren't found, maybe some groups are loot driven but not requiring magic items is good because it allows non magic item DMs to make their games work (and I have been in magic itemless games where things were a slog) and some characters might not mind that their starting gear carries them through level 20. Would be good if a character had a heirloom weapon since level 1 carry them through instead of either ditching the weapon at the sign of something shiny or somehow forcing an upgrade mechanic.

[Logosloki]

I have tried random, I have tried player chosen, I have tried DM chosen and I tried none at all and I have found that overall it all depends on the setting, longevity and comfort level. I do a mixture of random rolls (for when I'm laying tracks in front of the train) to tailoring magic items for a player or for a set piece or an NPC to allowing a player to choose what they want.

I solved the magic mart in my instance by introducing the auction house, a trope of high fantasy manhua and that has worked a treat. This frees me up a bit since there is a system for trading or selling but gives me control on where and when they can do so. It did however mean I had to spend some time thinking about what body parts the players can hawk there. It also led to several instances where the players actually tried to capture something live.

I do find though, especially in 5th ed, that people get overly precious about the words optional and variant. Everything is optional. A DM can add, modify and remove anything they wish. The other issue is that people seem to treat bounded accuracy as if it is balanced on a pin point.

[Shaofoo]

I do find though, especially in 5th ed, that people get overly precious about the words optional and variant. Everything is optional. A DM can add, modify and remove anything they wish. The other issue is that people seem to treat bounded accuracy as if it is balanced on a pin point.

The problem with bounded accuracy is that people still drag along the older edition mentality that somehow you need a full decked +3 everything by level 20. If you add magic items you will need to add some power to the other side if you want to keep things level. The DMG has no system to deal with how to make encounters with magic items so if you only focus on giving the players power then things will become easier if you just keep everything else the way it was.

[Zman]

Over in the "Versatile" thread, the topic came up whether magic weapons are good or bad when playing 5e. Many of us agree they should be found, but the main point of debate seems to be how the DM should handle them.

My opinion is that the DM has the responsibility to offer the players appropriate magic items or weapons as they level up. Magic weapons and items are part of the world, so the DM and players should know that acquiring a magic longsword for the fighter is an option. Whether discovered in a legend's tomb, given by important NPCs, or bartered for with an extremely skilled artificer/blacksmith, the players can acquire and use magic weapons or items of their choice. Others claim this amounts to 3.5's Magic Shop Economy.

Another opinion is that Players should just use what they find. Magic items here aren't offered by the DM, but by the roll of the dice. Players can't be sure of what they get, if they get anything at all, and so the verisimilitude and tension of actually opening a long-lost treasure box is preserved. Magic items in this case are almost always rare, historical artefacts, and each of them has a history of its own. On the other hand, this can leave your party at the mercy of the dice fall; the first magic greatsword is a delightful surprise, the fourth, not so much.

The last opinion that came up was the 5e does not do magic items and WBL anymore. Stop using them. A few people pointed out that, like feats and Inspiration, magic items are entirely optional and players can reach epic without even using one. The opposite side of the coin here is that you might have the players feel less motivated if they're as well equipped as they're ever going to get.

So, gentlemen, ladies, indeterminates and others, what's your opinion on 5e's magic items?

This is a gross misrepresentation of the discussion that was going on in that thread.

No one said magic items are evil or shouldn't be used. Though, some people felt DMs are obligated to include character specific magic items in general loot, others felt loot should make sense even if not optimal. No one excluded the possibility of questing for specific types of items.

3.P had assumptions about having certain items at certain levels and it was built into Wearlh by Level. 3.5 necessitated magic marts.

5e was built without the assumptions of magic items, but fully supports their use. It explicitly states you should not use magic marts.

[Regitnui]

This is a gross misrepresentation of the discussion that was going on in that thread.

No one said magic items are evil or shouldn't be used. Though, some people felt DMs are obligated to include character specific magic items in general loot, others felt loot should make sense even if not optimal. No one excluded the possibility of questing for specific types of items.

3.P had assumptions about having certain items at certain levels and it was built into Wearlh by Level. 3.5 necessitated magic marts.

5e was built without the assumptions of magic items, but fully supports their use. It explicitly states you should not use magic marts.

I never said magic marts are necessary, the question is magic items.

I used a hyperbolic title. At no point within the OP do I say that magic items are wrong or evil. Someone mentioned that magic items shouldn't be used, so I added it as a possible opinion.

Who's to say the commissioning of a magic sword wouldn't be an adventure in and of itself? I'm considering what it would take. So far, I've thought of a rust monster ( to create residuum), a dragonshard/gemstone of quality, and a special metal to alloy into the iron. All of that would equal a +1 sword were my characters to make it themselves.

[Zman]

I never said magic marts are necessary, the question is magic items.

I used a hyperbolic title. At no point within the OP do I say that magic items are wrong or evil. Someone mentioned that magic items shouldn't be used, so I added it as a possible opinion.

Who's to say the commissioning of a magic sword wouldn't be an adventure in and of itself? I'm considering what it would take. So far, I've thought of a rust monster ( to create residuum), a dragonshard/gemstone of quality, and a special metal to alloy into the iron. All of that would equal a +1 sword were my characters to make it themselves.

I understood your title, but the argument as you presented it in this thread was not the one that was going on there.

Yes, that would be a reasonable quest for the creation of a magical sword, preferably not by the character, but commissioned. That is not a magic mart.

[SharkForce]

an awful lot of people were going out of their way to talk about how magic items are not necessary at all in 5th edition. i don't think anyone actually suggested you're a bad person for using them in your games, but if nobody thinks they shouldn't be used, then why were there so many people making such a big deal of the option to not use them at all?

[Mr.Moron]

Magic Items are simply one knob to turn for calibrating the game experience. I've played in and run games ranging from the exact right weapon being in the right place at the right time. Often within a wink, wink, nudge, nudge we know what's going here. To "There are like 3 magic weapons in the whole world, and one of them belongs to the demon-emperor of the world's biggest empire".

There isn't any right answer here:

Magic items strictly as game construct and numbers upgrade and regularly scheduled and predictable elements is a legitimate play style that will work with the game engine.
Magic items as procedurally generated bits of fun-to-fun treasure hordes is a legitimate play style that will work with the game item.
Magic items as pre-generated narrative bits that don't change in response to what PCs enter or leave the group is a legitimate play style that will work with the game engine.


This list could go on and on and on. I'd say absolutist stances like "My opinion is that the DM has the responsibility to offer the players appropriate magic items or weapons as they level up. ", are probably a hair too far and tend to verge on "badwrongfun" as this forum likes to call it.

As for my personal style I tend to use a mix. With items sometimes I think:
"I kind of think there should be a magic treasure here, but I'm not sure what. Hmm, is there anything useful I can put in for a PC. Let me check my notes on their characters" - Items as PC upgrade
"Oh boy. I've got this really cool idea for a rock that portal through walls, I wonder where I can put it. Maybe the PCs will even find a use for it somehow" - Items as content creation exercise
"Hmm. This is an ancient temple to a hunter god, some variety of hide armor is probably what the honor guard would have used here" - Items as narrative extension.

Then there are other approaches like random generation, which I do use sometimes but not frequently. If I had to spitball it'd say it's probably breaks down as: 40% Content Creation Exercise, 40% Narrative Extensions, 20% PC upgrades when it comes to placing things. Overall I tend to be a bit stingy in terms of volume of loot (players know this coming in), and try to steer more twoards things with unique or situational effects than broad numbers upgrades.

[Zman]

an awful lot of people were going out of their way to talk about how magic items are not necessary at all in 5th edition. i don't think anyone actually suggested you're a bad person for using them in your games, but if nobody thinks they shouldn't be used, then why were there so many people making such a big deal of the option to not use them at all?

3.5 required, by design, magic items to function. 5e does not.

The real debate was DMs effectively catering loot to the party and giving the exact right items for them, DMs providing magic marts which is explicitly discouraged per 5e, or letting items populate the world organically and allowing characters to search quest for items, etc.

Individuals, yourself included, erroneously insinuated that 5e effectively required magic items.

[Goober4473]

My approach mostly varies by game, setting, and especially level.

Usually I'll go more random or set piece at lower level. Here it feels like any magic item, even if sub-optimal, is a rare an amazing boon. A +1 dagger is almost always going to be worse than a +1 shortsword, but hey, it's +1 to hit, and overcomes some damage resistance and maybe it glows when aberrations are nearby. Something that may never come up, but makes it feel like it's part of a world, and it's better than nothing. This is the level where players are scrounging for anything they can get and using crappy silver weapons to fight wererats.

But by mid level, I'll try to make sure everyone has at least something that goes well with their thing. Maybe everyone but the great weapon fighter has a magic weapon, so I'll include some two-hander at some point, probably along with some other items. No one's finding a treasure trove full of exactly one optimal item for each character, but over time I nudge it so everyone has at least something that really works for their character. This is the level where the exotic becomes routine, and "you deal half damage because you don't have a magic bow" starts to get old.

At higher level, I actually like to drop way off on magic items. Everyone should already have a pretty nice set of cool items, some flavorful and weird, one or two that work just right for that character, and I'd rather the items they use have history to them than be replaced over time as they find upgrades. Here, we're looking at mostly set pieces. Items their enemies use, legendary weapons that are the focus of an adventure, etc. This is the level where the characters are probably already set, and loading on piles of magic items that they'll never use isn't fun like it used to be. A new item might be of immense plot importance, or maybe it just makes a lot of sense and isn't there to be treasure.

All of these are just tendencies though. I try to mix it up in a way that feels organic and balanced, but rewarding to players.

[VoxRationis]

I am inclined towards a lower prevalence of magic items, but they're never wholly gone from my games. I simply prefer them to be very notable and special when they do show up, something I am glad 5e supports. I also prefer magic items to fit their sources, rather than the players. The ancient culture that only used bronze, for example, will not have produced a magic greatsword—their regular swords were strictly limited in length, and any magic swords of theirs were forged to the same design, even if magic could arguably have allowed for a larger blade. That said, I make it abundantly clear in my games what weapons are commonly used by different cultures, so players aren't going to be taken by surprise by what is and isn't available.

[SharkForce]

3.5 required, by design, magic items to function. 5e does not.

The real debate was DMs effectively catering loot to the party and giving the exact right items for them, DMs providing magic marts which is explicitly discouraged per 5e, or letting items populate the world organically and allowing characters to search quest for items, etc.

Individuals, yourself included, erroneously insinuated that 5e effectively required magic items.

i've never insinuated that 5e requires magic items. and i'm not the one who brought 3.x WBL into it either. i am merely responding to the accusation that 3.x somehow ruined D&D by having a formalized WBL table and that such was the entirety of the problems with 3.x D&D.

every previous edition of D&D has required magic items to function beyond a certain level, whether they explicitly mention it or not. up until 3.x you literally could not damage certain enemies unless you had a sufficiently powerful magic weapon. not as in "fighters couldn't damage them", mind you. there were just no options at all, spells or otherwise, to damage certain enemies if you didn't have a magic weapon. and those types of enemies got more and more common the higher your level got, so if you didn't have magic weapons, you were basically ineffective as a fighter and possibly ineffective as a party depending on what you were fighting, and might be left with no option but to run away.

WBL was perfectly fine, unless you didn't want to do it (in which case there were a variety of workarounds available and it still isn't a problem so much as it is something that does not fit your personal tastes). you can even put magic item shops (or equivalent) into the setting if you want. even more so in 5e where attunement will generally keep things under control. (magic shops that even remotely acknowledge the existence of the rarity as a method of determining value, on the other hand, is likely to lead to disaster). it even has the benefit of making the players care about the other loot they find. i mean, once your fighter has his full plate, if there is no magic shop, then you may as well have your party find a pile of rocks rather than some stupid useless pile of gold. at least the rocks are a usable ranged weapon. furthermore, having a magic item shop (not necessarily one that is stocked with every possible option, and possibly even having only a handful of items ready-made at any given time even in the largest of cities) is not only realistic in a world that has these valuable commodities (just as it is realistic to have shops that sell expensive jewelry even though most can't afford them), but it greatly reduces any need to cater items to the party.

i've never played in a game where the entire world was catered to the party. and i wouldn't want to, really. for all the protests of many players, and for all the insistence i've seen in various official books that magic item shops shouldn't be common, official D&D settings and adventures have consistently featured magic item shops. for all the insistence that magic items should be rare that i've seen in any edition of D&D, the treasure tables have consistently made it quite possible to find plenty of magical items as random loot. simply put, D&D has arguably always had the possibility for individual DMs to make magic items rare or even nonexistent (though as noted above, if you actually did that you basically start running out of things you're allowed to throw at your party beyond a certain level in earlier editions), but the game has never been designed to do that and the settings have never really reflected truly rare magical items being a thing.

common plentiful magic items (relative to the number of people who would actually make use of them regularly) and even shops where you can buy and sell magic items have been a part of D&D for a long time. certainly, it is possible to ignore that aspect of D&D, just as it is possible for an individual DM to ignore any other aspect. but it has been around for a very long time, and by now is basically part of the idea of D&D that people have.

[Shining Wrath]

I generate treasure before combat; intelligent creatures will use that treasure intelligently. You'll feel a +1 sword before you wield it.

I notice going through the Lost Mines and Hoard of the Dragon Queen that the WotC adventures pass out more magic stuff than the DM tables do.

The question is "Will your campaign be more fun with magic items"? That depends upon you, the DM; your particular campaign; and your players. There's no one right answer.

I intend to supply powerful magic items later in the campaign via quests; this is so I can have a truly scary BBEG at the end of the campaign, something CR > 20 with buddies. I'm also supplying some lesser items as rewards for completing a story arc. Aside from that, I let the dice place miscellaneous magic items as they will.

EDIT: I have no "magic marts"; you cannot just accumulate wealth and turn that into your choice of legendary magical items. But if a character had a big pile of gold and started making inquiries about finding an X, they might find X, or perhaps Y, which is similar to X, assuming X isn't too weird. If you want a +1 flaming sword - well, that represents two rare items combined, it might be very rare, but there are probably people who can find you someone willing to sell one, if you have a million GP to spend. Or not; the only one in existence might belong to someone who doesn't trust you with it.

[Regitnui]

One of my players suggested his character was a half-drow whose ancestor had come from the deepest reaches of terra incognita to find whoever had stolen his tribe's method of creating elemental weapons. Needless to say, he failed, and the sword said drow brought to civilization fell into the hands of his player character descendant. Bam. Flavourful starting magical item. This, to me, opens then opportunity for other players to get a magic item they can use early on in the game. The method would be up for debate, the smith I mentioned earlier, gift or bribe from an interested party, or even having it be part of a treasure hoard.

[ad_hoc]

To be clear this is what was said:


Admittedly, part of that is the DM's prerogative to supply appropriate magic weapons; if a player wants to use a two-handed sword, the DM has the responsibility to offer them the option of acquiring magic versions.



You're polarizing my opinion. If it's appropriate for the story that a +2 whip is found in the ruined manor of Lord Grey, then great. But the DM should at least give the players a chance to find appropriate items for their style. A DM who has an archery ranger in the party should offer the chance to find or acquire magic longbows. I'm not saying the ranger should miraculously find a +2 elven longbow of goblin slaying in a xorn's gullet the encounter after they level up. If you only supply arcane ritual components to your party of all-divine classes, then you're not being 'realistic' or 'inspiring', you're being a bad DM.

And honestly, what sort of DM doesn't plan out at least some of the loot for a given campaign? The DM knows because they stock the vaults.



I'm trying very hard to understand, but why would you start handing out (say) axes and hammers when the party's martial focus is on swords and bows?

When I said no, actually we have a lot of fun in a game where the players don't effectively choose which magic items they get and that is a completely reasonable way to play this was the response.




Stop putting words into my mouth. I disagree with your complete denial of magic items in the D&D campaigns that you run. I would give the players the choice.


That I made it all up and we don't use any magic items at all.

I roll for plenty of magic items. They just aren't decided by the players either directly or indirectly through character generation.

Challenges in the game are also not chosen through character generation.

Hopefully by now you will have learned that people really do play this way and they do like it. Not only that, but 5e is built to play this way. Not only am I playing magic items by the book, but I am currently doing so in the published adventure OotA.

I encourage you to give it a try if you haven't already, you may like it. Of course, you aren't having badwrongfun if you continue to play the way you are now either.

[Pex]

Magic items are as part of the game as everything else. The ability of characters to function well in the game of any level without needing any one specific magic item, while a nice feature of 5E, is not the same thing has never, ever having magic items at all or just give out healing potions and the occasional one time use then it's gone item.

The game does not become horribly broken because PCs have permanent magic items they can use repeatedly, and more than one per PC to boot. +0 magic weapons are fine, but their existence do not forbid +1 magic weapons. Of course be mindful of Bounded Accuracy, but a +1 weapon is not going to ruin anything. Same can be said for +1 armors. In both cases I'm including +1 weapon/armor with a rider effect, not just a plain +1. Bounded Accuracy means +2 and +3 weapons are for high level play. They don't have to appear in the game. The game just doesn't suddenly become unplayable if they do.

[Regitnui]

Ad hoc, highlight the rest of the sentence in that second text box. I used an extreme situation; arcane spell components for a party without arcane casters, as a way your approach can fail. Apply context to what the players find, so that they don't end up with completely useless items.

[Goober4473]

Apply context to what the players find, so that they don't end up with completely useless items.

Here's a question though: what's wrong with useless items? A spellbook from a wizard they defeated when none of them are wizards may not benefit them, but it's a unique and interesting trophy, and may win them favor with a circle of magi they give it to later. A suit of magical plate armor found in the tomb of the dwarf lord, when none of them wear heavy armor, is certainly not going to make them any more powerful, but what a great decoration for their castle.

In a context where the players feel entitled to a certain number of magic items, if one of those items is useless to them, they might feel cheated. But if that isn't the assumption going in, then all they've found is an interesting piece of the world, which is pretty cool. It's all a matter of context, expectations, and what your players find rewarding, which I've found can vary quite widely.

Obviously most games aren't going to be nothing but useless items, and I personally run things more in line with that you're talking about in earlier posts, but if the players have fun with it, why not?

[DireSickFish]

Here's a question though: what's wrong with useless items? A spellbook from a wizard they defeated when none of them are wizards may not benefit them, but it's a unique and interesting trophy, and may win them favor with a circle of magi they give it to later. A suit of magical plate armor found in the tomb of the dwarf lord, when none of them wear heavy armor, is certainly not going to make them any more powerful, but what a great decoration for their castle.


The problem with them is that they have no use. Niche items or ones that are not usable by anyone in the party tend to get written down on a character sheet and forgotten about.

If you're a DM that is choosing to give out magic items then you should have a good idea of how useful.useless the items you are giving out are. It is a tradeoff you are making to give them useless magic items they can't use to enrich the flavor of whatever part of the world you are running. It also can go the other way and stretch credibility when the Dex based party finds there 3rd magic rapier on a bunch of brutish barbarains because you want to make sure everyone gets one that needs one.


Right now I'm doing a combination of rolling for loot and handing out plot items. I am currently taking any magic weapon out of the loot rolling system (and have let the players know this) because I want magic weapons in particular to be more story based than other items. I'm rolling random loot to get items involved that perhaps I would not have thought of if I were distributing loot myself.


The games I've played in have ranged from almost no magic items to having to many +1 weapons the party didn't need. The only time things really felt off was when our Valor Bard didn't have a magic weapon by level 12, it was just sad having him do half damage on his 2 attacks.

[VoxRationis]

I think that complaints about items being inapplicable to the party or (in a world sans magic-mart) gold not being useful stem from a mindset lacking in understanding of the fact that the party isn't alone in the world. There's nothing in the rulebook that says the players have to be a rootless, friendless band of wanderers. There are allies who may make use of items the PCs can't on their own—and providing an item may well make fast allies of those who would otherwise just be hirelings (an assassin will surely be more loyal to the person who gave them a +2 dagger than to a more mundane patron, if for no other reason than hope for more such gifts). Gold may be spent on mercenaries and strongholds, or even on prosaic desires like buying back the old family home or opening an inn.

[ad_hoc]

Ad hoc, highlight the rest of the sentence in that second text box. I used an extreme situation; arcane spell components for a party without arcane casters, as a way your approach can fail. Apply context to what the players find, so that they don't end up with completely useless items.

Then you have completely lost me.

I have no idea what arcane spell components have to do with magic items being part of your character build.

Unless you are saying that if the party finds a diamond but there are no casters who can use a diamond as a spell component that the game is wrong?

I don't see how that is a problem.

They can find a whole arcane spellbook, it doesn't cause any problems.

OotA spoiler:

There are 2 arcane spellbooks that can be found in OotA. The adventure doesn't suck if there is no wizard to use them.

[rlc]

No wealth by level doesn't imply no magic items, it just means that magic items are special again.

[Knaight]

I get that the impetus of this thread was an argument in the other thread, but we really don't need a blow by blow replay of the other thread in this one. So, those recreating it - mind taking it there?

Back to the topic proper: I'd consider this more a matter of setting than anything else. I've run settings where outright magitech is a thing, and were I running them in 5e, there would be actual magic marts. I'd also have to dramatically tweak the magic item list, but there are game structures where this and 5e would be a good match. I've also run settings which were technically fantasy, but which didn't have anything that 5e would consider a magical item, were I running any of these in 5e I'd obviously take the no items at all option. Then there's plenty of room in between, where there are lots of subtle variations on how magic items are handled. Maybe they're all relics from a dead civilization, and while commissions are out they actually do show up at antiquities markets every so often. Maybe magic items aren't ever made deliberately, but instead form naturally because the world as a whole is a magic place, in which case formalized markets are unlikely, but there's stuff to be found and more than a small chance that the well worn equipment of a bunch of adventurers going into magical places just straight up becomes magical. Maybe magic items aren't ever made deliberately, but mundane items can spontaneously turn magical when used to do spectacular or heroic things, and forever bear the stamp of said things and their owners. The best way by far to acquire them is to let your own items become magical, magical items are disproportionately likely to be intelligent, and you're going to see a lot more of things like a waterskin that began to produce water when it's previous owner drained the last of it into someone else's mouth to save them knowing they were risking death from thirst than actual magic weapons. Plus, actual weapons belonging to hated enemies are likely to have equally hated agendas of their own.

The point is, the way 5e handles magic items creates room for a whole bunch of different, setting specific options. For people who prefer to play in a wide variety of different settings, there's unlikely to be much of a system preference. On the other hand, a lot of D&D's core players are people who don't mind all of their RPG playing being in a particular chunk of the fantasy genre, so maybe loot preferences that aren't at all setting specific are the norm.

[Vogonjeltz]

an awful lot of people were going out of their way to talk about how magic items are not necessary at all in 5th edition. i don't think anyone actually suggested you're a bad person for using them in your games, but if nobody thinks they shouldn't be used, then why were there so many people making such a big deal of the option to not use them at all?

I think it's because it lets us get away from the magic-mart environment of the 3.5 era, where the correct magic item selection was actually crucial to success.

Now you can find that ring of water walking or boots of jumping and springing...and it's ok, you aren't getting totally screwed by not getting that important +1 upgrade to your weapon/armor/ring, as was the case back in 3.5e.

[Theodoxus]

Magic items are neither evil nor essential, but I think you've all lost focus. They're MAGIC. You're treating them as if they're SWAT gear or something. "Gee, my police officer character is pretty good with his glock and bullet proof vest, but golly gee, wouldn't it be great if he had an RPG and APC to ride around in?"

You've taken what makes magic magical and turned it into a mundane penis measuring contest.

See, I see it as fairy dust and rainbow unicorn farts. Yes, a player desiring a magic weapon that fits his concept will find one, because Magic! A knight in not-so-shining armor will find that ever-shining suit, because Magic! The rogue who took Ritual Caster to add a bit of versatility will find scrolls and spellbooks with rituals in them, just magically... because Magic!

When you take the Magic! out of D&D, you might as well play CandyLand.


Now, I'm currently playing in a magic item-less game - it's certainly doable, and other than having more difficultly against weapon resistant monsters than would normally be the case for 8th level characters, it's working just fine - but that's because we still believe in the Magic! of the game, even if it isn't represented by magic items specifically.

A lot of you grognards needs to harken back to what drew you to the game in the first place. It's shameful to see nerds reduce it to a game of MtG. Leave that in the FLGS.

[Shaofoo]

When you take the Magic! out of D&D, you might as well play CandyLand.



I thought when you took out the Magic! in D&D you got 4th edition.

[ad_hoc]

See, I see it as fairy dust and rainbow unicorn farts. Yes, a player desiring a magic weapon that fits his concept will find one, because Magic! A knight in not-so-shining armor will find that ever-shining suit, because Magic! The rogue who took Ritual Caster to add a bit of versatility will find scrolls and spellbooks with rituals in them, just magically... because Magic!

When you take the Magic! out of D&D, you might as well play CandyLand.



To me, that is taking the magic out of it.

If every character gets the magic version of their equipment, then it might as well be mundane. It is only special if it is not required. The race can be never ending.

Here is a question for those advocating a requirement for character mandated magic items. At what point is the power level high enough? Is a +1 or equivalent enough? +3? More? At what point do you meet the need to fulfill the character's concept?

For me it is at mundane equipment.

[Socratov]

I thought when you took out the Magic! in D&D you got 4th edition.

no, when you make everythuing basically the exact same class by giving the same powers and options, magic or not, you're making dnd 4th. ifyou take out the magic items/magic you get Gurps in a low magic setting.



Personally I love loot. I love being able to use loot and above all I love finding that loot that perfectly complements your style.

What I don't like in loot is when all you need is a spoon while you find a 1000 forks. To illustrate, if you have the polearm master feat (and feats are quite costly these days) and all you find is a greatsword, greataxe etc. then you're gonna have a bad time waiting for that sweet halberd, glaive, spear, and so on.

I also think that as your wealth and power grows, so should your access to black market/interesting stuff. not quite magic mart per sé but could be made like one.


Magic Mart Emporium - Outfittery, brewers, arms dealer.

to shop at the magic mart you need to first become part of our affiliate program. this simultanously enables you to sell/trade unwanted loot for stuff you want! like money! Magic Items! Copious amounts of interaction between you and the oter, or indeed your own gender/sex!

here we provide you with stuff we think you could need and know what to do with.

Sell items at 50% of their market price, or trade for 66% of another item's market price. the more often you buy, sell or trade here, the more you rise in our affiliate program and the more options you get here.

Affiliate scores are not to be discussed or corresponded about with store personell or indeed management.

We hope you have a nice day and are welcome back for your next sale and/or purchase.

So as affiliate socre goes up, so goes how much you can access on shelves. if the PC's get grabby tell them that everything is displayed as an illusion and the real things are stored in a heavily defended demiplane/portable hole/gatestone/tuningfork for planeshift, what have you. Things are tested by uses of Phantasmal Force (for weapons balance/armour wearing) and activatable items (non attuning) come with included scrolls with command words/gestures/etc.

[DireSickFish]

I actually find it hard to run 5e as a low or no magic game. Almost every singe class gets spells or spellcasting in some form or another. Either as a specilization or baked right into the class.

Sure you can say that the party is the rare exception but then you're severely limiting yourself in what enemies you face to not break immersion further.

You can run a magic itemless game but that feels a bit disjointed when everyone in the party is flinging spells and casting or flying about.

[ad_hoc]

To illustrate, if you have the polearm master feat (and feats are quite costly these days) and all you find is a greatsword, greataxe etc. then you're gonna have a bad time waiting for that sweet halberd, glaive, spear, and so on.


How powerful does the item need to be for you to start having a good time?



I actually find it hard to run 5e as a low or no magic game. Almost every singe class gets spells or spellcasting in some form or another. Either as a specilization or baked right into the class.

Sure you can say that the party is the rare exception but then you're severely limiting yourself in what enemies you face to not break immersion further.

You can run a magic itemless game but that feels a bit disjointed when everyone in the party is flinging spells and casting or flying about.

For me I see a divide between permanent effects and low duration ones. If the magic is all low level and there are few permanent items around, then even though many classes have magic, it is still a different feel to me than it would be with more permanent items.

It also depends on how many NPCs in the world have magical abilities. Classes are for PCs.

[Shaofoo]

no, when you make everythuing basically the exact same class by giving the same powers and options, magic or not, you're making dnd 4th. ifyou take out the magic items/magic you get Gurps in a low magic setting.


In the interest to not turn this topic into "shameful edition war #8675309" I will say that while the power progression is the same the classes are not the same, it was only similar because they took out the magic and thus the individuality at a glance (hence my comment). But personally i just wanted to poke fun at the badwrongfun comment above as well.

[Socratov]

How powerful does the item need to be for you to start having a good time?

snip for relevance

It's not about a powerful item, it's simply this:

suppose I have a cahracter by the name of John.

I want a polearm user swishing about and basically build Xin Zhao from League of Legends: a polearm using whirlwind of steel.

I have, of course, discussed this with the DM.

At lvl 4 I, instead of going for a stat increase, opt for the feat polearm master instead because it really works well with what I want to do with John.

So, some levels roll around and every time we find treasure we find moderately magical bows, axes, swords, greatswords, greataxes, flails, morningstars, really magical bows and swords, but no polearm whatsoever. John, without a convenient magic mart nearby, is walking around with a normal, starting gear polearm.

let's go on a hyperbole and say every weapon under sun has passed that doe snot belong ot the category polearm. By now it's lvl 11.

I don't think it's fun if you get all kinds of loot, but never the loot you'd actually use.

I'm not sayig John needs to find >9000 power!!!111 polearms every day, but every now and then something that John'd actually use and can use his feat with would be nice. It might even be fun.

if the DM instead opts for the line of thinking: "Ok, John might like Polearms, but I'd like it more if he went for other types of weapons instead so I'm gonna throw other weapons at him, but never a useful polearm" then I think the DM should stop and get the hell out.

I think that every 2/3 sessions a player should find something that fits his/her character. I also think that DM and Player should communicate what they want and what they have planned in terms of general story etc. I think that magic items (especially main gear) are a big part of that.

[ad_hoc]

It's not about a powerful item, it's simply this:

suppose I have a cahracter by the name of John.

I want a polearm user swishing about and basically build Xin Zhao from League of Legends: a polearm using whirlwind of steel.

I have, of course, discussed this with the DM.

And what if the DM lets you know that in this game, players and characters don't choose their treasure?



At lvl 4 I, instead of going for a stat increase, opt for the feat polearm master instead because it really works well with what I want to do with John.

So, some levels roll around and every time we find treasure we find moderately magical bows, axes, swords, greatswords, greataxes, flails, morningstars, really magical bows and swords, but no polearm whatsoever. John, without a convenient magic mart nearby, is walking around with a normal, starting gear polearm.

let's go on a hyperbole and say every weapon under sun has passed that doe snot belong ot the category polearm. By now it's lvl 11.

I don't think it's fun if you get all kinds of loot, but never the loot you'd actually use.

I'm not sayig John needs to find >9000 power!!!111 polearms every day, but every now and then something that John'd actually use and can use his feat with would be nice. It might even be fun.

So you only want to use polearms? No other items, armour, etc.?



if the DM instead opts for the line of thinking: "Ok, John might like Polearms, but I'd like it more if he went for other types of weapons instead so I'm gonna throw other weapons at him, but never a useful polearm" then I think the DM should stop and get the hell out.


I don't think anyone is advocating for the DM to tailor magic items to be against what characters want to use.



I think that every 2/3 sessions a player should find something that fits his/her character. I also think that DM and Player should communicate what they want and what they have planned in terms of general story etc. I think that magic items (especially main gear) are a big part of that.


So what I am seeing here is that there are a lot of magic items in your game.

If every 2/3 sessions the character gets something they chose, how many items do they get that aren't chosen?

Are the characters in the game you play getting 1 item/session?

In the games I play I am used to maybe 1 item per party for every 2 sessions. It's hard to gauge as it isn't set.

So it looks like there are about 1/8th the permanent magic items in the games I play than yours.

For reference, I have been playing published adventures in 5e which I am told have more magic items than is assumed by the DMG.

[Tanarii]

If every 2/3 sessions the character gets something they chose, how many items do they get that aren't chosen?

Are the characters in the game you play getting 1 item/session?

In the games I play I am used to maybe 1 item per party for every 2 sessions. It's hard to gauge as it isn't set.Pretty sure he means every 2 to 3 sessions, 1 item that fits their characters. That's still a lot more than your 1 per party per 2 sessions. And IIRC it's more than the baseline assumption for DMG rewards too.


For reference, I have been playing published adventures in 5e which I am told have more magic items than is assumed by the DMG.That's actually a really good point. Historically, I've run far more modules than custom adventures. I tend to use random treasure in custom personally. But how to do people that think items should be tailored to characters handle non-custom module treasure from pregenerated modules?

Encounters handles this by mixing some custom and some non-custom magic item rewards. But IMO, Encounters adventures take all kinds of shortcuts that destroy verisimilitude. This is just another example, similar to assuming you make it to the adventure location without trouble. Also that the world is full of adventurers, including adventuring companies (both permanent and temporary), and you agree to work with a pick up group of adventurers for an single adventure without regard to race or alignment or allegiances. (Some first part of that is actually FR Core, so it's okay as long as you can accept that a world full of adventurers and adventuring companies are built into the setting's very history.)

[Shining Wrath]

There's two parallel conversations going on in this thread.

Are magic items necessary to play 5e D&D?
Should magic items be generated randomly in all cases, or should the DM pick results that match the characters in the campaign?


The answer to both is a resounding definite maybe depending on campaign.

Will the players be able to handle the encounters the DM sets without magic items? Running a low magic campaign where there are monsters only harmed by magic weapons could lead to player frustration. If you give out little or no magic, you adjust your encounters accordingly, and vice-versa.
Can a magic item not directly usable be exchanged for something else of value (like loyalty, passage through the Warlock's domain, ...)? If not, then giving players useless magic items is essentially saying "Here's something that could have been really, really cool and useful, but instead it's pretty much a shiny rock". Giving a magic greatsword to a party where no one is proficient with greatswords is very close to mocking them unless there's a way to turn that greatsword into something of value to the party.

[Zman]

There's two parallel conversations going on in this thread.

Are magic items necessary to play 5e D&D?
Should magic items be generated randomly in all cases, or should the DM pick results that match the characters in the campaign?


The answer to both is a resounding definite maybe depending on campaign.

Will the players be able to handle the encounters the DM sets without magic items? Running a low magic campaign where there are monsters only harmed by magic weapons could lead to player frustration. If you give out little or no magic, you adjust your encounters accordingly, and vice-versa.
Can a magic item not directly usable be exchanged for something else of value (like loyalty, passage through the Warlock's domain, ...)? If not, then giving players useless magic items is essentially saying "Here's something that could have been really, really cool and useful, but instead it's pretty much a shiny rock". Giving a magic greatsword to a party where no one is proficient with greatswords is very close to mocking them unless there's a way to turn that greatsword into something of value to the party.


Very much wrong.


Are magic items necessary to play 5e D&D?
The answer is a hard no, they were not built into the assumptions of the game and there are low/no magic varients supported by the rules. Now, that does not mean you can't play with magic, in fact 5e easily supports a variety of levels of magic and magic items. Magic Items are not necessary, but they can be used to enhance the game.


Should magic items be generated randomly in all cases, or should the DM pick results that match the characters in the campaign?
Terrible question, creates a strawman fallacy. I don't think anyone had argued that they should be randomly generated in all cases. The real question is should the DM provide whatever items characters want, provide items that make sense in addition to randomly generated loot, or some combination and gradient in between. The answer to this question should be, "it depends". It depends on the game, on the players, and on the dm.


Really, mocking them??? So even in that magical two handed sword was wielded by an evil knight in service to the BBEG? Are you saying when they loot that corpse instead of it being say a +2 Greatsword it should be a Staff of Power, or a Quarterstaff, or a Longbow, just because that is what the party is using? Are you saying since the party can't use it that the BBEG's Lieutenant can't either? IMO that would be a prime example of something that totally ruins immersion.

[Steampunkette]

Generally I plan based on the duration of the game.

If it's going to be a 5 level game I'll just roll randomly for loot, more or less.

If it's starting at 5 or higher I let everyone select a set of 3 Moderate magic items, then I choose between them what they get. And toss out a couple of healing potions.

If the game is going to last more than 10 levels I ask people to make up a list of 5-6 magic items they'd like to see in the game. Some few items from that list will be rewards or loot, while the others are ignored.

It's a nice way to give people something they want while still making it uncertain and maintaining the delight of finding a magic item, but it also helps wash out some of the underwhelming options that no one in the party benefits from.

I don't allow for crafting except for questline basis. The 3e method was just too much time away from the story, for me. So if you wanna craft a Holy Avenger you'd best get a mastercrafted longsword and plunge it into the heart of a powerful Demon and keep the blood on the blade until it can be reforged under the watchful eyes of an angel who blesses the blade directly before it is plunged into a Devil's heart to complete the empowerment...

And, sometimes, I'll let player's starting equipment become magical through their growing legend. But I generally control what direction it goes in.

[Laereth]

Over in the "Versatile" thread, the topic came up whether magic weapons are good or bad when playing 5e. Many of us agree they should be found, but the main point of debate seems to be how the DM should handle them.

My opinion is that the DM has the responsibility to offer the players appropriate magic items or weapons as they level up. Magic weapons and items are part of the world, so the DM and players should know that acquiring a magic longsword for the fighter is an option. Whether discovered in a legend's tomb, given by important NPCs, or bartered for with an extremely skilled artificer/blacksmith, the players can acquire and use magic weapons or items of their choice. Others claim this amounts to 3.5's Magic Shop Economy.

Another opinion is that Players should just use what they find. Magic items here aren't offered by the DM, but by the roll of the dice. Players can't be sure of what they get, if they get anything at all, and so the verisimilitude and tension of actually opening a long-lost treasure box is preserved. Magic items in this case are almost always rare, historical artefacts, and each of them has a history of its own. On the other hand, this can leave your party at the mercy of the dice fall; the first magic greatsword is a delightful surprise, the fourth, not so much.

The last opinion that came up was the 5e does not do magic items and WBL anymore. Stop using them. A few people pointed out that, like feats and Inspiration, magic items are entirely optional and players can reach epic without even using one. The opposite side of the coin here is that you might have the players feel less motivated if they're as well equipped as they're ever going to get.

So, gentlemen, ladies, indeterminates and others, what's your opinion on 5e's magic items?

First off I think magic items are part of Dnd's soul so to speak. At least "traditional Dnd". You can do a game without magic, or with limited magic (just to keep the idea that wizards exists).

I am kind of on the fence towards the other two points. While I think its important that there are magic items, if only to make the point of adventuring exist (We have to find Excalibur, only with it can we unite the realm !, Let's find the amulet of infinite gold, we will me rich as gods !) I've had come to loathe the Magic Mart style of 3.5/Pathfinder. Magic items are not so special if the system assumes every bozo above level 5 has some stuff (just so the PC can loot them). Same with magic item crafting, aside from potions and scrolls which are fine as consumables, having a guy in the team able to craft magic items was a tremendous spike in power and made that all the gold was funneled towards magic items.

So I am kind of on the fence with the first two points. I think it's the DM's job to provide the PCs with items, but not for the power or anything mechanical. Simply for the feeling of accomplishment (i.e We have raided Kel'Thuzad's tomb and recovered the Staff of Power !). I also think the items need to have some plot relevance other than just being a stash of items (concede however that sometimes a stash of magical items can be the plot device in itself, a hero as fallen and looters are selling his stuff !)

And I also think that those items should be at least usable in a way by the party. Say the fighter uses a longsword ? Have them find a magical longsword. It makes it more special than if they found a morningstar. Sure it doesn't change anything mechanically (almost nothing), but for the player it can be important.

If your world is already build and you have them search the Tomb of Ragnar Lodbrok why limit yourself by saying that Ragnar's legendary weapon was a greataxe ? Why not simply say that Ragnar had a legendary weapon and that it was mighty ? That way what ever the group you can tailor the weapon to be usable and thus memorable for the players. Does it need some suspension of disbelief ? (What are the odds, Ragnar fought with the same weapon as I do ! Who knew Viking warriors fought with kusari-gama) Probably in a way. But will the character feel more invested in the story ? (Am I descended from Ragnar ? I'm the only guy who fights with a kusari-gama around !) Probably too, and that's a win for me.

TLDR: I think items are fundamental to a "traditional" Dnd experience, but I think their significance in the plot needs to be emphasized over the mechanics or random nature of tables. Nothing prevents you from rolling on the random table and use the generated stash as an inspiration for the future, but it needs to be more than: Oh look a chest containing a a few items of no use to us. Let's sell them at the nearest mart (this becomes more magic mart).

Again this is but my humble opinion.

[Tanarii]

And I also think that those items should be at least usable in a way by the party. Say the fighter uses a longsword ? Have them find a magical longsword. It makes it more special than if they found a morningstar. Sure it doesn't change anything mechanically (almost nothing), but for the player it can be important.Why should that matter? The specific case of Longsword vs Morning star? They are one handed martial weapons. Generally speaking, in 5e that's close enough that the character can use either.


TLDR: I think items are fundamental to a "traditional" Dnd experience, but I think their significance in the plot needs to be emphasized over the mechanics or random nature of tables. Nothing prevents you from rolling on the random table and use the generated stash as an inspiration for the future, but it needs to be more than: Oh look a chest containing a a few items of no use to us. Let's sell them at the nearest mart (this becomes more magic mart)."Traditional" D&D is magic items are fairly common, but either randomly generated on a table or preset as part of a module. And can be sold for 1/2 their value. IIRC that was even true in 3e, which had the highest magic item dependency of any edition, where it was built in to the balancing.

[Laereth]

Why should that matter? The specific case of Longsword vs Morning star? They are one handed martial weapons. Generally speaking, in 5e that's close enough that the character can use either.

Sure they can use either. What if the fighter (or the fighter's player) as a fetish for longswords ? He's a knight who takes pride in his swordplay or the player cares that his fighter uses a sword. Sure he can crack skull equally with both, but he might care more or take more enjoyment out of it if its a sword over a heavy pick. If the player doesn't care then make the weapon want you wish (i.e. random if that is your wish) or makes the most sense in the world.

Maybe I've just distorted my way of doing things over the years as before I found pointless and lame to have the players go back to town every time to sells their loot (Kel'Thuzad is looking to bring the world to its knee, but I've got to go back and sell) and buy they right stuff as their weapon specialization commanded. So I made it that they usually found the right weapon in the dungeon.



"Traditional" D&D is magic items are fairly common, but either randomly generated on a table or preset as part of a module. And can be sold for 1/2 their value. IIRC that was even true in 3e, which had the highest magic item dependency of any edition, where it was built in to the balancing.

Hence why I said I'm on the fence. I feel magic items need to be part of the game. They help flesh out the world and I'd rather have my players use the items I give them rather than sell them. If they are going to sell them why don't I just give them the gold straight out without the item ? Sure its interesting to have the player try and sell a magic item to an auction house, only to have the item stolen and they have to get it back before dawn in order to give it to the buyer. But every time ?


Again in the end its your feel. If you like the random nature of the tables and let that inspire your storytelling have at you. I personally prefer that the items have more story related importance and having to make sure to hand out enough to keep the scaling intact. To each is own.

[VoxRationis]

Sure they can use either. What if the fighter (or the fighter's player) as a fetish for longswords ? He's a knight who takes pride in his swordplay or the player cares that his fighter uses a sword. Sure he can crack skull equally with both, but he might care more or take more enjoyment out of it if its a sword over a heavy pick. If the player doesn't care then make the weapon want you wish (i.e. random if that is your wish) or makes the most sense in the world.

Maybe I've just distorted my way of doing things over the years as before I found pointless and lame to have the players go back to town every time to sells their loot (Kel'Thuzad is looking to bring the world to its knee, but I've got to go back and sell) and buy they right stuff as their weapon specialization commanded. So I made it that they usually found the right weapon in the dungeon.


It breaks immersion to find that the ancient civilizations whose tombs the players are raiding exclusively made the four weapons the PCs use. The cultures that make magic weapons (be they long-dead empires or demonic cults) probably aren't going to be making their inventory decisions based on the whims of a group of random sellswords. If the PCs are abandoning important, time-sensitive missions to do shopping trips, I think it reflects poorly on your track record of enforcing time sensitivity. (The issue can also be dodged by not having convenient magic item vendors, but that's a touchy subject here, so I won't harp too much on that.)

[Zman]

And I also think that those items should be at least usable in a way by the party. Say the fighter uses a longsword ? Have them find a magical longsword. It makes it more special than if they found a morningstar. Sure it doesn't change anything mechanically (almost nothing), but for the player it can be important.

If your world is already build and you have them search the Tomb of Ragnar Lodbrok why limit yourself by saying that Ragnar's legendary weapon was a greataxe ? Why not simply say that Ragnar had a legendary weapon and that it was mighty ? That way what ever the group you can tailor the weapon to be usable and thus memorable for the players. Does it need some suspension of disbelief ? (What are the odds, Ragnar fought with the same weapon as I do ! Who knew Viking warriors fought with kusari-gama) Probably in a way. But will the character feel more invested in the story ? (Am I descended from Ragnar ? I'm the only guy who fights with a kusari-gama around !) Probably too, and that's a win for me.


There is no longer Weapon Focus or Specialization, so the exact type of the one handed melee weapon is less critical then the fact it is a one handed melee weapon. If they are playing a character with a longsword fetish, then they'll have a tough decision to make. Switch to the better weapon, what a sensible knight would do, or keep using the longsword until they faced a foe they needed the magical weapon against. Either seems fine to me.

Why would be a Greataxe, well if that fit the best, then it'd be a Greataxe. The situation that you described would absolutely destroy immersion for players like me and would be a tough pill to swallow.


Think of it like some video games, Kotor and Kotor II for example, there were a wide range of items to be found and was prepopulated. Sure, there was basically a special item that you'd eventually find for for just about any fighting style, but there were certainly more of certain kinds than others, but for a lot of the items it required completing some kind of quest like raiding a Tomb, killing a legendary jungle beast, etc. The game didn't cater to your desires, but did offer a wealth of options and with enough play and effort you'd find something that fit your character. What is wrong with doing the same in a DnD game? There will be time that you'll find some amazing item that just doesn't work for your character, or even any character in the group, or maybe a character will adapt and use it. Or sometimes, you'll find something that is great for one or more members of the group. Or maybe with a bit of research, you'll embark on a quest for a specific item, this is a great time for you to discuss with your DM what you are looking for and provides a challenge in earning it. It isn't just given to you, and feels earned. You are a character that really likes using Greatswords, but haven't found one yet, maybe you do some research looking for rumors of magical two handed swords, and get a couple of rumors, and you choose to search for Zurack's Zweighander. Zurack was a brute of a man that reportedly disappeared with his companions trying to slay the Dragon Sirrothrax, but was never heard from again. Research could give you a general location for Sirrothrax's lair, near the decade's old charred ruins of what once the forlorn town of Hemsdale, and that could spawn an adventure that required investigation, potential thievery, or slaying the Adult dragon. IMO as a player, that weapon would feel earned, even if it was a +1 Dragonbane Greatsword or even just a +2 Greatsword, but it wouldn't be, it would be Zurack's Zweighnander, then if it happened to just randomly appear in the loot of encounter since we are level 8 and I need a magical greatsword. The party could even find some other useful items on the companions of Zurich inside the dragon's hoard making it a lucrative adventure and a good way to supply the party with magical items, even if they aren't specialized exactly for them. You could quickly pick what the party had been, was it a Fighter, a Wizard, a Rogue, and a Cleric? Give a smattering of magic items, likely each less rare than the focal point item, that fit the group, make it make sense, and deepen immersion.

I'm not saying you are playing the game wrong, but the situation you described is certainly not for everyone.

[ad_hoc]

And I also think that those items should be at least usable in a way by the party. Say the fighter uses a longsword ? Have them find a magical longsword. It makes it more special than if they found a morningstar. Sure it doesn't change anything mechanically (almost nothing), but for the player it can be important.


Our definitions of 'usable' are very different.

I also think it ruins the 'specialness' of it if it is a set thing. Oh, you like longswords, here you go, it's time for your longsword. But if they happent to find a morningstar then maybe they will adapt how they fight. There is a reason why fighters are proficient with everything.



If your world is already build and you have them search the Tomb of Ragnar Lodbrok why limit yourself by saying that Ragnar's legendary weapon was a greataxe ? Why not simply say that Ragnar had a legendary weapon and that it was mighty ? That way what ever the group you can tailor the weapon to be usable and thus memorable for the players. Does it need some suspension of disbelief ? (What are the odds, Ragnar fought with the same weapon as I do ! Who knew Viking warriors fought with kusari-gama) Probably in a way. But will the character feel more invested in the story ? (Am I descended from Ragnar ? I'm the only guy who fights with a kusari-gama around !) Probably too, and that's a win for me.

Sounds again like a playstyle thing. My group would be less invested in the story if the items they find are tailored specifically to them like that. It then becomes less story and more combat game.



TLDR: I think items are fundamental to a "traditional" Dnd experience, but I think their significance in the plot needs to be emphasized over the mechanics or random nature of tables. Nothing prevents you from rolling on the random table and use the generated stash as an inspiration for the future, but it needs to be more than: Oh look a chest containing a a few items of no use to us. Let's sell them at the nearest mart (this becomes more magic mart).

Again this is but my humble opinion.

It's weird to me that you put in the clause 'this becomes more magic mart' when you have already assumed that there are magic marts in the game for the PCs to sell their magic items to.

In the game I play, if the group found an item they didn't find an immediate use for they would still treasure it. They would likely try to find out all they could about it and try to find a way to harness its power. That is a common trope in stories about magic items too.

They might end up trading it in some way for much needed help, but the same is true for anything they have if they have a need.

They can't just go down to the local store and sell it though. Shopkeepers aren't going to have that kind of gold, they won't know what to do with it, and they don't want that kind of danger.

If the players see a new magic item and either find out it adds another +1 and are happy with it or it doesn't so they throw it in the pile with the rest of the 'junk' then we play in very different games. Your game isn't wrong by any means, but it might be fun to try 5e with fewer magic items. It will likely play very differently.

What I am hearing from some of the people in this thread is that some unspecified power level of magic item are essentially mundane items in their game. There are lots of them and they are expected.

I wouldn't prohibit a character from acquiring a weapon on the PHB weapons list. For some people, not allowing a character to acquire a +1 weapon is the same thing for their game. That's fine, but it is far from the default assumption in 5e.

[Laereth]

It breaks immersion to find that the ancient civilizations whose tombs the players are raiding exclusively made the four weapons the PCs use. The cultures that make magic weapons (be they long-dead empires or demonic cults) probably aren't going to be making their inventory decisions based on the whims of a group of random sellswords. If the PCs are abandoning important, time-sensitive missions to do shopping trips, I think it reflects poorly on your track record of enforcing time sensitivity. (The issue can also be dodged by not having convenient magic item vendors, but that's a touchy subject here, so I won't harp too much on that.)

My players never abandoned time sensitive missions to shop, they usually are committed to the story. I could often get the feel that some of them would have rather been shopping for a new weapon or selling their loot to add pluses.

I agree with you it breaks immersion if in every tomb they stumble upon a new longsword a greater +1 tagged on it specially for the fighter. Which is why I'm glad 5th made away with the required magic items for scaling. Thus when they find an item it has to bear meaning.

But why couldn't the PCs find a moonblade (there for the elf bladesinger) in the tomb of a dwarven king ? Who says it wasn't a gift from an elf to his dwarf friend so that the weapon doesn't fall into wrong hands ? This might spark a search for more information (which might lead to more adventures!) on why such a sword is found there. Maybe the demonic cult stole that weapon from an elven tomb and are looking to sacrifice its power to their demon lord ? Maybe an elf hero (wielding the legendary sword) went looking for secrets in the ruins of a long-dead empire, but he fell pray to the monsters inhabiting the ruins.

Sure it might be a bit too convenient and might break the immersion for some, but it works for me. Again to each his own. Different DM, different methods. In the end what is important is the fun you get out of it. I don't think there is one true way.

[DizzyWood]

Well I will say this. I would NEVER play with a DM who didn't take his players goals into account. Yes this quite often includes loot and other magic gizmos. A DM who will not do that is a bad DM end of story. Now you can go about that a lot of ways and that's all fine no need for me to go over it.
Second is flavor. Who would you want to play without magic items? Where is the fun in that? I mean sure I get that some of you might want to, but I just do not get it at all. My ideal setting is to have TONS of cantrip level magic items. Magic mugs that keep ale cold or a candle that once lit will light all of the other candles in the room stuff like that. Potions... ok there needs to be more varieties around. Not more powerful but just more types. So yes I do want to see magic marts but they might be filled with stuff the PCs will never ever need. Oh sure it would be a great place to pick up a scroll for a 1st lvl spell that the party might not have access to but that's about it. The bigger stuff should be rare, not unheard of rare but wow the last person I saw with something like this was the king's bodyguard rare. Note this is just how I like to play opinions might very.
Third that still leaves us with the we have to much cash and nothing to spend it on problem. My group currently only meets every three weeks. We do not have time to spend investing our cold in something. It really would be more fun to just buy a +1 jockstrap of virility.

[Tanarii]

Hence why I said I'm on the fence. I feel magic items need to be part of the game. They help flesh out the world and I'd rather have my players use the items I give them rather than sell them. If they are going to sell them why don't I just give them the gold straight out without the item ? Sure its interesting to have the player try and sell a magic item to an auction house, only to have the item stolen and they have to get it back before dawn in order to give it to the buyer. But every time ?To be fair, in 1e & 2e, each player most likely had a grip of henchmen or hirelings to distribute magic items among by the time they started finding them with regularity. The odds that the party couldn't find *some* use for a magic item, even a randomly determined one, was unlikely.


A DM who will not do that is a bad DM end of storyI guess Gygax was a bad DM end of story.

[Zman]

Well I will say this. I would NEVER play with a DM who didn't take his players goals into account. Yes this quite often includes loot and other magic gizmos. A DM who will not do that is a bad DM end of story. Now you can go about that a lot of ways and that's all fine no need for me to go over it.
Second is flavor. Who would you want to play without magic items? Where is the fun in that? I mean sure I get that some of you might want to, but I just do not get it at all. My ideal setting is to have TONS of cantrip level magic items. Magic mugs that keep ale cold or a candle that once lit will light all of the other candles in the room stuff like that. Potions... ok there needs to be more varieties around. Not more powerful but just more types. So yes I do want to see magic marts but they might be filled with stuff the PCs will never ever need. Oh sure it would be a great place to pick up a scroll for a 1st lvl spell that the party might not have access to but that's about it. The bigger stuff should be rare, not unheard of rare but wow the last person I saw with something like this was the king's bodyguard rare. Note this is just how I like to play opinions might very.
Third that still leaves us with the we have to much cash and nothing to spend it on problem. My group currently only meets every three weeks. We do not have time to spend investing our cold in something. It really would be more fun to just buy a +1 jockstrap of virility.

So, people who find enjoyment in games without magic items, fewer magic items, or where the majority of the loot is not player character specific are playing wrong or just bad? There are many different ways to enjoy the game, some of us like to keep magic rare and make it mean something and enjoy playing with the 5e recommendations for magic items.

[Zman]

To be fair, in 1e & 2e, each player most likely had a grip of henchmen or hirelings to distribute magic items among by the time they started finding them with regularity. The odds that the party couldn't find *some* use for a magic item, even a randomly determined one, was unlikely.

Don't forget what it took to make a magic item, you permanently lost 1 Con. That is how 2nd reinforced how rare magic items were supposed to be any why they weren't commonplace. Then on the other hand, 2nd had monsters you could only hurt with a +3 sword, etc.

[ad_hoc]

Well I will say this. I would NEVER play with a DM who didn't take his players goals into account. Yes this quite often includes loot and other magic gizmos. A DM who will not do that is a bad DM end of story.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I will be sure to let my friends know that I am actually bad at DMing. It's a good thing you said something or I would continue to waste my time with it.

[DizzyWood]

I guess Gygax was a bad DM end of story.

Oh phrasing on my part. I said the DM should work with you. I never said "hand it to you" and if you miss that tasty +45 goody he had hidden away at the end of a side quest for you well then... It sucks to be you. So I see how you misunderstood what I said, sorry.

Zman I said I do not get why people would want to I never said they were wrong. It was my opinion and it was expressed that way. Rather than attacking me for having that opinion maybe you could let me know WHY you might prefer to go magic item free!

I feel they way I do because I like loot, because every fantasy story i have ever read has some great magic gogas and I want in on that action.

[Forrestfire]

I guess Gygax was a bad DM end of story.

I realize you're trying to use this to prove his point is wrong, but have you read some of Gygax's thoughts on DMing? How his games turned out, and how he thought the game was meant to be played? Gary Gygax is one of the worst DMs I have ever heard of, to an absolutely hilarious degree. Although he is a DM who did take his players' goals into account. Probably half of legacy items and fluff is because a player wanted something and quested for it.

[DizzyWood]

Thanks for clearing that up.

I will be sure to let my friends know that I am actually bad at DMing. It's a good thing you said something or I would continue to waste my time with it.

Do you seriously not consider what your players want to do with their character? Every DM I have ever played with has made sure to give some time and attention to letting each player build and grow a PC. IT might not always work out the way the player wants but the opportunities are there.

[DizzyWood]

I realize you're trying to use this to prove his point is wrong, but have you read some of Gygax's thoughts on DMing? How his games turned out, and how he thought the game was meant to be played? Gary Gygax is one of the worst DMs I have ever heard of, to an absolutely hilarious degree. Although he is a DM who did take his players' goals into account. Probably half of legacy items and fluff is because a player wanted something and quested for it.

Oh wow I actually had never heard that. But that was not where I was going at all. But thanks for saying something.

[Goober4473]

Well I will say this. I would NEVER play with a DM who didn't take his players goals into account. Yes this quite often includes loot and other magic gizmos. A DM who will not do that is a bad DM end of story.

A DM that doesn't take their players into account is bad, sure, but you're assuming all players want the same thing you do. Any player who's goal for their character is, "I want to have a +2 polearm by level 11" is not a player I really want at my table. I'd rather something like, "I want my character to slowly come to care about his companions, starting off greedy, but eventually having a chance to give up a chance at wealth or saving his own skin to save everyone." I can work with that.

But neither am I going to screw my players over or single them out mechanically. Those players who don't have that perfect item that fits their build will probably have something else cool. Maybe you wanted a +1 bow, but slippers of spider climbing or a cloak of protection or a portable hole aren't exactly a slap in the face. It's not like I'm going to include tons of monsters with damage resistance that requires magic weapons if some/all players have no magic weapons. They'll be rare and dangerous. And if some of the players get less spotlight time because I did include a monster like that, I'll make sure to include challenges that the magic-weaponless characters excel at too.


Second is flavor. Who would you want to play without magic items? Where is the fun in that?

Some people like to play this way, even if you don't. I've played a lot of RPGs, and few of them have magic loot to pick up as you go. They work just fine, and now with 5e, so does D&D. It's just a matter of preference. If I was running a game and all my players were like, "we love magic items," it's not like I'm going to be a jerk about it. We'd talk about expectations and what the world is like and what kind of game they like to play, and find common ground, which realistically for me personally, running D&D, would be something like, "cool, I like magic items too. Expect some magic items."


Third that still leaves us with the we have to much cash and nothing to spend it on problem. My group currently only meets every three weeks. We do not have time to spend investing our cold in something. It really would be more fun to just buy a +1 jockstrap of virility.

Gold is as much in the DM's control as anything. The DM shouldn't be throwing piles of mundane treasure at a party if there's no opportunity to do anything with it. See also discussing with the players what kind of game you want. If they want to build a castle, keep the loot coming. If they have no interest in that stuff, keep rewards in the realm of useful on their own (items, favors, etc.).

[DizzyWood]

A DM that doesn't take their players into account is bad, sure, but you're assuming all players want the same thing you do. Any player who's goal for their character is, "I want to have a +2 polearm by level 11" is not a player I really want at my table. I'd rather something like, "I want my character to slowly come to care about his companions, starting off greedy, but eventually having a chance to give up a chance at wealth or saving his own skin to save everyone." I can work with that.



That character didn't tell a DM where he wanted to go with his character he gave a shopping list. That is different than saying I want to go in this direction with my character and I think x item might help. Sure the DM can just work that in if she wants. Or he can make the PC jump through any number of hoops for it, or even better help the player get where they want to go in a totally new way they did not even think of.

Also notice the question marks... I am actually asking who and why do people want to play without magic items? I actually have never heard of this being a thing at all until I read the thread. I have NO frame of reference for this at all. You might as well have told me cats are all made of dark matter.

[ad_hoc]

Do you seriously not consider what your players want to do with their character? Every DM I have ever played with has made sure to give some time and attention to letting each player build and grow a PC. IT might not always work out the way the player wants but the opportunities are there.

There is no part of character creation and growth in 5e where you choose which magic items you get.

Your version of character growth to me sounds like you are just writing a novel. It doesn't sound fun at all.

I wouldn't play in your game and you wouldn't play in mine, but that doesn't mean that you are bad and doing it wrong, end of story.

Note also that at no point have I said (or I think anyone in this thread) that they don't use magic items.

Some have pointed out that 5e assumes no magic items so you could play it that way if you want to.

And some have said that they don't have magic marts (or the equivalent. If you request an item and get it in a treasure chest, it's functionally the same).

I have always disliked magic marts. When I played 3.x I had to heavily houserule the game in order to not have them. One of the great things about 5e is that they are the default.

It's strange to me that not only are so many people using them, but cannot fathom people not using them.

[VoxRationis]

Also notice the question marks... I am actually asking who and why do people want to play without magic items? I actually have never heard of this being a thing at all until I read the thread. I have NO frame of reference for this at all. You might as well have told me cats are all made of dark matter.

Low fantasy is a popular genre. Even in settings where magic is real and monsters exist, magic items might not. I suppose the most obvious example in this day would be A Song of Ice and Fire, where magic indubitably exists and a significant amount of history and current plot revolves around dragons, but no one really has any magical items. This kind of tone is attractive to some people, as it draws the focus more to the intrigue between characters and factions, away from blow-by-blows of the smorgasbord of magical effects that would be found in higher-fantasy settings.

@adhoc: You are a flumph after my own heart.

[Zman]

Oh phrasing on my part. I said the DM should work with you. I never said "hand it to you" and if you miss that tasty +45 goody he had hidden away at the end of a side quest for you well then... It sucks to be you. So I see how you misunderstood what I said, sorry.

Zman I said I do not get why people would want to I never said they were wrong. It was my opinion and it was expressed that way. Rather than attacking me for having that opinion maybe you could let me know WHY you might prefer to go magic item free!

I feel they way I do because I like loot, because every fantasy story i have ever read has some great magic gogas and I want in on that action.
Yes, it was your opinion, and your opinion insinuated that how other people play and have fun is wrong. That is a bad opinion.

When have I ever said I prefer to go magic item free? Never, not once. I have generally always been a bit magic lite, but in 5e I'm betting I'm awefully close to the intent of 5e. I think magic items should mean something, never be handed out like candy, and shouldn't be overly tailored to the characters. Now, if those characters embark on a side quest to find that legendary bow that suits their character, I'm all for it, but don't expect to find it thrown into the loot because the "deserve" it or "want" it or because as DM I feel obligated to give it to them. Now, if they happen to be primarily a longsword user, they may find it a bit easier to acquire a magical longsword when the mid to high level fighter they just killed who was Sword and Board and had a Magical Longsword, that isn't me catering to that player, it is me placing organic loot.

I throw in some random magic items here and there, I have organically placed items on certain high level enemies, and occasionally I play place a few items to help out lagging characters or ones that really have been left in the cold, but I'd prefer those be acquired with some investment of effort. In my games when the characters hit level 5, they aren't suddenly going to get loot that gives them all the +1 weapon they desire because I have to. There isn't likely to be that magical Two handed sword they desperately want sitting in a chest in the Orc Chief's trove, but that Orc Chief may be wielding a wicked Greataxe with a minor magical effect, or could have Guantlets of Ogre Strength, etc.

[Zman]

There is no part of character creation and growth in 5e where you choose which magic items you get.

Your version of character growth to me sounds like you are just writing a novel. It doesn't sound fun at all.

I wouldn't play in your game and you wouldn't play in mine, but that doesn't mean that you are bad and doing it wrong, end of story.

Note also that at no point have I said (or I think anyone in this thread) that they don't use magic items.

Some have pointed out that 5e assumes no magic items so you could play it that way if you want to.

And some have said that they don't have magic marts (or the equivalent. If you request an item and get it in a treasure chest, it's functionally the same).

I have always disliked magic marts. When I played 3.x I had to heavily houserule the game in order to not have them. One of the great things about 5e is that they are the default.

It's strange to me that not only are so many people using them, but cannot fathom people not using them.

Definitely agreeing on just about everything you just said.

I hated with a burning passion 3.P's magic marts and magic item assumptions.

[Tanarii]

I realize you're trying to use this to prove his point is wrong, but have you read some of Gygax's thoughts on DMing? How his games turned out, and how he thought the game was meant to be played? Gary Gygax is one of the worst DMs I have ever heard of, to an absolutely hilarious degree. Although he is a DM who did take his players' goals into account. Probably half of legacy items and fluff is because a player wanted something and quested for it.Yeah I have. And by many people's measure, yes he was. Mainly because he was a wargamer, not really a roleplayer/RPGer as modern gamers think of it. And probably OCD to boot, although IMX a degree of that pretty much is required to be a wargamer. And insanely egotistical.

But he was a huge advocate of DM as a neutral judge, using random tables to determine the results of everything. Which is why he referred to the DM as the referee all the time. Because wargamer. If he could have designed D&D to be played without a DM-referee, I suspect he would have.

[SharkForce]

Don't forget what it took to make a magic item, you permanently lost 1 Con. That is how 2nd reinforced how rare magic items were supposed to be any why they weren't commonplace. Then on the other hand, 2nd had monsters you could only hurt with a +3 sword, etc.

it was actually a 5% chance of losing a point of con. or, depending on how evil you are, on some other poor sap losing a point of con, really. and that was only for permanent items. charged items had no chance. also, that was one of the available methods, let's not forget that you could make magic items officially from around 9th level and the spells you're thinking of are available at 12th and 16th, respectively.

[Sigreid]

I like magic items in the campaign, and usually do random treasure. I will fudge the treasure if I either don't want to deal with what is rolled or if say one nothing useful for one of the party has come up and I think it's time they got something.

While I don't care for magic marts, I don't have a problem with a high end antique dealer MAYBE having something in the back, or a very high end art dealer knowing where to find an occasional item, perhaps a noble family that has come on hard times has no choice but to either sell a family heirloom for enough to get back on their feet or loose their lands and title...but boy will it cost you.

[Zman]

it was actually a 5% chance of losing a point of con. or, depending on how evil you are, on some other poor sap losing a point of con, really. and that was only for permanent items. charged items had no chance. also, that was one of the available methods, let's not forget that you could make magic items officially from around 9th level and the spells you're thinking of are available at 12th and 16th, respectively.

You are correct, it has been ages. Permanency always costs a point of Con when cast on personal spells, but when used to finalize a magic item it was only a 5% chance.

[VoxRationis]

it was actually a 5% chance of losing a point of con. or, depending on how evil you are, on some other poor sap losing a point of con, really. and that was only for permanent items. charged items had no chance. also, that was one of the available methods, let's not forget that you could make magic items officially from around 9th level and the spells you're thinking of are available at 12th and 16th, respectively.

My AD&D books (2nd ed., and I think the most recent printing of that edition) indicate that the process for making a magic item at any level was ridiculously long and involved. Each item required rare components, several castings of several spells (each of which had a chance for failure), and quest-based components like gathering intangible qualities to infuse into the nascent item. Far more than Constitution, gold, or level, that seemed like the main restriction on item creation.

[Dralnu]

Less is more for me. I've come from a long line of stingy DMs when it comes to magic items, and that's how we like it (even back in 3e). Running a level 14 campaign right now and everyone's got +1 weapons that have added bells and whistles but that's about it.

[georgie_leech]

Yes, it was your opinion, and your opinion insinuated that how other people play and have fun is wrong. That is a bad opinion.

When have I ever said I prefer to go magic item free? Never, not once. I have generally always been a bit magic lite, but in 5e I'm betting I'm awefully close to the intent of 5e. I think magic items should mean something, never be handed out like candy, and shouldn't be overly tailored to the characters. Now, if those characters embark on a side quest to find that legendary bow that suits their character, I'm all for it, but don't expect to find it thrown into the loot because the "deserve" it or "want" it or because as DM I feel obligated to give it to them. Now, if they happen to be primarily a longsword user, they may find it a bit easier to acquire a magical longsword when the mid to high level fighter they just killed who was Sword and Board and had a Magical Longsword, that isn't me catering to that player, it is me placing organic loot.

I throw in some random magic items here and there, I have organically placed items on certain high level enemies, and occasionally I play place a few items to help out lagging characters or ones that really have been left in the cold, but I'd prefer those be acquired with some investment of effort. In my games when the characters hit level 5, they aren't suddenly going to get loot that gives them all the +1 weapon they desire because I have to. There isn't likely to be that magical Two handed sword they desperately want sitting in a chest in the Orc Chief's trove, but that Orc Chief may be wielding a wicked Greataxe with a minor magical effect, or could have Guantlets of Ogre Strength, etc.

I suspect that's what most people saying they want 'tailored' loot want. There's an undead sword and board guardian of some tomb, which the DM has decided will be wielding a magical weapon; if the party Frontliner likes Morningstars, why not have it be wielding one of those instead of a battle axe or longsword? Personally, I'm not advocating that every encounter or looting opportunity happen to have something immediately relevant to the PC's, just that such encounters happen now and then.

Especially if the players are deliberately questing for such an item. If they want to quest for a magical bow, I'm not going to roll up a set of daggers for the notorious Elven Assassin Sidequestia, I'll just have them wield a magic bow.

[SharkForce]

My AD&D books (2nd ed., and I think the most recent printing of that edition) indicate that the process for making a magic item at any level was ridiculously long and involved. Each item required rare components, several castings of several spells (each of which had a chance for failure), and quest-based components like gathering intangible qualities to infuse into the nascent item. Far more than Constitution, gold, or level, that seemed like the main restriction on item creation.

the basic problem there is that there are multiple systems for making magic items in just the core books. they even went and added more in later books too.

the "enchant an item" method doesn't require anything other than some time and the right spells. making scrolls or potions is iirc more likely to succeed with the right ingredients, but you don't necessarily have to have them. making other items with the "weird ingredient" method has no risk of con loss, and you can also skip the "weird ingredients" to a large extent if you don't mind a reduced chance of success (and if you're looking to produce a lot of magic items, then you probably should take the shortcuts; it's most likely a lot faster than fully satisfying the requirements so long as you don't mind a fairly high failure rate). then there's the cleric's "pray for a god to bless the item" method.

basically, how you make items depends on which part of the rulebooks your DM prefers to use in 2nd edition.

[Pex]

It's not so extreme. Wanting to have magic items does not mean I must have everything I own be magical by level 5. It does not mean I must have this specific item or else the DM sucks donkey. It's not about power, how many pluses I have, or wanting magic marts.

It's about the fantasy of having a magic item. It's the fun of having this cool item or two for roleplay and game mechanics of using it. There is also some meta in the fun of the acquisition of stuff. Campaign plot points are important. Achieving goals are important. Immersing oneself in the gameworld is important. Getting stuff is also important. There is value in material possessions. Treasure is an adventurer's salary. Dismissing that as munchkin, murder hobo play (my words) to me is just another way of Stormwind Fallacy.

[Regitnui]

It's not so extreme. Wanting to have magic items does not mean I must have everything I own be magical by level 5. It does not mean I must have this specific item or else the DM sucks donkey. It's not about power, how many pluses I have, or wanting magic marts.

It's about the fantasy of having a magic item. It's the fun of having this cool item or two for roleplay and game mechanics of using it. There is also some meta in the fun of the acquisition of stuff. Campaign plot points are important. Achieving goals are important. Immersing oneself in the gameworld is important. Getting stuff is also important. There is value in material possessions. Treasure is an adventurer's salary. Dismissing that as munchkin, murder hobo play (my words) to me is just another way of Stormwind Fallacy.

There does seem to be a fair amount of strawmanning here; when someone suggests working with players and offering them concept-appropriate magic items, the other side screams "magic marting". The other half claims that verisimilitude comes before catering to the players, and the first group reply as if they'd said "no magic items".

Perhaps it'd encourage the debate if we actually read what the other was saying, instead of what we think the other is saying. Just because I offer my players a place to get magic items, doesn't mean I'm offering them a magic item mart.

[Coidzor]

But how to do people that think items should be tailored to characters handle non-custom module treasure from pregenerated modules?

It's pretty trivial to tweak most items into something more appropriate for some member of the party. Which is why deliberately placing gear that won't be useful to any of the PCs irks me so much. Especially when the defense relies on a lack of DM creativity.


Encounters handles this by mixing some custom and some non-custom magic item rewards. But IMO, Encounters adventures take all kinds of shortcuts that destroy verisimilitude.

Anyone who regularly finds themselves written into a corner, even when dealing with premade modules, is almost certainly doing something wrong.


Really, mocking them???

I think that's a safe assumption that some players will believe that's the DM's game if they keep on doing things like that, yeah.

[Socratov]

And what if the DM lets you know that in this game, players and characters don't choose their treasure?

then I'd find it highly suspect that the group of weapons my character uses actually never pop up, while virtually every other weapon does.


So you only want to use polearms? No other items, armour, etc.?

maybe, maybe not, depends on the rest of the character. I took the weapons as an example, but it all comes down to having a personal plan or vision for your character and the loot be just about anything but that.


I don't think anyone is advocating for the DM to tailor magic items to be against what characters want to use.

well, it was the point I was trying to make before you started making my attempt to communicate that look like all I cared about were allmightly and powerful items.



So what I am seeing here is that there are a lot of magic items in your game.
not right now, but we are low level for now. Please note that with items I mean not only magic items, but some mundane ones as well, though some which might be an upgrade of some sorts to what we are now wearing. for example: the fighter may get some better heavy armour...

If every 2/3 sessions the character gets something they chose, how many items do they get that aren't chosen?
that depends, sometimes a whole castle is looted and some stuff turns up that is just generally worse then wha the players are using right there and then. other times the loot is less in size, but more useful.

Are the characters in the game you play getting 1 item/session?
No. once every 2 to 3 sessions they would get something that would really help their adventuring, depends on when a plothook is being finished.

In the games I play I am used to maybe 1 item per party for every 2 sessions. It's hard to gauge as it isn't set.
nor am I saying that it should act like some sort of clock and sometimes it might be sought after (I know my party in my absense went to look for wome wargs they could domesticate and ride into adventures)

So it looks like there are about 1/8th the permanent magic items in the games I play than yours.
could very well be. I can't comment on the fact that it would or not based on my small sample size

For reference, I have been playing published adventures in 5e which I am told have more magic items than is assumed by the DMG.

As far as I know I've been playing custom crafted campaigns/freehanded sessions.

[ad_hoc]

maybe, maybe not, depends on the rest of the character. I took the weapons as an example, but it all comes down to having a personal plan or vision for your character and the loot be just about anything but that.

Why bother playing the game? It seems like it would be easier to just write the novel of your character.

This is why I say this style of play is the 'magic mart'. It is treating gear as though it is part of character creation and level choices.

I am not saying that it is wrong to play this way.

What I am saying is that claiming that others are wrong to not play this way is completely absurd. People have not only been playing D&D this way since the beginning, but it is the default way to play 5e.

If you believe that players need to be in control of their characters gear in 5e, you should reexamine the game.

[Shaofoo]

If you believe that players need to be in control of their characters gear in 5e, you should reexamine the game.

Or play 4th edition, that system gave players full control over any magic items that they get and can turn any magic item into any other magic item of the similar level without loss. The system even told players to give wish lists to the DMs.

Of course magic items was their version of bounded accuracy so basically you needed a +X everything upgrade per 5 levels or you'd be behind.

[Tanarii]

It's pretty trivial to tweak most items into something more appropriate for some member of the party. Which is why deliberately placing gear that won't be useful to any of the PCs irks me so much. Especially when the defense relies on a lack of DM creativity.I guess I see it as catering to player entitlement, and they are wanting to cheat the rules a bit. Because I came from the OG D&D tradition: The players are playing a game, with defined events in a module, or from a preset random table, and they are presumably playing to win. They can't do that if the DM fudges for their benefit, he's robbing them of a clean win. The DM instead needs to be as neutral a referee as possible.

If the players want to get a specific item, they need to create it (if possible) or quest for it in game. Not expect to find it for their convenience and advantage.


Anyone who regularly finds themselves written into a corner, even when dealing with premade modules, is almost certainly doing something wrong.Its not writing into a corner. It's playing the game by a neutral set of rules, fairly, without fudging your way out of the corners.

Basically, I see players wanting custom items, or any DM fudging, both as extensions of the same thing: choosing to play the game on easy mode.

Edit: obviously that's not really a fair view. Many games, especially video games, but also modules, and rule sets such as Encounters, have player choice of loot at specific points built in to them. As do various suggestions for finding magic items and buying them (derided as magic marts) built right into some versions of D&D. I'm explaining the root of my bias. Bias isn't supposed to be correct. ;)

[CantigThimble]

Why bother playing the game? It seems like it would be easier to just write the novel of your character.

This is why I say this style of play is the 'magic mart'. It is treating gear as though it is part of character creation and level choices.

I am not saying that it is wrong to play this way.

What I am saying is that claiming that others are wrong to not play this way is completely absurd. People have not only been playing D&D this way since the beginning, but it is the default way to play 5e.

If you believe that players need to be in control of their characters gear in 5e, you should reexamine the game.

D&D is a cooperative storytelling game. It's not the DM telling his novel to the players or the players writing their own, there should be some give and take. Now, I think there's a middle ground where DMs take into account what their players want without giving them a magic mart.

And in some ways, players do need to be in control of their gear. A 4th level martial class can typically only use one type of weapon well.

[Tanarii]

D&D is a cooperative storytelling game. Hahaha it's really funny to read this right after I just finished posting about D&D being a game the players are playing to win, within the rules.

It just doubles down on my edit in that post ... we variously see the 'purpose' of D&D as completely different things, and that creates huge bias in our various assumptions.

[ad_hoc]

Hahaha it's really funny to read this right after I just finished posting about D&D being a game the players are playing to win, within the rules.

It just doubles down on my edit in that post ... we variously see the 'purpose' of D&D as completely different things, and that creates huge bias in our various assumptions.

It's funny. I also see D&D as a cooperative storytelling game. The idea of winning D&D is nonsensical to me unless winning means that you successfully told a story. And yet, I tend to agree with your posts. We have different ideas about the game but we are still playing the same game.

Magical Tea Party is a fine game to play, but if that is what you are going to do, then you should save time and effort and just play that. I find it unrewarding, I don't like the stories that come out of it, so I like to play D&D.

The idea of starting the game with a character whose story is already written sounds dreadful. I want the story to be made at the table by the game.

[Regitnui]

The idea of starting the game with a character whose story is already written sounds dreadful. I want the story to be made at the table by the game.

As an avid RPGamer, I know that most people go into an RPG with a certain core concept for their character. The DM shouldn't (IMO) mess with that, and in fact encourage the development of that concept as the game goes on. Half of the fun as a player or GM for me is seeing how the world and characters develop through the players' actions.

Let's use an old character of mine, Nathan/Trickster as an example of character development. This was a superhero RPG, where superheroes were the stars of a reality television show in an alternate America. I built Nathan as a cynical jerk with a back story to match, and spoke to my GM about the concept in a more 'idealistic' team. It turned out later that a female player character named Phoenix defrosted his ice queen, something I never planned for, to the point where the relationship became a major talking point in game, and even in the sequel campaign. The character's player was long gone, but the effect remained.

Magic items are a powerful tool for character development. Say a player comes to me who has this great concept for a half-elf fighter who is earnest but less skilled than other, optimized, warriors. As part of his idea of the character, the fighter works hard despite his weakness and one day discovers a Belt of Giant Strength that turns the Skilled, but Weak half-elf into a Lightning Bruiser. If I, as DM, accept this character, I then have an expectation from the player's side that there will be a Belt of Giant Strength during the game. If it never comes up in random treasure rolls, do I then tell the player that he's not getting this Belt for his character? Or do I rather fudge the results, introduce a clan of half-giants with a quest, or have a smith capable of creating one out of obscure components?

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I really don't see how any of those items have anything to do with the character concepts. They seem wholly unrelated.
Also, you seem to have decided well ahead of time that the characters were going to follow a specific power arc regardless of campaign events.

[Regitnui]

I really don't see how any of those items have anything to do with the character concepts. They seem wholly unrelated.
Also, you seem to have decided well ahead of time that the characters were going to follow a specific power arc regardless of campaign events.

How so?

The player character's arc involves learning that he doesn't have to tread the same path as people before him; if he's told all his life that fighters are strong and powerful, he would think himself weak for relying on his finesse and technique. The belt is basically either a "reward" in the plot arc, or a Final Temptation. "You can have what you always wanted," the belt says, "but do you really need the power I offer?"

[Boci]

The idea of starting the game with a character whose story is already written sounds dreadful. I want the story to be made at the table by the game.

How is "character concept + a specific magical item assuming we are using them" a complete story? I made a character called Crystal who was a spear fighter. People thought she was a necromancer, but actually it was just the spear she wielded which allowed her to use several magical

That was a very important aspect of her character, so if I ever play Crystal, I would need a necromancery spear. Everything else is unwritten. Does she go to Fire Island or the Tuvak Swamps? Will she support the goblin resistance or the elvish aristocrats? All unwritten.

I'm not saying the DM has to give me a necromancery spear, if they don't I'll just use another character. I just don't think there's anything wrong with me asking for one, nor would that constitute an already written story.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

How so?

The player character's arc involves learning that he doesn't have to tread the same path as people before him; if he's told all his life that fighters are strong and powerful, he would think himself weak for relying on his finesse and technique. The belt is basically either a "reward" in the plot arc, or a Final Temptation. "You can have what you always wanted," the belt says, "but do you really need the power I offer?"

That's a different concept you're talking about. Maybe we're interpreting terms differently, but to me a "character concept" is the thing I picture in my mind before I show up at the very first session. It's the idea the character gets built around. Everything after that is "character development" and is a mixture of the base I started with, the choices I make, and the events that shape me. Two of those things are within my control, and the third very much is not.

The item in question then, and any possible character conflicts it creates are part of that last third, is outside of my control and is independent of my desires as a player and character. As a player it is not my role to dictate the flow of external events as to follow a pre-determined arc, including which items I will eventually acquire.

[Goober4473]

I made a character called Crystal who was a spear fighter. People thought she was a necromancer, but actually it was just the spear she wielded which allowed her to use several magical

That was a very important aspect of her character, so if I ever play Crystal, I would need a necromancery spear. Everything else is unwritten. Does she go to Fire Island or the Tuvak Swamps? Will she support the goblin resistance or the elvish aristocrats? All unwritten.

I'm not saying the DM has to give me a necromancery spear, if they don't I'll just use another character. I just don't think there's anything wrong with me asking for one, nor would that constitute an already written story.

I think there's a fundamental difference between requesting starting magical gear for a character to fit their backstory, such as with a character starting at higher level, and finding an item something later. In the first case, it's a request from the player to already have experienced certain things. In the latter, it's a request to include something specific later in the story. The former is a lot easier to include in a game, since it doesn't require fitting it in to future events.

But in either case, it's all a matter of discussion between DM and players. So long a everyone's expectations sync up, there's no problem.

Usually my players trust me to make things fun and interesting, and to reward them in ways they'll like and that are appropriate to their characters and the story we're telling. Magic items may become a huge part of their characters' myths, but they aren't typically things they chose from the start. Without expectations of specific gear upgrades, I find it easier to engage in what's happening in the moment, instead of looking ahead to an expected upgrade, and when magic items do appear, they feel special and extra and really rewarding. But that isn't to say I wouldn't hear out a player that felt their character needed a specific magic item, or specific event, or any other story detail to happen in order to make their character's story "work." It's just not my default.

[Pex]

Not giving everything the players want should not include never giving anything the players want.

[ad_hoc]

Not giving everything the players want should not include never giving anything the players want.

There is a big difference between 'the players' and 'a player'.

The DM is also a player and this goes both ways. Having the game that one player wants could be a detriment to the fun of other players.

If someone came to the game I play with the requirements of some of those in this thread they would not be asked back. This is not because we don't want them to have fun, it's because we want to have fun too.

[Zman]

Not giving everything the players want should not include never giving anything the players want.

Straw man... Who here has said they'd never give the player anything they'd want? That would require actively snubbing a player, and I haven't read a comment from anyone stating that.

We've had people state the DM is obligated to and has a responsibility to give the players the items they want, that is a a lot difference than all of the shades of grey that exist.

[Pex]

Straw man... Who here has said they'd never give the player anything they'd want? That would require actively snubbing a player, and I haven't read a comment from anyone stating that.

We've had people state the DM is obligated to and has a responsibility to give the players the items they want, that is a a lot difference than all of the shades of grey that exist.

Cowardly Lion

Who said I said anyone said that? If you're feeling self-conscious that's not my problem.

Edit:


There is a big difference between 'the players' and 'a player'.

The DM is also a player and this goes both ways. Having the game that one player wants could be a detriment to the fun of other players.

If someone came to the game I play with the requirements of some of those in this thread they would not be asked back. This is not because we don't want them to have fun, it's because we want to have fun too.

I may not even want to come back. I've already quit a group with a DM who said, I quote, "I'm a DM who believes a player should never get what they want.", and he wasn't even talking about magic items.

@Z-Man, there, someone who did say what I said, but not in relation to anyone here. Pure coincidence.

[Zman]

Cowardly Lion

Who said I said anyone said that? If you're feeling self-conscious that's not my problem.

Edit:



I may not even want to come back. I've already quit a group with a DM who said, I quote, "I'm a DM who believes a player should never get what they want.", and he wasn't even talking about magic items.

@Z-Man, there, someone who did say what I said, but not in relation to anyone here. Pure coincidence.

So, I'm a cowardly lion for pointing out that you are using a strawman logical fallacy?

That isn't what Ad Hoc said.

Resort to Internet name calling, if that is what it takes for you to feel better about yourself.

[Boci]

We've had people state the DM is obligated to and has a responsibility to give the players the items they want, that is a a lot difference than all of the shades of grey that exist.

Who exactly has said this?

[Zman]

Who exactly has said this?

The posters who indicate they frequently use some kind of magic mart or magic mart equivalent. The posters who preplan what magic items they require for their character concept. The poster who've said non optimal, often described as unusable, magic items should never be awarded as it is mocking the players. Basically the posters treating 5e aMagic Items like 4e or 3.5 WBL. Etc. Even in the OP, first sentence of the second paragraph, states the GM has a responsibility to award appropriate magic items as they level up.

[Boci]

The posters who indicate they frequently use some kind of magic mart or magic mart equivalent.


The poster who've said non optimal, often described as unusable, magic items should never be awarded as it is mocking the players.


Even in the OP, first sentence of the second paragraph, states the GM has a responsibility to award appropriate magic items as they level up.

I could be wrong, but none of these are necessarily saying the DM has to give the player what they want, just that the items should fit the character. And, well that kinda makes sense. Konan didn't find gloves of wizardry, he found a magical sword. Sure you can argue this is PC centric, but the game is going to be. Hence why CR exists, which wouldn't in a purely organic setting.


The posters who preplan what magic items they require for their character concept.

Who did this? I know I did, but that was to demonstrate that a character needing a specific item was a far cry from a character with a pre-planned story.

[Zman]

I could be wrong, but none of these are necessarily saying the DM has to give the player what they want, just that the items should fit the character. And, well that kinda makes sense. Konan didn't find gloves of wizardry, he found a magical sword. Sure you can argue this is PC centric, but the game is going to be. Hence why CR exists, which wouldn't in a purely organic setting.



Who did this? I know I did, but that was to demonstrate that a character needing a specific item was a far cry from a character with a pre-planned story.

I do believe one poster said their character required a Belt of Giant Strength, basically writing it into their character that the DM reward them with one.

[Pex]

So, I'm a cowardly lion for pointing out that you are using a strawman logical fallacy?

That isn't what Ad Hoc said.

Resort to Internet name calling, if that is what it takes for you to feel better about yourself.

:smallsigh:

wizard of oz

"straw man" "cowardly lion"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOP-2ulq2bk

[georgie_leech]

:smallsigh:

wizard of oz

"straw man" "cowardly lion"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOP-2ulq2bk

To translate, Pex is saying the accusation of strawman-ing is irrelevant.

[Regitnui]

I do believe one poster said their character required a Belt of Giant Strength, basically writing it into their character that the DM reward them with one.

That was me. And it was an illustration of how a player can have a plan for his character's development without removing the natural evolution characters see over the course of the game.

Do I mumble my posts, or are people just not reading it all? I'm not putting a tl;dr after three paragraphs because someone's failing at speed-reading.

[Coidzor]

I guess I see it as catering to player entitlement, and they are wanting to cheat the rules a bit.

No, there's no cheating involved, obviously. And if you view players so poorly, should you really even be playing the game with them? :smallconfused: Player entitlement? Seriously?

How about I say that throwing useless loot even when it's nonsensical ruins your settings' verisimiltude? Then where would we be?


Because I came from the OG D&D tradition: The players are playing a game, with defined events in a module, or from a preset random table, and they are presumably playing to win. They can't do that if the DM fudges for their benefit, he's robbing them of a clean win.

Horse. Puckey. There's a range here and doing what's largely been suggested doesn't rob the players of a "clean win," at all.


The DM instead needs to be as neutral a referee as possible.

This is just one particular DMing style, and only one of the ones that would oppose giving your party's fighter a sword instead of a spear when the dude likes swords and would derive greater enjoyment from a sword and it doesn't particularly matter that it's a sword instead of a spear.


If the players want to get a specific item, they need to create it (if possible) or quest for it in game. Not expect to find it for their convenience and advantage.

Yeah, it's totally not questing for it to go kill a dragon and raid its hoard for a new magical weapon.

Seriously, what did you expect my reaction to be to this? In order to get something you'd actually want you have to go fight through even more dungeons, laying waste to any idea of an actual plot to the campaign? :smallconfused:


Its not writing into a corner. It's playing the game by a neutral set of rules, fairly, without fudging your way out of the corners.

In some cases this might be true. In other cases it isn't, and instead people like you and adhoc are just trying to abrogate your personal responsibility for what transpires by hiding behind the rules when there are actually no rules you're following.

Unless you're actually using truly and perfectly random loot, but then that wouldn't fit with the ideas expressed that loot should make sense in context of what it's received from.

And on and on the wheel turns, I suppose.


Basically, I see players wanting custom items, or any DM fudging, both as extensions of the same thing: choosing to play the game on easy mode.

Yes, wanting something you can actually use, that's a custom item. Not, y'know, actual custom magic items that are homebrewed rather than bog standard out of the book stuff. :smalltongue:

[Randomthom]

There's plenty of people here happy to tell you exactly how you should have fun and how you're doing fun wrong.

For me & my current group of players, we like to have a certain degree of immersion in the world. That means that not every magic item found will be useful. Largely I DM with randomly generated treasure tables* but I also like to roll this before the session and, if the monster/npc enemies would, using the items too. Why would you use a mundane short sword if you happened to be carrying a magical one?
*If my randomly generated treasure table turns up a Dwarven Waraxe while the players are in an Elven ruin, it might become an Elven Curved Blade or perhaps just a longsword/rapier/scimitar or similar.

Additionally, I like that this stops people becoming overly reliant on powerful builds that plough all their focus into a single weapon type (especially if it is a rare weapon type e.g. scythe). It also allows for a certain degree of logic with regards to what might be found & where. If a player is hoping to find a magical longbow, he's not going to get his hopes up in the tunnels of a clan of Kobolds/Goblins but might fancy his chances with the hobgoblins, orcs or a human bandit camp since they are large enough to wield such a weapon. Equally, the wizard who wants to find a magic staff knows he has a better chance in a city than amongst a barbarian tribe.

I've also played & GM'd some very fun games where player-tailored loot was a frequent thing. They felt less immersive perhaps but not less fun, just a different sort of fun.

[Socratov]

Why bother playing the game? It seems like it would be easier to just write the novel of your character.
I fail to see how playing the game would be immaterial if I set a concept married to a certain set of weapons, armour or items in general.

This is why I say this style of play is the 'magic mart'. It is treating gear as though it is part of character creation and level choices.
technically gear is part of character creation as you choose what basic gear you get/buy when choosing backgrounds and class. If you are a bard, I can bet on it that you will use some kind of instrument. Unless you start play completley stark naked...t

I am not saying that it is wrong to play this way.

What I am saying is that claiming that others are wrong to not play this way is completely absurd. People have not only been playing D&D this way since the beginning, but it is the default way to play 5e.

If you believe that players need to be in control of their characters gear in 5e, you should reexamine the game.
I do believe that. I beleive the DM can't force gear on the players and the players should (barring McGuffins that are relevant to the plot) be able to seel or abandon gear as they see fit. If I make a character whose mabition is to be the best halberdier of all time, and the DM accepts him as a character in the game I may expect my character find his/her way to a halberd in various degrees of awesome. I also think the DM should not first accep the premise of the character and then passively reject it by holding out on halberds for whatever reason. I am also not expecting to hav ethe items find their way to the party on a silver platter, but I think the Player should have the freedom to dictate his own character and its ambitions and not the DM. Similarly that the players aren't expected to dictate the environment since that is the territory of the DM.

and if for some reason the DM doesn't wnt halberd in his setting he should at least give advance warning of that as the player is creating the character and if the player is going to need something down the line form the environment (like interaction with a certain guild or somesuch) then s/he should tell the DM to work out how and/or wether to do that. or, to put it differently:


D&D is a cooperative storytelling game. It's not the DM telling his novel to the players or the players writing their own, there should be some give and take. Now, I think there's a middle ground where DMs take into account what their players want without giving them a magic mart.

And in some ways, players do need to be in control of their gear. A 4th level martial class can typically only use one type of weapon well.


snip The posters who preplan what magic items they require for their character concept.don't you take (magic) items into account when creating a character concept, and by exptention a character?
The poster who've said non optimal, often described as unusable, magic items should never be awarded as it is mocking the players. I believe I have given such indication and I'd like you to stop twisting my words: what I said (or so I beleive I did) is that if you keep receiving only stuff that you can't use (inferior armour, weapons in which your character is not trained, nor would ever want to use), and don't find anything you would actually use, that that is basically a passive agressive message from the DM that he hates your character, which s/he didn't deign to tell you when you pitched your character before the game or when you did something in game.
Basically the posters treating 5e aMagic Items like 4e or 3.5 WBL. Etc. Even in the OP, first sentence of the second paragraph, states the GM has a responsibility to award appropriate magic items as they level up.

I find award to be a suspicious word since it infers that you imagine people think that if a players claims that his/her character has gained a level that the DM should hand out items to mark the occasion.

I do, however, think it's the DM's responsibility to make apropriate resources available through play during the adventure. Barring specific settings like a low/magic and low wealth setting I think that it's logical for a very powerful (read above lvl 15) character to walk around with powerful stuff. I think it entirely reasonable for a level 7~12 to walk around with a magic item or two and at least some mundane gear that fits the character's playstyle and so on.

Personally it could be a cool character concept for a lvl 20 fighter who refuses to use anything but his trusty old starting weapon, but otherwise I expect to be able experience a gradual growth in gear over the levels. I also expect that the DM doesn't say "Well, if you want to stick to Combat Style X that's your business, but I'll giv eyou only stuff for combat styles Y and Z, mkay? I think that if the DM doesn't want X to be used s/he should say so to the player. the player may then expect a way to rearrange matters so that resources sunk into using style X can instead be used in style Y or Z. In my earlier used example, if John has taken the feat polearm master, and john has been accepted as a character before starting play, I, as a player, expect polearms to be part of the setting. If the DM says he doesn't like polearms and that they won't feature in the setting, at all, then I expect John to be able to exchange the feat for an attribute bonus or other feat and not have it be there unused because the DM doesn't like polearms and didn't wnat to inform the player about it.

[Zman]

There's plenty of people here happy to tell you exactly how you should have fun and how you're doing fun wrong.

For me & my current group of players, we like to have a certain degree of immersion in the world. That means that not every magic item found will be useful. Largely I DM with randomly generated treasure tables* but I also like to roll this before the session and, if the monster/npc enemies would, using the items too. Why would you use a mundane short sword if you happened to be carrying a magical one?
*If my randomly generated treasure table turns up a Dwarven Waraxe while the players are in an Elven ruin, it might become an Elven Curved Blade or perhaps just a longsword/rapier/scimitar or similar.

Additionally, I like that this stops people becoming overly reliant on powerful builds that plough all their focus into a single weapon type (especially if it is a rare weapon type e.g. scythe). It also allows for a certain degree of logic with regards to what might be found & where. If a player is hoping to find a magical longbow, he's not going to get his hopes up in the tunnels of a clan of Kobolds/Goblins but might fancy his chances with the hobgoblins, orcs or a human bandit camp since they are large enough to wield such a weapon. Equally, the wizard who wants to find a magic staff knows he has a better chance in a city than amongst a barbarian tribe.

I've also played & GM'd some very fun games where player-tailored loot was a frequent thing. They felt less immersive perhaps but not less fun, just a different sort of fun.

I very much agree with your post and sentiment.

[Zman]

don't you take (magic) items into account when creating a character concept, and by exptention a character?I believe I have given such indication and I'd like you to stop twisting my words: what I said (or so I beleive I did) is that if you keep receiving only stuff that you can't use (inferior armour, weapons in which your character is not trained, nor would ever want to use), and don't find anything you would actually use, that that is basically a passive agressive message from the DM that he hates your character, which s/he didn't deign to tell you when you pitched your character before the game or when you did something in game.

I find award to be a suspicious word since it infers that you imagine people think that if a players claims that his/her character has gained a level that the DM should hand out items to mark the occasion.

I do, however, think it's the DM's responsibility to make apropriate resources available through play during the adventure. Barring specific settings like a low/magic and low wealth setting I think that it's logical for a very powerful (read above lvl 15) character to walk around with powerful stuff. I think it entirely reasonable for a level 7~12 to walk around with a magic item or two and at least some mundane gear that fits the character's playstyle and so on.

Personally it could be a cool character concept for a lvl 20 fighter who refuses to use anything but his trusty old starting weapon, but otherwise I expect to be able experience a gradual growth in gear over the levels. I also expect that the DM doesn't say "Well, if you want to stick to Combat Style X that's your business, but I'll giv eyou only stuff for combat styles Y and Z, mkay? I think that if the DM doesn't want X to be used s/he should say so to the player. the player may then expect a way to rearrange matters so that resources sunk into using style X can instead be used in style Y or Z. In my earlier used example, if John has taken the feat polearm master, and john has been accepted as a character before starting play, I, as a player, expect polearms to be part of the setting. If the DM says he doesn't like polearms and that they won't feature in the setting, at all, then I expect John to be able to exchange the feat for an attribute bonus or other feat and not have it be there unused because the DM doesn't like polearms and didn't wnat to inform the player about it.

I don't take specific magic items into account when creating a 5e character, sure, I'd like character X to find exact item Y, but I'm not going to expect it.

I don't believe I'm twisting your words, my interpretation of your words which I read at least a day ago was that a party that doesn't/can't use a Greatsword finding a magical Greatsword was a snub. I've said,if it was found on the Big Bad's Lieutenant who happened to be using a magical Greatsword, that is immersion, and I've also said that as DM I'm under no obligation to make that a magical halter because player Z prefers halberd so. Your explanation here is more character specific, and I'd agree, if a particular character never found something they could use, that'd be taken poorly. I've also said repeatedly I'd allow characters, especially those who use rarer weapon types or those looking for a specific item to research and find a side quest that'd allow them to find an appropriate item. Now, I probably wouldn't let them choose the exact specifics of that item, but it'd be appropriate for them and their concept.

I actually find myself agreeing with much of what you say, but the problem is those who are speaking in absolutes and not dealing with shades of grey in between. I deal in shades of grey. My games have magic items. Magic items are firstly placed intelligently, i.e. On NPCs and in places that make sense of item types that make sense. Then added a bit randomly. Then opportunities are added to fill in the gaps in the forms of quests.

I thought award was the right word, some people in this and the last thread act as if magic items are an award for leveling as if that is separated from the adventure and the story. Now, not actually awarded at the moment the gain the level, but conveniently found at the right relevant times to keep up with their perceived magic item progression in 5e.


I agree with your last two paragraphs and nothing I've said would conflict with them. None of this argument pertains to anything I've said, or if anything I've said could in interpreted that way, it wasn't what I meant to say. I agree mid level characters should have a couple fitting magic items, and I agree that high level characters should have powerful items, and I agree that no character should be snubbed by not being allowed to attain an item that works for their character. I do feel that players should not expect specific items at specific times, or expect anything that resembles a magic mart or 3.P WBL magic item selection.

[Tanarii]

No, there's no cheating involved, obviously. And if you view players so poorly, should you really even be playing the game with them? :smallconfused: Player entitlement? Seriously?Yep. It feels exactly like player entitlement to me. Or being a munchkin. And it bothers me having players wanting handouts and gimmies from the DM far more when I'm a player than a DM. Because now they're trying to game the system and ruining winning for me as well, as another player on their 'team', not just themselves. That includes wanting home-brewed special snowflake characters or power gaming builds depending on esoteric rules interpretations, rules lawyering during the game, and getting all whiny about treasure found. Similarly I won't play with Monty Haul or lenient rules-hand-waving DMs very often or for very long.

I want at least an apparent challenge so I can feel heroic and victorious. That kind of stuff removes from it. I don't feel like I've earned anything if my DM gives out magic items always tailored to our need, or the world otherwise caters to my character. That makes the game less interesting and destroys verisimilitude for me.

How about I say that throwing useless loot even when it's nonsensical ruins your settings' verisimiltude? Then where would we be? I'd be saying that your bias probably makes that sound reasonable to you. But I can't understand why, because my bias makes that statement sound like nonsense. I doubt we'd really enjoy playing at the same table for long. but that's fine. As long as we each can find tables where we are having fun, along with the other players and the DMs, we're cool.

[ad_hoc]

don't you take (magic) items into account when creating a character concept, and by exptention a character?

Nope.

I have learned something here. I had no idea that this would be such a foreign concept to so many.

I prefer for my character to grow and develop during the game.

[CantigThimble]

I think the two extremes are:
Every magic item is random or story based. Even if there's just some loot in a chest that has no historical significance I won't adjust it to make it more appealing to my players. If the longsword fighter never finds a single weapon or suit of armor he can use properly then tough.

Every item is based on my characters and should be an ideal item for how they want them their character to be equipped.

I'd guess most people are actually somewhere inbetween these but that's not coming across well in the discussion. Villains have their own needs for equipment and sometimes the party would need to work to make the gear the villain had useful. Other times the wizard just finds a handy wand.

[Knaight]

Nope.

I have learned something here. I had no idea that this would be such a foreign concept to so many.

I prefer for my character to grow and develop during the game.

Having magic items that fit the character show up doesn't in any way hinder them growing and developing during the game. This is a complete non-sequitur, and I say that as the one person in this thread who has come out in support of having zero magic items (given an appropriate setting). To use a recent (non-5e) character example, I have a character who's initial starting concept was that of a farm kid who went to the city to make his fortune, and who ended up as one of many people cursed by a wizard - in his case, while working as a door to door salesman.* There have been a few major bits of character development with that character so far. One is that there are some cracks appearing in the character's natural optimism, caused by the in game event of being exploited by a really sketchy businessman who made a number of false promises, a growing distrust for another person who has been cursed and yet is still willing to use other people's curses to compel action**. Another is the character coming into a broader societal awareness and losing some of the naivete that characterized them earlier, partially on account of said sketchy businessman, partially on account of one of the other PCs being a revolutionary. Neither of these were planned, the optimism case could go either way depending on future events, and the character is obviously goring and developing during the game.

If, hypothetically, I were to somehow communicate to the GM that a magic item that fit the character would be appreciated - maybe something like a magical caliper that lets the character measure gear diameters while machines are still running - that doesn't somehow magically undo the aforementioned character development, or prevent it in the future. It likely does skew it a bit towards things related to the characters mechanical aptitude, but said development still continues.

*The group template in that game was that everyone was playing someone who had been cursed, and a major setting element was that the previously dominant magic class was being displaced by an industrial revolution and were none to happy about it.

**One of the other PCs is a former revolutionary sort who is cursed to never be able to express disagreement with people.

[Navigator]

Magic items are neither absolute evil nor essential component.

1. There is no objective way to determine the power of an item. The only method we have by RAW is a magic item's rarity, and it does less than a poor job at that. For example, cloak of displacement, boots of levitation, and scroll of control water are all rare. I'm not sure why they even bothered assigning rarity to be honest.

2. To further confound the situation, we don't even have an objective way to tell what kind of magic items a character should have at what level, except for a tiny little table on page 38 of the DMG. Since it can be shown that power level by rarity is worthless, this table is similarly worthless.

3. There aren't even any clear ways to create magic items. This is also left completely up to the DM to define.

Given these 3 facts, no one has any basis whatsoever to assume that any character has any magic item at all at any level. It just doesn't exist. Any magic items that a character has is solely by DM fiat. The only reasonable assumption you can make about magic items is that you don't have any.

For this reason, magic items have no part in any theoretical optimization work unless specifically allowed, or is based on the item / item combination in question.

[Knaight]

Given these 3 facts, no one has any basis whatsoever to assume that any character has any magic item at all at any level. It just doesn't exist. Any magic items that a character has is solely by DM fiat. The only reasonable assumption you can make about magic items is that you don't have any.

The pages of magic items kind of put the kibosh on this assumption as well. There's a reasonable assumption that in a "standard" campaign, there will be some non-zero number of magic items, eventually. More detail than that isn't really happening.

[Regitnui]

So "have some magic items. We'd prefer it if you followed these guidelines, but no pressure, really."

[Socratov]

Could it have been that the items were added as an afterthought?

I mean, for 5th the devs really overhauled the balance system by starting at 4th edition and creating actual differing classes and mechanics, without going so far as 3.5, nor keeping the differences in the form of 4th (which was a bit generic imo).

And while it works wonders for classes and the balance system, items got a raw deal: with the bounded accuracy mechanics even small numbers confer a rather large boost. A +3 to attack can ensure an autohit very quickly and with the shrinking number of spells, both available for casting and new spell mechanics a couple of wands can create a real imbalance in utility. That said, one of the most iconic things of DnD and RPG's involving magic in general is the fact that magic weapons/items are a thing.

[Cybren]

1) Magic items are great fun.
2) the rules don't require a certain bonus to a certain number from magic items at any particular point
3) players can reasonably expect that they will show up in some capacity, as they're fairly standard
4) they players shouldn't expect to get any one particular thing just because they want it
5) but the DM should take player desires into consideration and not just ignore them, they should give the chance or possibility for the player to meet their goals
6) a lot of people conflate "I want this gear" with a meaningful character goal. It's not necessarily that wanting a particular item isn't a legitimate character goal, it's just frequently a desire for a stat bonus.
7) there's nothing wrong with wanting a stat bonus but a mature human being will accept alternatives or compromises
8) there's nothing intrinsically wrong with only using random tables to award loot,
9) there's nothing intrinsically wrong with tailoring loot to the equipment characters want to/specializes in using
10) play the d&d you want to play, but don't be a jerk about it. You're not being a tyrant or bad DM by only giving loot from random tables and you're not being a Monty haul ice cream man DM by giving them them fear they specifically asked for
11) be cool to each other

[Tanarii]

1. There is no objective way to determine the power of an item. The only method we have by RAW is a magic item's rarity, and it does less than a poor job at that. For example, cloak of displacement, boots of levitation, and scroll of control water are all rare. I'm not sure why they even bothered assigning rarity to be honestBecause rarity is a measure of what level you start getting access to it, and the frequency with which it shows up in treasures. Not power.

Treasure hordes, including magic item, can be determined randomly. That's why those values are important for a DM to know, and power isn't. Even if they don't determine treasure randomly, it helps them gauge by comparing to the charts for treasure hordes ... what level to place it, and how often. That's far more valuable than power to a DM.

[ad_hoc]

Because rarity is a measure of what level you start getting access to it, and the frequency with which it shows up in treasures. Not power.

Treasure hordes, including magic item, can be determined randomly. That's why those values are important for a DM to know, and power isn't. Even if they don't determine treasure randomly, it helps them gauge by comparing to the charts for treasure hordes ... what level to place it, and how often. That's far more valuable than power to a DM.

This.

People like to think that the rarity is a measure of power, and then say that they did a horrible job because it doesn't make any sense.

Rarity is a measure of rarity.

Magic items are not like they were in 3.x. They aren't a balanced part of character build/power.

Rarity is a suggestion for how rare they should be in the world. Sometimes powerful things are not that rare. And things like the universal solvent or soverign glue are legendary not because they are the most powerful magic items, but because they are just very rare. This makes them good MacGuffins and also stops them from mucking things up regularly.

Speaking of random items, for those who like them, here is one for weapon type:

Random Magic Weapon Table:

01-05 - Obscure Weapon (see table)

Simple Weapons:

06-10 - Dagger
11-12 - Handaxe
13-14 - Javelin
15-16 - Mace
17-23 - Quarterstaff
24-25 - Spear

Simple Ranged Weapons:

26-30 - Crossbow, Light
31-35 - Shortbow

Martial Weapons:

36-38 - Battleaxe
39-41 - Glaive
42-44 - Greataxe
45-49 - Greatsword
50-52 - Halberd
53-54 - Lance
55-64 - Longsword
65-67 - Maul
68-77 - Rapier
78-80 - Scimitar
81-85 - Shortsword
86-88 - Warhammer

Martial Ranged Weapons:

89-93 - Crossbow, Hand
94-95 - Crossbow, Heavy
96-00 - Longbow


Obscure Weapons:

01-07 - Club
08-13 - Greatclub
14-20 - Light Hammer
21-26 - Sickle
27-32 - Handwraps
33-38 - Sling
39-44 - 2d4 Darts
45-51 - Flail
52-58 - Morningstar
59-65 - Pike
66-72 - Trident
73-79 - War Pick
80-86 - Whip
87-93 - Blowgun
94-00 - Net

[SharkForce]

item rarity is a useless metric. if it was only intended to reflect rarity, then they still did a bad job of it because they made it at all. a +2 sword is precisely as rare or as common as the DM wants it to be, i don't need some stupid table telling me how rare it is.

furthermore, if it isn't supposed to reflect item power, then they sure did an awful job of not using it as a stand-in for item power. it's used to determine what sort of treasure you find, and it's used to determine starting items for higher level characters, and i care a whole lot more about whether the item is powerful in those situations than i do about whether the item is rare.

then there's the same thing for prices. another situation where the item's usefulness (which is largely based on power) should be the major factor. and frankly, because this is a game and balance is a concern, item crafting time should *also* be based on the item's power, which is based on rarity.

so yeah, all the things they actually use item rarity for, they should be using item power. so they either did a really awful job of making those two things equivalent, or they did a really awful job by wasting a bunch of time and space in the books to include a completely useless metric, and then incorporating that useless metric into things where it should not be.

[ad_hoc]

so yeah, all the things they actually use item rarity for, they should be using item power. so they either did a really awful job of making those two things equivalent, or they did a really awful job by wasting a bunch of time and space in the books to include a completely useless metric, and then incorporating that useless metric into things where it should not be.

Well, I am glad they included item rarity. I get a lot of use out of it which makes it not 'completely useless'. Without it, I would find 5e to be flawed.

As with anything in the books, if you don't like it you don't have to use it. It is actually a very easy thing to ignore if you want to which is good design.

[MaxWilson]

Over in the "Versatile" thread, the topic came up whether magic weapons are good or bad when playing 5e. Many of us agree they should be found, but the main point of debate seems to be how the DM should handle them.

My opinion is that the DM has the responsibility to offer the players appropriate magic items or weapons as they level up. Magic weapons and items are part of the world, so the DM and players should know that acquiring a magic longsword for the fighter is an option. Whether discovered in a legend's tomb, given by important NPCs, or bartered for with an extremely skilled artificer/blacksmith, the players can acquire and use magic weapons or items of their choice. Others claim this amounts to 3.5's Magic Shop Economy.

Another opinion is that Players should just use what they find. Magic items here aren't offered by the DM, but by the roll of the dice. Players can't be sure of what they get, if they get anything at all, and so the verisimilitude and tension of actually opening a long-lost treasure box is preserved. Magic items in this case are almost always rare, historical artefacts, and each of them has a history of its own. On the other hand, this can leave your party at the mercy of the dice fall; the first magic greatsword is a delightful surprise, the fourth, not so much.

The last opinion that came up was the 5e does not do magic items and WBL anymore. Stop using them. A few people pointed out that, like feats and Inspiration, magic items are entirely optional and players can reach epic without even using one. The opposite side of the coin here is that you might have the players feel less motivated if they're as well equipped as they're ever going to get.

So, gentlemen, ladies, indeterminates and others, what's your opinion on 5e's magic items?

As a player, I hate them. I like games where magic items are rare or non-existent.

As a DM, I hand them out, but I want them to be both rare and powerful. Ideally, every single one has a backstory and some minor properties (though the players may not know the backstory). I feel good if the players refer to every single magic item by its name, e.g. the monk/druid doesn't say, "I blast it with my Staff of Flame!" he says "I blast it with Flauntiir!"

In short, I view magic items as similar to NPC henchmen. They're not absolute evil but I don't want them taking the spotlight off the characters, and I don't want a lot of them.

[Mith]

An idea on how to do magic items that players want:

All magic items that require attunement require a quest on the part of the one who is to have item, since it is going to be built for them. On top of that, there is the material cost for the materials needed, and perhaps a bunch of other things to make things worthwhile for the crafter of the item, who likely has to spend XP to make this item as well. Add this to older magic items that were passed down, either they are family heirlooms passed down a bloodline, or the item is "reforged" every generation.

With this idea, I probably would make most items of this nature recharge over a set time period, instead of a finite amount of charges before crumbling to dust.

[Tanarii]

item rarity is a useless metric. if it was only intended to reflect rarity, then they still did a bad job of it because they made it at all. a +2 sword is precisely as rare or as common as the DM wants it to be, i don't need some stupid table telling me how rare it is.Just because you choose not to use a tool provided for DMs that does exactly what is advertised (rarity for use with treasure distribution), doesn't make it useless. It just makes it useless for you. So don't use it.

Edit: all the things you talked about: treasure distribution, items for higher level characters, item creation, gold prices ... Rarity does exactly what is advertised: gives you a rating for how rare something is in the world. And rarity doesn't necessarily correlate with power. It just correlates with rarity, as advertised.

If you feel it should correlate with power, or want to ignore rarity and determine that completely on your own, then I can see why you'd have some complaints about the rarity system. But it's perfect for the 'neutral DM referee' tradition that D&D comes from, as are random treasure tables that it's used with. It may not work so well if you're a 'write my own story' DM.

[SharkForce]

Just because you choose not to use a tool provided for DMs that does exactly what is advertised (rarity for use with treasure distribution), doesn't make it useless. It just makes it useless for you. So don't use it.

Edit: all the things you talked about: treasure distribution, items for higher level characters, item creation, gold prices ... Rarity does exactly what is advertised: gives you a rating for how rare something is in the world. And rarity doesn't necessarily correlate with power. It just correlates with rarity, as advertised.

If you feel it should correlate with power, or want to ignore rarity and determine that completely on your own, then I can see why you'd have some complaints about the rarity system. But it's perfect for the 'neutral DM referee' tradition that D&D comes from, as are random treasure tables that it's used with. It may not work so well if you're a 'write my own story' DM.

the problem is that none of those things *should* correlate with rarity in a game. they should correlate with power. every time someone comes here and says "my DM is letting us all have one uncommon item", or similar, everyone knows exactly which group of items to recommend. frankly, as a DM, i could care less about how rare the items my party has are. they are exactly as rare or as common as i want them to be. their rarity has largely no impact on the game. i can make a carpet of flying into a unique item and there are no real meaningful changes in how the game plays. i don't need a mechanical construct to help me decide how rare things are, because it doesn't matter if a +3 sword is super rare or not. if i want my players to find one, they will. if i don't want them to find one, they won't. if i want levitation-based elevators in my world, they will be there. if i don't, they won't. ultimately, rarity of the item only matters in determining the setting; a setting where magic items are exceptionally common might look like eberron, for example, while a world like dark sun is largely not impacted at all by magic items with only a few very rare exceptions (certainly a decanter of endless water would be able to make a change i suppose... which is why in the dark sun setting that item doesn't exist by default. again, the setting is impacted by the rarity of the item, but as a DM i'm deciding that based on what i want the setting to be, not on some stupid table. the rarity of an item does not in the slightest help me when i'm creating an adventure or story. the probability of finding *any* magic item within an adventuring party is generally either 0% or 100% anyways; if there are 500 swords +1 and 50 swords +2 in the world, i'm not going to give 10 +1 swords to the party before i consider giving them a +2 sword to maintain the ratio within the party, so who cares how rare they are in terms of randomly assigning treasure? it will either be there, or it won't).

what would actually be useful is something that tells me (at least roughly) how much it is going to change the game if i give it to the players, and the rarity system does not do that at all. i can give the players 10 containers of sovereign glue and not worry about it too much (they'll probably do something interesting, crazy, and possibly entertaining with it, but i have little to worry about breaking the system), but if i give even a single staff of the magi or +3 pact rod, i've probably just done horrifying things to how the game is balanced from which it may never recover unless i remove those items at a later date, or give a lot of creatures bonuses to all of their bad saving throws arbitrarily (in which case i have basically taken away the magic item).

as a DM, by the time i'm rolling treasure tables, i have ALREADY DECIDED how much of an impact magic items will have on my setting (which is all that item rarity is really good for). all i care about at that point is how much it will impact the adventuring group. if rarity was a construct to be used in the setting-building section of the DMG, then sure, it has a place. it has absolutely no place in the treasure tables, or in determining how hard it is for the party to buy it or make it or start with one at higher levels.

[Tanarii]

don't need a mechanical construct to help me decide how rare things are, because it doesn't matter if a +3 sword is super rare or not. if i want my players to find one, they will. if i don't want them to find one, they won't.this is the crux of the issue. D&D was originally designed for a different play-style ... one in which the players don't find things based on a DM's wants. Or the player's wants, for that matter. And that's what random treasure and rarity in 5e are designed to support. I'm not surprised, because 5e was designed to hold on to many D&D traditions, and this style of play is clearly a huge part of the system in terms of support, from core rules to DM support to variant rules.

So it's hardly surprising that a part of the system designed to support the traditional way of playing D&D, which isn't the way you choose to play, isn't useful to you. That doesn't make your way of playing D&D badwrongfun, or even that uncommon. But it does mean that the parts designed to support another way of play won't support yours.

[mephnick]

They still should have spent a little more time on balancing their treasure tables, or making more, smaller tables and restricting the high powered ones until later. The current tables are extremely unbalanced and lazy. There's absolutely no reason a level 1 character should get a Cloak of Displacement.

[ad_hoc]

They still should have spent a little more time on balancing their treasure tables, or making more, smaller tables and restricting the high powered ones until later. The current tables are extremely unbalanced and lazy. There's absolutely no reason a level 1 character should get a Cloak of Displacement.

Why not?

You need to roll a 98-00 and then a 34 to get it.

It is not exactly going to happen every game.

[MaxWilson]

this is the crux of the issue. D&D was originally designed for a different play-style ... one in which the players don't find things based on a DM's wants. Or the player's wants, for that matter. And that's what random treasure and rarity in 5e are designed to support. I'm not surprised, because 5e was designed to hold on to many D&D traditions, and this style of play is clearly a huge part of the system in terms of support, from core rules to DM support to variant rules.

So it's hardly surprising that a part of the system designed to support the traditional way of playing D&D, which isn't the way you choose to play, isn't useful to you. That doesn't make your way of playing D&D badwrongfun, or even that uncommon. But it does mean that the parts designed to support another way of play won't support yours.

I still use that playstyle that you refer to, but here's the thing: "rarity" labels are completely useless to someone who's doing random treasure generation. What matters is what treasure table the thing is on. Whatever scenario "rarity" labels are designed for, random treasure generation isn't it.

It would be more consistent with that approach if the DMG, for campaigns starting at high level, recommended rolling on random treasure tables (e.g. once each on Table D and F for an 11th level campaign) instead of choosing items by "rarity."

[Tanarii]

I still use that playstyle that you refer to, but here's the thing: "rarity" labels are completely useless to someone who's doing random treasure generation. What matters is what treasure table the thing is on. Whatever scenario "rarity" labels are designed for, random treasure generation is it.Rairty does allow for some flexibly in expanding magic items and by using generic categories, and having determination within those categories later. It makes it modular. Not that I really disagree with what you're saying.


They still should have spent a little more time on balancing their treasure tables, or making more, smaller tables and restricting the high powered ones until later. The current tables are extremely unbalanced and lazy. There's absolutely no reason a level 1 character should get a Cloak of Displacement.Not going to claim that I think the tables are perfect. ;) I just don't think the primary design goal was balancing power of the items, but rather frequency on the treasure tables. (Obviously I could be wrong. I'm not a Dev.) I'm sure some of that frequency is sacred cows. Now you got me curious, I'm going to dig out the Cloak of Displacement in some older editions.

[CNagy]

This might just be the old gamer in me, but I find absolutely obnoxious when a player creates their character concept around specific armaments and items. I blame the latter part of 2e for opening up specialization to basically everyone (making the use of one's favored weapon potentially better than a magical version of something else) and then 3e doubling down on that with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. I've dubbed this player the "But I use sabers!" guy, after a player who was playing what amounted to an Artemis Entreri clone and balked upon finding a jewel encrusted rapier carrying a fey enchantment.

Roleplaying is story-telling but it is also story-reacting. Your character, stripped of his name, morals, motives, background, etc, is a powerful and opportunistic scavenger whose life involves using a collection of tools and his own personal might to survive dangers that kill most people. The idea that a character would think "that's better than what I have and I can use it, but I'm really very attached to using greatswords" just baffles me. It's fine to choose a preferred weapon in the very high levels, when you have a small armory of magical weapons to choose from, but in the early and mid levels? You take what you find, and you find a way to make best use of it. Edit: Mind you, I'm not talking about invalidating someone's feat choices--I'm talking about items broadly in the same category. The Greatsword wielder in question found a greataxe refluffed as a great scythe that had been wielded by a legendary figure in the past and found its way into the foul hands of an undead guardian. His reaction was not "but I use greatswords!" It was "Haha! I shall master this!"

I've never had a party treat an item as useless--I've had individual players who have treated items as useless, and their fellows quickly disabused them of that notion. An unused magic item is basically burning a hole through the adventurer's pack. The party looks for and inquires about opportunities to sell/trade/gift the item in order to get something in return, curry favor with local powers that will prove profitable, settle disputes, join organizations, what have you. Magic items can be better than a trunkful of gold when you think about it from an in-character perspective: a magic item might be exchanged for a trunkful of gold, but you cannot ever guarantee that you can exchange a trunkful of gold for a specific magic item.

All of that said, I play fairly low-magic worlds and I don't typically use the DMG magic items as written. I prefer giving additional damage effects, low-level spell effects 1/rest, and minor magical abilities over static bonuses to hit (and damage, though damage isn't really the problem.) I use rarity for an additional function: how likely NPCs in the world are to have ever heard rumors or possess actual knowledge of the items in question. This comes in handy when players want their characters to quest for specific kinds of items by giving them some idea of where they'd even need to start looking for information.

[SharkForce]

but then we have some of those tables where +2 armour is sitting right next to +3 armour, or where armour of the same bonus or ability goes on tables of different rarity based on what type of armour (chain, plate, etc) it is, even though those armours would be the same rarity.

if they're just there to decide rarity, then that sort of thing should not happen because all +1 armour is uncommon (unless it has an additional ability). in fact, the magic item tables never once talk about the rarity of the items in them.

in fact, table D which is a relatively common table (available from CR 5 onward) has items on it clear up to legendary. table G, available from the very earliest challenges, has quite a few rare items and might even have a few very rare (i'm not sure at a glance).

it really doesn't look like the tables care much about rarity at all. they're quite generous with rare or even legendary single-use items that are less likely to disrupt the game (or at least will only disrupt balance once), and much more stingy with items of the same rarity that are more likely to disrupt game balance, for example. if it's only supposed to reflect rarity, it would be just as hard to find a potion of storm giant strength as a belt of storm giant strength, but the tables really do not reflect that at all.

[MaxWilson]

This might just be the old gamer in me, but I find absolutely obnoxious when a player creates their character concept around specific armaments and items. I blame the latter part of 2e for opening up specialization to basically everyone (making the use of one's favored weapon potentially better than a magical version of something else) and then 3e doubling down on that with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. I've dubbed this player the "But I use sabers!" guy, after a player who was playing what amounted to an Artemis Entreri clone and balked upon finding a jewel encrusted rapier carrying a fey enchantment.

Yeah. I like the 2nd edition specialization rules, but I also like the fluff that goes with it. Specialization is described as akin to Olympic-level skill, doing things that seem impossible to regular people because you are so obsessed with perfecting your skill in that thing. I don't want specialization to be taken for granted, and some of my favorite (N)PCs are those that refrain from specializing in one weapon.

Likewise in 5E, I'm very fond of characters who don't go all in on GWM or even Sharpshooter. Unfortunately Sharpshooter really is superb for archery-based characters and is hard to skip--but I still really like my bog-standard longsword-wielding paladin (/sorcerer) who is comfortable dropping his longsword and grappling when he wants to. If he is facing skeletons he would be totally comfortable pulling out a battlehammer instead, and at long range he'd be comfortable with a longbow. To me, that's what a "fighter" should primarily be--someone who fights. Not a magic weapon with a PC and a bunch of feats attached.

[ad_hoc]

Edit: Mind you, I'm not talking about invalidating someone's feat choices--I'm talking about items broadly in the same category.

I'm with you mostly, but I don't think feats should have an extra bullet that says: You also get specific magic items for this feat.

You can be a Polearm Master at 1st level if you want to, but that doesn't mean you are going to find magical polearms.

You will certainly be able to purchase any polearm you want in a town. You can use your feat. The feat doesn't conjure magic items though. You can always be a Warlock too if you want.

[Pex]

Yeah. I like the 2nd edition specialization rules, but I also like the fluff that goes with it. Specialization is described as akin to Olympic-level skill, doing things that seem impossible to regular people because you are so obsessed with perfecting your skill in that thing. I don't want specialization to be taken for granted, and some of my favorite (N)PCs are those that refrain from specializing in one weapon.

Likewise in 5E, I'm very fond of characters who don't go all in on GWM or even Sharpshooter. Unfortunately Sharpshooter really is superb for archery-based characters and is hard to skip--but I still really like my bog-standard longsword-wielding paladin (/sorcerer) who is comfortable dropping his longsword and grappling when he wants to. If he is facing skeletons he would be totally comfortable pulling out a battlehammer instead, and at long range he'd be comfortable with a longbow. To me, that's what a "fighter" should primarily be--someone who fights. Not a magic weapon with a PC and a bunch of feats attached.

It is those "feats attached" that help the fighter be a fighter, for some people, and they're not having BadWrongFun because of it. That magic sword can be the fighter's signature, like Excalibur or Narsil. That's not to mean it must be an artifact, rather it's just magical so it's special and what the fighter does with it makes it legendary. It's not unheard of for some people to play where the fighter starts with a mundane weapon but as the character gains levels and does great deeds it becomes magical on its own acquiring abilities as the character gains levels. What level it starts and how many levels between the next upgrade varies by group. Whether the DM or player decides what abilities are gained also varies by group.

[Boci]

I'm with you mostly, but I don't think feats should have an extra bullet that says: You also get specific magic items for this feat.

You can be a Polearm Master at 1st level if you want to, but that doesn't mean you are going to find magical polearms.

You will certainly be able to purchase any polearm you want in a town. You can use your feat. The feat doesn't conjure magic items though. You can always be a Warlock too if you want.

One compromise that would preserve in game organic-ness would be to allow PCs and NPCs to trade magical weapons. After all, if the PCs have a magical sword and want a magical halberts, there's probably someone somewhere in the reverse situation. How easy this is will depend on how sophisticated the setting is, but it shouldn't be impossible.

[Tanarii]

That magic sword can be the fighter's signature, like Excalibur or Narsil. That's not to mean it must be an artifact, rather it's just magical so it's special and what the fighter does with it makes it legendary. then why not wait until you find the magic weapon that will become legend, *then* specialize in it?

IMO weapon-specializing feats in older editions are there to do nearly magical things without a magical weapon. To be a Kensai / Sword Saint, and doesn't need a magic weapon because if it. Or you can be the fighter who is well versed in a variety of weapons, then gets his hands on Green Destiny, and has to spend time learning to use it properly. Or even set aside his style to relearn in the face of a powerful enough item.

Also, note almost all legendary / storied magical weapons are rootstock swords from the culture they came from IRL legends. With some cultural variations for fantasy creatures, like axes for Dwarves. Choosing to specialize in Polearms or some other esoteric weapon, then getting bent when the majority of magical weapons found are 1H-swords/axes, the most commonly used weapons in most fantasy settings, stories, and traditional D&D, seems irrational.

[Waazraath]

So, gentlemen, ladies, indeterminates and others, what's your opinion on 5e's magic items?

All valid options. What's great about 5e, compared to 3.x, is that you can choose to run the game in different ways, in this respect. In 3.x it took a helluvalot of work to run a campaign with few or no magic items.

[georgie_leech]

then why not wait until you find the magic weapon that will become legend, *then* specialize in it?


Alternatively, for those that want histories attached to all their magic weapons, perhaps the chosen weapon of the character in question becomes magical as the hero creates a legend. Unless Ragnar the Barbarian, Chief of the Red Mountain and famed Dragonslayer, just happened to find a +2 Greataxe at some point, in which case what's the problem with similar serendipity for the PC's?

[Boci]

then why not wait until you find the magic weapon that will become legend, *then* specialize in it?

Maybe they don't want their character to be a blank-slate in terms of what weapon they wield until they find a magical weapon worth it.


Also, note almost all legendary / storied magical weapons are rootstock swords from the culture they came from IRL legends. With some cultural variations for fantasy creatures, like axes for Dwarves. Choosing to specialize in Polearms or some other esoteric weapon, then getting bent when the majority of magical weapons found are 1H-swords/axes, the most commonly used weapons in most fantasy settings, stories, and traditional D&D, seems irrational.

Yes, but a lack of variety/imagination in previous stories isn't a good reasons to automatically continue with this trend. When weapons of legacy was published, it didn't contain 48 swords, it had swords, spears, maces, bows, a sling, a shield and armour, even a ring and an amulet.

[Baptor]

All valid options. What's great about 5e, compared to 3.x, is that you can choose to run the game in different ways, in this respect. In 3.x it took a helluvalot of work to run a campaign with few or no magic items.

I disagree. In 3rd, my players complained about the christmas tree, and I was able to come up with an innate bonus system in an afternoon. Not hard at all, because I knew what bonuses the game expected the characters to have, and I simply moved those bonuses from rings and things to the character sheet.

In 5e, if you want to do anything other than leave the player's fate to the treasure tables, you are in for a bad time. As it has already been argued, the rarity system is useless in regard to creating new magic items or deciding what items are appropriate for your characters.

What makes no sense to me at all is the fact we have pure combat items in a game where we are explicitly told the game's metrics are balanced without them, and even more egregious, that they are scaling.

For example, if I've seen a dev or other person argue that a +1 weapon is a rare and wondrous thing that remains useful and relevant even to a 20th level character once, I've seen it a thousand times.

OK. Fine. A +1 weapon is an awesome item that any player would be happy to get, because the numbers don't take it into account. Therefore, a +1 weapon is a flat bonus making the character better even if he's 20th.

So...why are there +2 and +3 weapons again?

If the purpose of 5e's philosophy was to rid us of the enhancement treadmill of 3e and 4e and create a system in which getting any item was a big deal and that same item would remain relevant the whole game, then why oh why would you scale them up?

If a wand of fireball is a great mage item at any level, why is there a staff of fire. Furthermore, why in the name of Zeus is there a staff of power and magi?

5e philosophy of magic items would have rang true if everything was the same power level. If there were only +1 weapons and armor like there is only one ring of protection (+1) now, it would make sense.

I mean you get three item slots, basically, so the character's dilemma is not getting a +2 weapon when he has a +1, but does he keep using the +1 magic weapon when he's out of slots and just found a suit of armor +1? Defense or offense? It's a good idea.

No, I am convinced that 5e's one glaring and terrible flaw is how it has handled magic items. They created a great philosophy for them, then promptly threw that out and went insane. (I mean seriously, the very fact something like a staff of the magi exists in a system like 5e is completely inappropriate.)

Back to my main point, however. 5e, as opposed to 3e or 4e, is balanced without items. So you're set if you don't want them. If you do want them in your game, it's far more complex to do so correctly than it is to take them out of 3e or 4e. The reason is that the system on which the example magic items are based makes no sense and so there is no way to do it without doing all the hard work yourself and playtesting over and over again.

What would really have been nice is some kind of chart showing different styles of games in regards to magic items that shows which items should be in your game and what effect they would have on play. Such as "if your characters have items like these, their effective level goes up by +1" and so forth.

[Tanarii]

Maybe they don't want their character to be a blank-slate in terms of what weapon they wield until they find a magical weapon worth it.That makes perfect sense from a gaming perspective. Of course you want the bonuses you chose to work early on to get better, as opposed to become redundant.

From a narrative perspective, it's kind of weird. Or rather, you're choosing to play your lower level character as a fully grown hero with no room for growth.

Not that there's not a middle-ground ... The gaining magical bonus on a family heirloom type route. Like Luke's Lightsaber or Rand's Heron-marked Blade. That's an important piece of the Mono-myth.


Yes, but a lack of variety/imagination in previous stories isn't a good reasons to automatically continue with this trend. When weapons of legacy was published, it didn't contain 48 swords, it had swords, spears, maces, bows, a sling, a shield and armour, even a ring and an amulet.Theres some truth to that. This isn't really a debate about creating the old myths.

It's a debate about wanting a mechanical advantage for your character concept you brought to the table and don't want to change based on table events, vs adapting your character concept to events at the table for a mechanical advantage.

Alternately, you can look at it as predefined character concept growth vs reactive character concept growth.

[Boci]

That makes perfect sense from a gaming perspective. Of course you want the bonuses you chose to work early on to get better, as opposed to become redundant.

From a narrative perspective, it's kind of weird. Or rather, you're choosing to play your lower level character as a fully grown hero with no room for growth.

I don't get why planning out the weapons you wield means you left no room to grow. Is a character changing a weapon the only way they can grow in your book? Of course not. So why is it such a big deal for a DM to accommodate a character such as Chrystal who starts out at level 1 wielding a mundane spear and ends the story wielding a magical one that replicates several necromantic effects to the point that many people believe she is a trained necromancer despite being a Battlemaster Fighter?


Alternately, you can look at it as predefined character concept growth vs reactive character concept growth.

Not all changes to a character are growth though, some undermine the core character, and its not wrong to label fighting style under core character. Even if Chrystal always wields spears and never switches after getting the Black Spear, there is still plenty that can change. Her views of the world and the races, her alignment, her allegiance, her friends and her foes, her knowledge and understanding of the world.

[MaxWilson]

It is those "feats attached" that help the fighter be a fighter, for some people, and they're not having BadWrongFun because of it.

I didn't say it was BadWrongFun. This thread is soliciting personal opinions and preferences. I expressed mine. I was pretty explicit that it was an opinion, not a judgment. "To me, that's what a fighter should be."

[Tanarii]

Not all changes to a character are growth though, some undermine the core character, and its not wrong to label fighting style under core character.
The most common narrative reason for not using a different weapon is it will undermine character concept. Therefore what weapon you ultimately use is part of either growing into your character concept reactively, or coming to the table with a predetermined character concept and growing in to that non-reactively.

Of course, there's also often a gamist / mechanical reason of wanting to optimize for extra power by focusing on specialization-type combat builds, which theoretically come at the cost of flexibility. Then not wanting to suffer from that lack of flexibility.

[Boci]

I didn't say it was BadWrongFun. This thread is soliciting personal opinions and preferences. I expressed mine. What's the big deal?

I think the problem is some people are discussing personal preferences as a player and others are discussing personal preference as a DM. Personal preference as a player is easy, play what you like )okay, not if it doesn't fit with the party, but not taking polearm mastery is hardly going to do that). Personal preference as a DM though is trickier. You may prefer random magical items for loot, but a player may not, and in fact their character concept could be hard to realize with this system. And since the DM bears a lion-share of the responsibility for players enjoying the game, its not as simple as just do what you like, because your decision on world design also influence the players.


The most common narrative reason for not using a different weapon is it will undermine character concept. Therefore what weapon you ultimately use is part of either growing into your character concept reactively, or coming to the table with a predetermined character concept and growing in to that non-reactively.

Yes, those are the two different approach, when it comes to a weapon. Even with a predetermined weapon though, you can still grow reactivly to the world and its denizens though your characters understanding and opinions of them, which is ultimatly going t influence the game far more than if you are hacking apart orcs with a magical sword or spear.

[mephnick]

If the purpose of 5e's philosophy was to rid us of the enhancement treadmill of 3e and 4e and create a system in which getting any item was a big deal and that same item would remain relevant the whole game, then why oh why would you scale them up?

No, I am convinced that 5e's one glaring and terrible flaw is how it has handled magic items. They created a great philosophy for them, then promptly threw that out and went insane.

Exactly. As an E6 fan, I was so excited when I heard about how they'd treat magical items in 5e. I kept hearing they'd be scaled down and thematic where even a sword that could do ice damage once a day could be a famous item because that was a true bonus in a Bounded Accuracy system. Then I got the DMG..

It's like they made this neat little Bounded Accuracy system and then told whoever did the magic items to destroy it completely.

[Tanarii]

Yes, those are the two different approach, when it comes to a weapon. Even with a predetermined weapon though, you can still grow reactivly to the world and its denizens though your characters understanding and opinions of them, which is ultimatly going t influence the game far more than if you are hacking apart orcs with a magical sword or spear.of course. I was clarifying what I meant by 'growth/growing'. As in specific to item use as a part of character concept, although I did focus on weapons. Since that's usually the most contentious.

Of course, a character concept depend on having a Hat of Disguise or Boots of Flying. Or most famously, a Cloak or Ring of Invisibilty. If you're not going to reactively grow such a character concept, you're putting a lot of burden on the DM to tailor his world to your character. And a DM that does that is going to affect all aspects of all the players, not just yours. He's not a neutral DM referee any more, he's a collaborative storyteller.

That's not bad, but getting upset at your DM and other players for not aligning to your preferred play style is obviously silly. I mean, if I found a DM was writing a story to other players characters, and they were all happy with it, I'd either change my view of what that campaign was going to be like and play appropriately, find another game, or most likely both. As a DM I try to make it clear in advance what style of game it will be, and ask players to keep that in mind when they come to the table.

[Zman]

Playing Devil's advocate, sure, magic items can tax bounded accuracy. But, let's look at just how much something like a +3 Sword really affects it. Assuming the built in 60% to hit chance, that becomes 75%, or a 25% increase in chance to hit and marginally higher than 25% increase in Damage.

Now, what 5e put in place which is of a huge help is Attune,net, and making it very difficult to get stacking static modifiers. It is possible to stack +3 Armor, a +3 Shield, Ring of Protection, and a Cloak of Protection, sure, +8 over Mundane and Sword and Board, but would be incredibly difficult to do so in game. And actually, the best you could do as a starting character level 17-20 per the table is Cloack of Protection(Uncommon), Ring of Protection(Rare), Shield +3(Very a Rare) and Armor +1(Rare), or a total of +6 over mundane equipment and stuck with Sword and Board. That leaves you with an Uncommon Magic Weapon.

The best you can do weapon wise is a +3 Weapon and a Belt of Giant Strength. And if you follow even the starting character high level rules you get a Avery a Rare Weapon and a Rare Belt.


One simple Houserule I'm using is that Items wth a Plus follow the same rarity as Armor. So a +1 Weapon or Shield is now a Rare Item, not uncommon. It gives you more room to work with with non + items and makes half of the game without them. This Houserule can shift some items up a rarity category, i.e. Scimitar of Speed is now Legendary instead of Very Rare. IMO this is what they should have done to start.

[Boci]

Of course, a character concept depend on having a Hat of Disguise or Boots of Flying. Or most famously, a Cloak or Ring of Invisibilty. If you're not going to reactively grow such a character concept, you're putting a lot of burden on the DM to tailor his world to your character.

I really think you're over estimating what accommodating a single request would be like. If the player hands the DM a 12 point list of what they wish will happen to their character, the encounters they will face, the friends they will make and the loot they will find, sure that's a whole new approach to the game.

But a single "hey can I find X/can I make friends with an orc/can my character at some point become the leader of a trade guild" is peanuts in grand scheme of things, and of those 3, the magical item is by far the easiest to accommodate. Have them find it, have it given to them, or allow them to trade the item they found for it. Easy.

One request per player is typically going to be a total of 5-8. That's not co-operative storytelling, that still very much the DMs story with player input.

[Tanarii]

But a single "hey can I find X/can I make friends with an orc/can my character at some point become the leader of a trade guild" is peanuts in grand scheme of things, and of those 3, the magical item is by far the easiest to accommodate. Have them find it, have it given to them, or allow them to trade the item they found for it. Easy.if a character wants those, why isn't the character looking for it in game? It may or may not be easy. But it works for both extremes of styles, collaborative storytelling, neutral referee, and of course somewhere in between.

If the players wants it just given to them (ie written in as dues ex machina), he's asking the DM to tailor to his character. And that's something that doesn't work very well with a neutral referee style of play.

[ad_hoc]

then why not wait until you find the magic weapon that will become legend, *then* specialize in it?


This. Don't write your character's story before the game even begins.


Maybe they don't want their character to be a blank-slate in terms of what weapon they wield until they find a magical weapon worth it.


What is the point of the game if you have already written the character's story? Just write the novel and be done with it.


What makes no sense to me at all is the fact we have pure combat items in a game where we are explicitly told the game's metrics are balanced without them, and even more egregious, that they are scaling.

For example, if I've seen a dev or other person argue that a +1 weapon is a rare and wondrous thing that remains useful and relevant even to a 20th level character once, I've seen it a thousand times.

OK. Fine. A +1 weapon is an awesome item that any player would be happy to get, because the numbers don't take it into account. Therefore, a +1 weapon is a flat bonus making the character better even if he's 20th.

So...why are there +2 and +3 weapons again?


They aren't required. There could be a +100 item in the DMG and it wouldn't change anything. Just because it is written somewhere doesn't mean it needs to be in the game.

It is strange to me that people complain about +3 items but they don' complain about items like the Deck of Many Things. That is a strange item that will end a campaign. People innately recognize that it doesn't have to be in their game, but they still feel that the game is ruined by the inclusion of other items.

You don't have to have + items at all. That is actually part of 5e design. A great part. Many magic weapons and armour don't have flat bonuses. In 3.x an item needed to be at least +1 to have extra effects. Not so in 5e. Great.


I think the problem is some people are discussing personal preferences as a player and others are discussing personal preference as a DM. Personal preference as a player is easy, play what you like )okay, not if it doesn't fit with the party, but not taking polearm mastery is hardly going to do that). Personal preference as a DM though is trickier. You may prefer random magical items for loot, but a player may not, and in fact their character concept could be hard to realize with this system. And since the DM bears a lion-share of the responsibility for players enjoying the game, its not as simple as just do what you like, because your decision on world design also influence the players.


My preference is the same, player or DM. I don't play the game to pretend I am the most power being in the universe. That would be boring. I don't want to play with a group where the stories are already set either.


. Have them find it, have it given to them, or allow them to trade the item they found for it. Easy.


It can be done, but that doesn't mean it should be done.

[Boci]

What is the point of the game if you have already written the character's story? Just write the novel and be done with it.

How is "Crystal has a magical necromantic spear, many people attribute the items power to her" a fully written story? Does that sound like a fully written story to you? Who are her friends? Her enemies? Does she fight for good or the forces of darkness, or is it not that clear cut? According to you, there should be only one answer to all those questions, and you should be able to tell me them, because by virtue of decided that a magical necromancer spear is part of her character concept tells you everything about her story.

[JoeJ]

How is "Crystal has a magical necromantic spear, many people attribute the items power to her" a fully written story? Does that sound like a fully written story to you? Who are her friends? Her enemies? Does she fight for good or the forces of darkness, or is it not that clear cut? According to you, there should be only one answer to all those questions, and you should be able to tell me them, because by virtue of decided that a magical necromancer spear is part of her character concept tells you everything about her story.

Not all character ideas work well in D&D. For example, almost any concept that involves having a single magical power: shapeshifting, teleport, turning into a being of living flame, etc. is either impossible or extremely difficult to do within the rules.

Take your example of the character with a necromancer spear. At what point in her career does she have this? If she starts with it, how do you balance her with the other PCs in the party? If she gets it later, what should the other PCs get that both maintains balance and fits their character concepts? And how many levels is it okay for her to have to wait before this concept is realized? If we were playing GURPS or M&M, it wouldn't be a problem; she could just spend some of her character points on the item. But in a class/level game like D&D, it's not so easy to make this work.

[ad_hoc]

How is "Crystal has a magical necromantic spear, many people attribute the items power to her" a fully written story? Does that sound like a fully written story to you? Who are her friends? Her enemies? Does she fight for good or the forces of darkness, or is it not that clear cut? According to you, there should be only one answer to all those questions, and you should be able to tell me them, because by virtue of decided that a magical necromancer spear is part of her character concept tells you everything about her story.

The point is that you are writing what is going to happen to your character into the story.

You are deciding ahead of time instead of allowing the character to develop as the story in the game develops.

I find it much more compelling for a character to have found a powerful polearm at level 6 (or whatever) then become a polearm master at level 8 (or whatever) then have that be part of the character's unique story. Rather than deciding at level 1 that the character is a polearm master and will find a powerful polearm.

The former is developing the character through what has happened in the story, the latter is deciding what the character's story is going to be.

If the table dynamic is that magic items are chosen ahead of time then the former isn't likely to happen. I don't want to know what my character is going to be like at level 1.

I don't plan story arcs. I don't plan the character's personality development from the beginning. I know other people do, it has been mentioned in this thread and others. Some people's character concepts include the arcs like 'they are greedy and selfish now, but eventually learn the value of giving'. That defeats teh purpose of the game. Make them greedy to start, see what happens.

[Boci]

The point is that you are writing what is going to happen to your character into the story.

You are deciding ahead of time instead of allowing the character to develop as the story in the game develops.

I find it much more compelling for a character to have found a powerful polearm at level 6 (or whatever) then become a polearm master at level 8 (or whatever) then have that be part of the character's unique story. Rather than deciding at level 1 that the character is a polearm master and will find a powerful polearm.

But then you cannot have any singular weapon be important via background story, which can be problematic, since your character doesn't pop into existent at level one, they have history, training, maybe even a small adventure beforehand.


The former is developing the character through what has happened in the story, the latter is deciding what the character's story is going to be.

Its deciding one aspect yes, just like when you know what archytpe you are going to take, or in previous games, what PC or paragon path you were interested in. Nothing says this is fixed in stone. Chrystal could for example have the soul of a necromancer put inside her and become a necromancer instead of a fighter, at which point the spear being magical is redundant.

Also, one thing about setting authenticity, how many magical items is the 5 strong party finding? Because if its 5, that's a nice coincidence.


At what point in her career does she have this? If she starts with it, how do you balance her with the other PCs in the party?

She doesn't know the command word, without which the weapon's effects are purely cosmetic, but she continues to wield it, convinced she can learn its secrets.


If she gets it later, what should the other PCs get that both maintains balance and fits their character concepts?

Up to them. If its all the same, then some magical item, preferable one they can use.


And how many levels is it okay for her to have to wait before this concept is realized?

Depends how often we meet. Hopefully I can trust the Dm to use their judgement and be reasonable.

Those problems didn't seem so hard to solve.

[JoeJ]

She doesn't know the command word, without which the weapon's effects are purely cosmetic, but she continues to wield it, convinced she can learn its secrets.

So having a necromantic spear she can actually use isn't part of her character concept? Then maybe learning how to activate it can be her final achievement at the end of the campaign?


Up to them. If its all the same, then some magical item, preferable one they can use.

Meaning that the world has to provide 4 or 5 magic items that miraculously are perfect fits for character concepts, just so that Chrystal can have her special spear.


Depends how often we meet. Hopefully I can trust the Dm to use their judgement and be reasonable.

But your idea of reasonable might not match theirs. Some DMs might consider it perfectly reasonable for the spear to have no special abilities until Chrystal gets to 20th level, at which time she manages to awaken it and it becomes an artifact.

[Regitnui]

The point is that you are writing what is going to happen to your character into the story.

You are deciding ahead of time instead of allowing the character to develop as the story in the game develops.

So what you're saying is that characters must be complete blank slates before entering your-as-DM world? No ambitions, no plans for the future? Adventuring to find either a particular magic item or enough magic items to complete a certain task is a perfectly legitimate motivation going in. If a character is looking for a certain magic item, is it unreasonable that the player expects to find it in-game?

Does that also mean players must have no expectations going into your games either? I seem to recall part of d&d being player-DM interaction and cooperation, not the players sitting at the table with a named bunch of numbers and waiting for the DM to show them how they develop.

Admittedly, I've never played a long-term D&D campaign, but I have played many RPGs in many settings. One thing they all have in common is that the character; appearance, personality, history and secrets are all in the hands of the player, to be okayed by the DM. I've never played a character as a complete blank slate. I have always had plans for their overarching development, ideas for how they'd react to other player characters, even a few ideas on how they'd react in situations that challenge their beliefs. The best GMs I've played with have thrown curveballs at me i never saw coming, forcing me and my character to adapt.

I can appreciate that you'd like the game to happen at the table. I can see how you'd prefer low magic games where magic itself is rare and powerful. I can understand most of what you say, but disengaging the player from their character to create a blank slate for the DM's choices to manipulate sounds, frankly, more boring than Sunday evening in Dolurrh's accounting departments.

[Boci]

So having a necromantic spear she can actually use isn't part of her character concept? Then maybe learning how to activate it can be her final achievement at the end of the campaign?

No, because that's not reasonable. See below.


Meaning that the world has to provide 4 or 5 magic items that miraculously are perfect fits for character concepts, just so that Chrystal can have her special spear.

Only if they want them to be. They could be fine with more general magical items. And even if they do need to be customized, if magic items are in play, we already magically finding enough items / party member, so I'm not too sure I buy the inorganic argument.


Some DMs might consider it perfectly reasonable for the spear to have no special abilities until Chrystal gets to 20th level, at which time she manages to awaken it and it becomes an artifact.

Really?
"Part of my character concept is that although they are an assassin, they will eventually learn magic. Could that work?
When do you think that player wanted to gain the ability to cast spells? At level 20, or before? Take a wild guess at what they could reasonable have meant with that request.

It is not reasonable for the DM to accept that a character will gain something and then add it in the post credits without asking first. A reasonable DM would ask first, and thus this whole thing could be avoided.

[JoeJ]

Only if they want them to be. They could be fine with more general magical items. And even if they do need to be customized, if magic items are in play, we already magically finding enough items / party member, so I'm not too sure I buy the inorganic argument.

What I don't buy is that the universe necessarily provides whatever magic items fit the desires of the PCs. As I see it, before play starts you create a character, not a story.


Really?
"Part of my character concept is that although they are an assassin, they will eventually learn magic. Could that work?
When do you think that player wanted to gain the ability to cast spells? At level 20, or before? Take a wild guess at what they could reasonable have meant with that request.

It is not reasonable for the DM to accept that a character will gain something and then add it in the post credits without asking first. A reasonable DM would ask first, and thus this whole thing could be avoided.

What's not reasonable is for you to explicitly leave the question wide open for the DM's judgment and then complain that their judgment didn't match your vision. That's why I asked when she gets the magic spear. And while we're at it, how many other details are in your script that a "reasonable" DM would provide?

And again, an assassin who will eventually learn magic is a story, not just a character. An assassin who wants to learn magic is the character. Whether or not they ever do learn it is is the story that gets discovered during play.

[Boci]

What I don't buy is that the universe necessarily provides whatever magic items fit the desires of the PCs. As I see it, before play starts you create a character, not a story.

Yes, and often times equipment can be integral to the a character. Like Crystal. And the whole in-organic argument doesn't really as unless the DM is rolling every detail of the setting and game. Once you've established that the DM is using thought to design things, like the number of magical items found relating to party size, denying a character concept based on wanting to avoid something that already an integral part of the game is something that a DM should at least try to avoid.

Ultimately if the DM doesn't think Crystal would work, that's fine (if nothing else she clearly won't work if the DM isn't using magical items). But I do think people are over stating the impact a character like Crystal would have on the game.


What's not reasonable is for you to explicitly leave the question wide open for the DM's judgment and then complain that their judgment didn't match your vision.

I'm finding it hard to believe you genuinely find it reasonable for a GM to okay a character concept and then allow have it realized in the end credits without first confirming with the player. This is my character concept, the character I want to play. The concept I want to play. Making it so I cannot play that concept in the game is in no way reasonably to me and I am entirely within my rights to be pissed off with that move.


And while we're at it, how many other details are in your script that a "reasonable" DM would provide?

None. Just the necromantic spear and the ability to use it, since part of the character concept was people thinking she was a mage, whih will be hard is the spear is only cosmetic until level 20th.

[Navigator]

The good thing about the 3.5 system is that we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It'd just be what's your WBL? Okay, now spend it. Encounters were balanced based on this and everyone was happy, except for the 2-3 hours you spent rifling through books, or 15 minutes using my wealth tool.

In 5e, we have the designers basically telling you that a +1 sword should be treated as if it's Excalibur itself, and the players should worship the ground you walk on for giving it to them. Or, they should travel to the other side of the Earth, defeat an impossible monster, then forge something in volcano, etc., to add a d6 of fire damage to it. Then after saying all this, they devote 25% of the DMG to describing individual magic items, a number of which are hilariously game breaking, giving the DM no indication whatsoever how to balance encounters after considering the player's magic items.

When we are talking about magic items in particular, I'll state again that the only reasonable assumption we can make to agree on anything is that player's don't have any magic items. What's my opinion of 5e magic items? They should have provided a "power rating" for each item and had a "power rating by level" and how much the XP budget increases according to level, and made that an optional rule. The current system is outright unacceptable. Basically, as soon as your PCs have 2 or 3 magic items, you may as well throw away the entire XP budget system since they're all breaking bounded accuracy at that point.

SHOULD the PCs get magic items? They certainly do in my games. For me, magic items are a necessary part of the game, and I've unfortunately had to do more home-brewing than I'm comfortable with so I can keep it that way.

[Zman]

The good thing about the 3.5 system is that we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It'd just be what's your WBL? Okay, now spend it. Encounters were balanced based on this and everyone was happy, except for the 2-3 hours you spent rifling through books, or 15 minutes using my wealth tool.



Satire, right? Encounters in 3.5 are not balanced, WBL is an unmitigated disaster, and actively penalized characters especially Martians for not take a super set limited number of choices where Casters did not need WBL and it merely allowed them to break the game open far wider.

[JoeJ]

Yes, and often times equipment can be integral to the a character. Like Crystal. And the whole in-organic argument doesn't really as unless the DM is rolling every detail of the setting and game. Once you've established that the DM is using thought to design things, like the number of magical items found relating to party size, denying a character concept based on wanting to avoid something that already an integral part of the game is something that a DM should at least try to avoid.

Maybe you should try explaining this some other way, because I don't see what your argument is here. Are you saying that the only two possibilities for magic items are rolling randomly or giving the PCs whatever they want?


I'm finding it hard to believe you genuinely find it reasonable for a GM to okay a character concept and then allow have it realized in the end credits without first confirming with the player. This is my character concept, the character I want to play. The concept I want to play. Making it so I cannot play that concept in the game is in no way reasonably to me and I am entirely within my rights to be pissed off with that move.

How is it unreasonable? You haven't explained what your concept is, so how can you complain that I'm not able to read your mind? You're obviously thinking in terms of some sort of a story where this character at some point gets a spear that does something necromantic, but other than than I don't know what you want.


None. Just the necromantic spear and the ability to use it, since part of the character concept was people thinking she was a mage, whih will be hard is the spear is only cosmetic until level 20th.

I have no idea what a "necromantic spear" is, so it would be a little hard for me as a DM to let your character have one. Could you possibly create her as a wizard who uses a spear as her arcane focus.

[ad_hoc]

The good thing about the 3.5 system is that we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It'd just be what's your WBL? Okay, now spend it. Encounters were balanced based on this and everyone was happy, except for the 2-3 hours you spent rifling through books, or 15 minutes using my wealth tool.

In 3.x magic items were the same as mundane equipment. 3.x basically just had a much bigger list of mundane stuff you can buy.

The special items in 3.x were artifacts.

In 5e magic items are special.

It is a different game. The focus is more on story than miniatures battle game.

If you like 3.x you can still play it.

[Boci]

Maybe you should try explaining this some other way, because I don't see what your argument is here. Are you saying that the only two possibilities for magic items are rolling randomly or giving the PCs whatever they want?

No, I'm saying "its inorganic to let you choose a magical item to find in advance" isn't that powerful an argument in a game where a lot of the story's variable (strength of monsters, number of magical items found) is already dependant on the party's strength and size.

Furthermore the DM should try to allow character concept, and I feel most people are overestimating how much would need to be changed to accommodate a character like Crystal.


How is it unreasonable?

Because if I say "I want to play a character with a necromcery spear" it means "I want to play a character with a necromcery spear" which I cannot do if I only get the spear at level 20.


You haven't explained what your concept is, so how can you complain that I'm not able to read your mind? You're obviously thinking in terms of some sort of a story where this character at some point gets a spear that does something necromantic, but other than than I don't know what you want.

There's nothing more to it. She needs to have a magical spear, the magic of the spear needs to be necromantic in aesthetic. I don't care how she acquires, to a reasonable extent I don't care when she acquires it, the character concept just requires her to have one.


I have no idea what a "necromantic spear" is, so it would be a little hard for me as a DM to let your character have one. Could you possibly create her as a wizard who uses a spear as her arcane focus.

No, because Crystal cannot cast magic.

[Navigator]

Satire, right? Encounters in 3.5 are not balanced, WBL is an unmitigated disaster, and actively penalized characters especially Martians for not take a super set limited number of choices where Casters did not need WBL and it merely allowed them to break the game open far wider.


In 3.x magic items were the same as mundane equipment. 3.x basically just had a much bigger list of mundane stuff you can buy.

The special items in 3.x were artifacts.

In 5e magic items are special.

It is a different game. The focus is more on story than miniatures battle game.

If you like 3.x you can still play it.

Yes, ignore all comments I make about the edition in question. Do you both think that the total absence of a way to estimate a player's power when considering magic items is... a good thing? This is satire, right?

Explain to me how 4 10th level PCs with no magic items should have the same XP budget as 4 10th level PCs all with 4 relevant attuned items. How about 3? 2? Even 1?

[Zman]

Yes, ignore all comments I make about the edition in question. Do you both think that the total absence of a way to estimate a player's power when considering magic items is... a good thing? This is satire, right?

Explain to me how 4 10th level PCs with no magic items should have the same XP budget as 4 10th level PCs all with 4 relevant attuned items. How about 3? 2? Even 1?

That didn't actually exist in 3.5e either. 3.5e assumed set magical equipment at set levels. Deviating or choosing more flavorful less optimized items ruined this in terms of CR balance etc.

In 5e, it effectively assume no magical items. Deviating far from that assumptions can alter Car balance etc.

The big difference is that in 5e you are starting from a much more stable and balanced place.

Your previous statement, well having 4 attuned items per PC is cheating, so I'll assume you didn't mean what you said. But yet, having numerous magical items in a party would enhance that party's capabilities and shift them upwards on the CR scale, something that could be done relatively easily and is significantly better than the wide and moronic power variations in 3.5e which never operated as advertised.

[JoeJ]

No, I'm saying "its inorganic to let you choose a magical item to find in advance" isn't that powerful an argument in a game where a lot of the story's variable (strength of monsters, number of magical items found) is already dependant on the party's strength and size.

Furthermore the DM should try to allow character concept, and I feel most people are overestimating how much would need to be changed to accommodate a character like Crystal.

What do you mean by "inorganic?" Why shouldn't any magic items encountered make sense within the world instead of being determined by metagame concepts?


Because if I say "I want to play a character with a necromcery spear" it means "I want to play a character with a necromcery spear" which I cannot do if I only get the spear at level 20.



There's nothing more to it. She needs to have a magical spear, the magic of the spear needs to be necromantic in aesthetic. I don't care how she acquires, to a reasonable extent I don't care when she acquires it, the character concept just requires her to have one.


No, because Crystal cannot cast magic.

Then what does the spear do? What I'm getting is that you don't actually have a character concept, or even know what you're asking for. You mean any spear that shows up as necromantic to Detect Magic will do? Even if it doesn't do anything else? If you don't describe more specifically what you're asking for, then it's pretty much guaranteed that you won't get it.

[Pex]

then why not wait until you find the magic weapon that will become legend, *then* specialize in it?

IMO weapon-specializing feats in older editions are there to do nearly magical things without a magical weapon. To be a Kensai / Sword Saint, and doesn't need a magic weapon because if it. Or you can be the fighter who is well versed in a variety of weapons, then gets his hands on Green Destiny, and has to spend time learning to use it properly. Or even set aside his style to relearn in the face of a powerful enough item.

Also, note almost all legendary / storied magical weapons are rootstock swords from the culture they came from IRL legends. With some cultural variations for fantasy creatures, like axes for Dwarves. Choosing to specialize in Polearms or some other esoteric weapon, then getting bent when the majority of magical weapons found are 1H-swords/axes, the most commonly used weapons in most fantasy settings, stories, and traditional D&D, seems irrational.

Because the player just wants to specialize at 1st level. Why is that so BadWrongFun?

[Sitri]

I find myself in a funny spot on this.

In previous editions I was used to the idea of "If you can buy it you can have it." Ignoring a few short lived games, I have played one long 5e game of maybe about 7-8 months.

In this game, most all the magic items we had were odd marginally useful things we found for a long time. After a while we found a place to reliably get scrolls we wanted. It is starting to turn into a "you can buy what you want" magic item setting.

We were originally really excited about whatever magic items we found, mostly homebrew stuff. Now I look at them and think "Pretty much all this stuff we found sucks." There is a part of me that likes to strengthen my character, but another part that thinks "I miss when I got enjoyment from abstract stuff because it was interesting rather than effective."

[Boci]

What do you mean by "inorganic?" Why shouldn't any magic items encountered make sense within the world instead of being determined by metagame concepts?

Okay, so how many doe a party of 5 find? 5, or 1d6+1. One of those is set by metagame concepts, the other isn't.

And a character concept is generally worth determining 1 tiny aspect of the game off a metagame concept.


Then what does the spear do? What I'm getting is that you don't actually have a character concept, or even know what you're asking for.

So first its "you have already written Crystal's story". Now its "Crystal doesn't actually exist". Both are wrong, Crystal exists, but her story is largely unfinished, the vast majority, because she is designed for a roleplaying game.


You mean any spear that shows up as necromantic to Detect Magic will do? Even if it doesn't do anything else? If you don't describe more specifically what you're asking for, then it's pretty much guaranteed that you won't get it.

I am struggling to think of how I can be clearer.

Crystal is a Fighter, she has no magical abilities. She has a spear. The spear is magical, the type of enchantments upon it produce affect that resemble necromancery spells. People think Crystal can cast spells, but she cannot, its just her spear.

Which part are you having trouble with?

[Pex]

This. Don't write your character's story before the game even begins.


Wait, so now players should not write backstories? Their characters' lives don't exist until the game starts?

[JoeJ]

Okay, so how many doe a party of 5 find? 5, or 1d6+1. One of those is set by metagame concepts, the other isn't.

In my games, magic items usually only show up 1 at a time. And what it is will generally make sense within the world.


Crystal is a Fighter, she has no magical abilities. She has a spear. The spear is magical, the type of enchantments upon it produce affect that resemble necromancery spells. People think Crystal can cast spells, but she cannot, its just her spear.

Which part are you having trouble with?

How about, what, exactly, does the spear do? If it gives her the class abilities of a necromancer in addition to the ones she gets as a fighter, that's fine for an NPC but obscenely broken for a PC.

If you're coming as a player and asking for something, you need to be more specific. A "necromantic spear" can be anything from an artifact to a permanent Nystul's Magic Aura on an otherwise ordinary spear.

[JoeJ]

Wait, so now players should not write backstories? Their characters' lives don't exist until the game starts?

"I have a magic war hammer that was passed down from my grandfather" is a backstory. "I will at some point obtain a magic war hammer" is not.

[Boci]

In my games, magic items usually only show up 1 at a time. And what it is will generally make sense within the world.

And how often do you find them? If its just one / session that means the last character could have to wait up to 5 to get theirs. In the last group I played in that would have meant them going nearly half a year before getting a magic item of their own, possible more. And why do magic items only show up alone? 1 seems pretty arbitrary.


How about, what, exactly, does the spear do?

The exact abilities aren't important. All that is important is that people untrained in magic could think that she was a wizards from the abilities it gave her (and that they be necromantic in aesthetic).


"I have a magic war hammer that was passed down from my grandfather" is a backstory. "I will at some point obtain a magic war hammer" is not.

Cool, so Crystal starts off with the spear, and as soon as she can afford to hire a mage to cast Contact Outer Plane she learns the command word and gains its full power.

[Tanarii]

Because the player just wants to specialize at 1st level. Why is that so BadWrongFun?its not. But choosing to specialize, gaining a benefit that comes with the cost of loss of flexibility, then wanting to skip the loss of flexibility by having the DM Deus Ex you a matching magic item only works for specific narrative styles of play.

By all means specialize in a fighting style or specific weapons (as the edition allows). Then go quest/create/auction-house for a matching magic item in-game, as the rules for that edition allow. But don't expect the DM to drop one in your lap so you can maintain the benefits but not cost, unless everyone at the table signed up for that kind of game.

Edit: to be clear, specializing is a mechanical choice & benefit. Even in a narrative game.

[JoeJ]

And how often do you find them? If its just one / session that means the last character could have to wait up to 5 to get theirs. In the last group I played in that would have meant them going nearly half a year before getting a magic item of their own, possible more. And why do magic items only show up alone? 1 seems pretty arbitrary.

How often varies. Why does it seem arbitrary for there to be at most 1 magic item? There may be more if it seems plausible, especially if they're consumable items. In that case, the number found probably depends on how quickly they defeat the bad guys using them.


The exact abilities aren't important. All that is important is that people untrained in magic could think that she was a wizards from the abilities it gave her (and that they be necromantic in appearance)

But she still has all the class abilities of a fighter? That sounds way too powerful to allow a PC to have, except possibly as an artifact or a one-off item that they lose at the end of the current adventure.


Cool, so Crystal starts off with the spear, and as soon as she can afford to hire a mage to cast Contact Outer Plane she learns the command word and gains its full power.

That works much better than expecting to find it. I'm fine with characters having a magic trinket and gradually learning how to use it. The full power is still limited for balance reasons, though.

[Navigator]

That didn't actually exist in 3.5e either. 3.5e assumed set magical equipment at set levels. Deviating or choosing more flavorful less optimized items ruined this in terms of CR balance etc.

In 5e, it effectively assume no magical items. Deviating far from that assumptions can alter Car balance etc.

The big difference is that in 5e you are starting from a much more stable and balanced place.

Your previous statement, well having 4 attuned items per PC is cheating, so I'll assume you didn't mean what you said. But yet, having numerous magical items in a party would enhance that party's capabilities and shift them upwards on the CR scale, something that could be done relatively easily and is significantly better than the wide and moronic power variations in 3.5e which never operated as advertised.

I agree you with you basically 100%. 3.5's system definitely wasn't perfect because of reasons you said, but at least it was something. I just want an answer from the designers about how much a PCs CR goes up, or some similar system that gauges the power of PCs based on their magic item wealth. Until we get one, we can only assume they have no magical items, which is what I'm advocating. Having any magic items at all is purely DM fiat for everything between zero magic items to Monty Haul campaigns.

As a side note, PCs having 4 attuned items is an absurd example to show the flaw and the need for some guidelines. My point was that all PCs having attuned items would certainly have a higher XP budget, but we have no objective way to figure this out outside of home-brewing a system to keep consistent. Otherwise, getting any magic items at all just means that combat is easier for the party.

[Boci]

Why does it seem arbitrary for there to be at most 1 magic item?

Because reality is random and always 1 is fixed.


But she still has all the class abilities of a fighter? That sounds way too powerful to allow a PC to have, except possibly as an artifact or a one-off item that they lose at the end of the current adventure.

Really?

Casting chill touch 2/short rest, rolling twice for the extra damage from a crit (which manifests as an explosion of dark, cold energy from the spear blade) and being able to raise 1 zombies/long rest that is useless in combat (+1 to attack, 2 damage) but makes a good pack mule.

Alternatively cast Cause Fear 3/long rest and gain 5 temporary hit points whenever you crit (which manifests as ripping the shimmering life force from your opponent which then flows into you), and trapping the soul of the those you kill with the spear blade.

Either of those way too powerful?

Either one of those could work, as could countless others. The exact details are not important, only that untrained people could misunderstand. And the keyword in the post of mine you quoted was untrained in magic. I'm sure a wizard would realize Crystal just has a magic weapon and isn't a mage herself.


That works much better than expecting to find it. I'm fine with characters having a magic trinket and gradually learning how to use it. The full power is still limited for balance reasons, though.

Okay fine, makes no difference to me. Finding it in game was in case the DM didn't want us starting with any special items from your backstory.

[georgie_leech]

But she still has all the class abilities of a fighter? That sounds way too powerful to allow a PC to have, except possibly as an artifact or a one-off item that they lose at the end of the current adventure.


Obviously magical and necromancer in appearance do not mean they have to be extremely powerful. Here:

Crystal's Spear +0 magic Spear. Requires attunement.
This magical spear has a shaft carved from a single piece of ivory, and a sharp head made of an unknown black metal. The head meets the shaft at a carving of a human skull. When swung, it trails of wisps of fog that quickly disperse. When this spear strikes an enemy, it drains their life, dealing an additional 1d4 damage and giving the wielder an equal number of temporary hit points. These points stack with themselves, up to a maximum of 8. Once per day, the wielder may cause one of their attacks to lose the base damage but gain the effects of a 3rd Level Vampiric Touch spell. When this effect is used, a ghostly wail can be heard emanating from the spear.

Is this game breaking? And to Boci, is the sort of thing that would fit your requirements?

[Boci]

Is this game breaking? And to Boci, is the sort of thing that would fit your requirements?

Yeah, that would suit Crystal fine.

[MaxWilson]

When we are talking about magic items in particular, I'll state again that the only reasonable assumption we can make to agree on anything is that player's don't have any magic items. What's my opinion of 5e magic items? They should have provided a "power rating" for each item and had a "power rating by level" and how much the XP budget increases according to level, and made that an optional rule. The current system is outright unacceptable. Basically, as soon as your PCs have 2 or 3 magic items, you may as well throw away the entire XP budget system since they're all breaking bounded accuracy at that point.

Throwing away a worthless system that many DMs already throw away isn't much of a loss.

[georgie_leech]

Yeah, that would suit Crystal fine.

Great. To those saying that all magic items must make sense in the world of the game, what's the problem with using this as the magic weapon of the guardian of some long lost crypt of a powerful wizard in place of a +1 Greataxe, or maybe granted by an Inevitable as a prize for ending the life of a Necromancer who had been using magic to unnaturally prolong their life, or even just in a Dragon's hoard and have it be the weapon of some previous legend long since forgotten? In short, why does the player having this sort of weapon be a part of their concept prevent it from making sense in world?

[MaxWilson]

And how often do you find them? If its just one / session that means the last character could have to wait up to 5 to get theirs. In the last group I played in that would have meant them going nearly half a year before getting a magic item of their own, possible more. And why do magic items only show up alone? 1 seems pretty arbitrary.

"Get theirs"? There is no "theirs." There is just "You guys found the Earth gem! Yay! It has these powers. Are you going to give it back to the Enkidu or keep it? If you keep it, who keeps it?"

[Boci]

"Get theirs"? There is no "theirs."

Of course there is. "Theirs" is the one the party decides they should get. Typically the fighter doesn't get another magical item the party find when 3 other members still don't have a single one yet.


Great. To those saying that all magic items must make sense in the world of the game, what's the problem with using this as the magic weapon of the guardian of some long lost crypt of a powerful wizard in place of a +1 Greataxe, or maybe granted by an Inevitable as a prize for ending the life of a Necromancer who had been using magic to unnaturally prolong their life, or even just in a Dragon's hoard ad have it be the weapon of some previous legend long since forgotten? In short, why does the player having this sort of weapon be a part of their concept prevent it from making sense in world?

Plus if you want things to make sense in universe, it doesn't make too much sense to only give magical items at the end of epic quests. Take the Hobbit for example, where Bilbo trips over the most powerful artifact in the setting, and even if he hadn't, Gollum was at best CR 1.

[MaxWilson]

Of course there is. "Theirs" is the one the party decides they should get. Typically the fighter doesn't get another magical item the party find when 3 other members still don't have a single one yet.

At my table, for some reason the druid/monk winds up with most of the magic items and all the party gold. It causes (hilarious) problems when the player decides to play his barbarian that night instead of the monk, and they realize they don't have any money because Jandar isn't here.

[Boci]

At my table, for some reason the druid/monk winds up with most of the magic items and all the party gold. It causes (hilarious) problems when the player decides to play his barbarian that night instead of the monk, and they realize they don't have any money because Jandar isn't here.

And where does the druid/monk go when they aren't being played?

[MaxWilson]

And where does the druid/monk go when they aren't being played?

If they're on their spelljamming ship, he typically goes to sleep in the crow's nest. I'm probably too lenient about letting the player temporarily bring him back onscreen to dispense money--the scenarios would be even funnier if I just said, "Jandar is sound asleep and you can't seem to wake him."

[Boci]

If they're on their spelljamming ship, he typically goes to sleep in the crow's nest. I'm probably too lenient about letting the player temporarily bring him back onscreen to dispense money--the scenarios would be even funnier if I just said, "Jandar is sound asleep and you can't seem to wake him."

Technically that makes it easier to borrow cash and or magical swag, not harder.

[Mr.Moron]

"I have a magic war hammer that was passed down from my grandfather" is a backstory. "I will at some point obtain a magic war hammer" is not.

It's also worth noting that for any given game some backstories may not be appropriate.

If the game is going to be a gritty down to earth survival game. "I'm a barbarian who talks only in puns and gets my powers from a magic lucha mask" is probably not appropriate.
If the game is meant to be a heroic game where you focus on saving children, helping out people in town, and generally just being classic boy scout good guys "I'm a broken man whose entirely family was killed by pirates and I live only to get revenge by killing lawbreakers as painfully as I can" is probably not appropriate.

By the same token If the game is meant to start at level 1, with a generally flat power curve in a setting where magic items are special "I have a magic war hammer that was passed down by grandfather" might not be an appropriate backstory.

There are also plenty of games where such a backstory would be fine. It's just that because an something can justify a certain element (in this case magic items) in one game doesn't mean one should try to use it to justify that element in all games.

[Baptor]

The good thing about the 3.5 system is that we wouldn't even be having this conversation. It'd just be what's your WBL? Okay, now spend it. Encounters were balanced based on this and everyone was happy, except for the 2-3 hours you spent rifling through books, or 15 minutes using my wealth tool.

In 5e, we have the designers basically telling you that a +1 sword should be treated as if it's Excalibur itself, and the players should worship the ground you walk on for giving it to them. Or, they should travel to the other side of the Earth, defeat an impossible monster, then forge something in volcano, etc., to add a d6 of fire damage to it. Then after saying all this, they devote 25% of the DMG to describing individual magic items, a number of which are hilariously game breaking, giving the DM no indication whatsoever how to balance encounters after considering the player's magic items.

When we are talking about magic items in particular, I'll state again that the only reasonable assumption we can make to agree on anything is that player's don't have any magic items. What's my opinion of 5e magic items? They should have provided a "power rating" for each item and had a "power rating by level" and how much the XP budget increases according to level, and made that an optional rule. The current system is outright unacceptable. Basically, as soon as your PCs have 2 or 3 magic items, you may as well throw away the entire XP budget system since they're all breaking bounded accuracy at that point.

SHOULD the PCs get magic items? They certainly do in my games. For me, magic items are a necessary part of the game, and I've unfortunately had to do more home-brewing than I'm comfortable with so I can keep it that way.

This was the point I was trying to make myself. I think you made it better. Thanks.

And yes I too realize 3.5 system wasn't perfect, but it was a system with rules and metrics. If I as a DM am making a treasure horde and want to introduce a vorpal sword I can look at the WBL and say either "yes, this is appropriate" or "no, it is not."

Now in 5e they say, "Give out as much or as little as you want." and even include tables where it is possible to gain such legendary items at unbelievably low levels. They say this is OK if I want it to be. But a +3 vorpal blade is not OK at level 5. We all know that. So essentially yeah, the DMG has nothing helpful for me.

[Kane0]

In my group we've just gone from a game featuring vast hoards of magic items to one where a spell scroll or +0 weapon are considered artifact level powerful, and magic in general is only a recent addition to the world. I've found both to be equally enjoyable, for different reasons. For us 5e handles both of these games very well, and we don't feel as though the presence of magic items is a detriment at all.

I don't see what the big fuss is about.

[Pex]

The exact abilities aren't important. All that is important is that people untrained in magic could think that she was a wizards from the abilities it gave her (and that they be necromantic in aesthetic).




Now, it is a fair point to be circumspect on what the spear does. If the character is a fighter throughout her levels but when the magic of the spear is finally released she casts Necromancy spells in addition as a wizard of equal level, that would be too much. The problem is the power, not the fact it's a magic item. However, it could work if the character is an Eldritch Knight with the power of the staff allowing her to select Necromancy spells instead of Evocation spells. At higher levels the staff provides the abilities of the Necromancy School, say each ability comes in 3 levels higher than a single class Necromancer Wizard would get them. The item is revealed to be Legendary and peak the interest of NPCs, good and bad, some allies, some not. It may require the character spend two attuned slots on it for balance with respect to other magic items that will exist in the campaign or just the normal one if the campaign is of high power with the other payers having as interesting items of their own.


its not. But choosing to specialize, gaining a benefit that comes with the cost of loss of flexibility, then wanting to skip the loss of flexibility by having the DM Deus Ex you a matching magic item only works for specific narrative styles of play.

By all means specialize in a fighting style or specific weapons (as the edition allows). Then go quest/create/auction-house for a matching magic item in-game, as the rules for that edition allow. But don't expect the DM to drop one in your lap so you can maintain the benefits but not cost, unless everyone at the table signed up for that kind of game.

Edit: to be clear, specializing is a mechanical choice & benefit. Even in a narrative game.

How horrible it must be for a DM to indulge a player's sense of what's fun for him.

[Boci]

Now, it is a fair point to be circumspect on what the spear does. If the character is a fighter throughout her levels but when the magic of the spear is finally released she casts Necromancy spells in addition as a wizard of equal level, that would be too much.

Yes, that would. Why would you assume that's what I'm after? Even if you're going to base the abilities off a character class for some reason, the more reasonable would be the spear gives her eldritch knight as a second archetype, but she can only ready necromancery spells, which would still be rather OP, but at least more reasonable than the non-existent request for being able to cast as well as a wizard.

I didn't say what the spear did because the exact details aren't important. I posted two sample models, georgie_leech posted a third one which would have also works. None of these three seem problematic to me.

[JoeJ]

Because reality is random and always 1 is fixed.

But usually 0 and only occasionally 1 is not fixed.


Really?

Casting chill touch 2/short rest, rolling twice for the extra damage from a crit (which manifests as an explosion of dark, cold energy from the spear blade) and being able to raise 1 zombies/long rest that is useless in combat (+1 to attack, 2 damage) but makes a good pack mule.

Alternatively cast Cause Fear 3/long rest and gain 5 temporary hit points whenever you crit (which manifests as ripping the shimmering life force from your opponent which then flows into you), and trapping the soul of the those you kill with the spear blade.

Either of those way too powerful?

Either one of those could work, as could countless others. The exact details are not important, only that untrained people could misunderstand. And the keyword in the post of mine you quoted was untrained in magic. I'm sure a wizard would realize Crystal just has a magic weapon and isn't a mage herself.

Now see, when you get more specific then I can make a much better decision that just trying to guess what you mean by "reasonable." I would decide whether or not either of those is OP based on the character's level and what the other PCs in the party have or can do. I can tell you right now, though, that I wouldn't allow you to start at 1st level with either of those.


Plus if you want things to make sense in universe, it doesn't make too much sense to only give magical items at the end of epic quests. Take the Hobbit for example, where Bilbo trips over the most powerful artifact in the setting, and even if he hadn't, Gollum was at best CR 1.

It also didn't make much sense, however, for Sting, Orcrist, and Glamdring to all be sitting in a troll hole, unused by the trolls. If trolls can use elven blades, why didn't they? If they can't, why keep them?

[Tanarii]

How horrible it must be for a DM to indulge a player's sense of what's fun for him.It affects every player at the table. If the other players are expecting a neutral DM referee, but find out he's indulging a player, that game is no longer about tough strategic play.

Like I said, make sure everyone at the table sat down for that kind of game. And vice-versa of course. If I find the DM and other players aren't there for a strategy/war-game/combat-as-war play, but rather to kill some orcs and munch some cheesy puffs it'd be poor form for me to object. Especially since that's a far more common way to play. ;) Of course, I probably should have found that out before I came to the game ...

(note: This basically boils down to strategic-play vs casual vs storyteller. Which is why I'm taking pains in this post to point out it affects the entire table, but not claim it's superior to play the way I prefer.)

[Boci]

But usually 0 and only occasionally 1 is not fixed.

Fair enough, but its still far


Now see, when you get more specific then I can make a much better decision that just trying to guess what you mean by "reasonable."

I dunno, I feel you could have hazarded a guess that "reasonable" included an awareness of balance and was not "I want all the benefits of the fighter class and most of the wizard". That seems like a possible interpretation of "reasonable".

The reason I was being vague is because I didn't need to state it, the DM could, because I didn't need the magical item to follow a custom design, just a specific theme with some guidelines.


I would decide whether or not either of those is OP based on the character's level and what the other PCs in the party have or can do. I can tell you right now, though, that I wouldn't allow you to start at 1st level with either of those.

It seems like you are just finding problems that don't exist. I specifically mentioned that without the command word it would only have cosmetic effects, precisely for if the game started at level one yet the DM felt it would be better is Crystal already had the spear. Of course I could start the game with a magical items that has any real power. I assume I also cannot start the game at level 3 when everyone else is 1st.


It also didn't make much sense, however, for Sting, Orcrist, and Glamdring to all be sitting in a troll hole, unused by the trolls. If trolls can use elven blades, why didn't they? If they can't, why keep them?

Because they look pretty and are maybe they're useful as a tooth pick? The trolls also had gold coins, despite not needing the currency.

[Pex]

It affects every player at the table. If the other players are expecting a neutral DM referee, but find out he's indulging a player, that game is no longer about tough strategic play.

Like I said, make sure everyone at the table sat down for that kind of game. And vice-versa of course. If I find the DM and other players aren't there for a strategy/war-game/combat-as-war play, but rather to kill some orcs and munch some cheesy puffs it'd be poor form for me to object. Especially since that's a far more common way to play. ;) Of course, I probably should have found that out before I came to the game ...

(note: This basically boils down to strategic-play vs casual vs storyteller. Which is why I'm taking pains in this post to point out it affects the entire table, but not claim it's superior to play the way I prefer.)

Or . . .

The DM can indulge all his players equally for each player's individual sense of fun all the while ensuring balance of the PCs with respect to each other. DMs are capable of doing that.

You're also edging close to Stormwind Fallacy. Not there, but I see it on the horizon. Liking to have magic items also does not prohibit liking to engage the gameworld and roleplay for an Oscar.

[Kite474]

Its always interesting to see everyone's thoughts about this. Unfortunately I cant comment do to how radically different my game operates from the norm. I mean hell we burned through 2 deck of many things, I'm walking around with a +6 sword, the clerics got a cubic gate and half the party has at least one evolving item. I will admit it does cause things to feel absurd sometimes. Especially with the poor ranger who because of the gate and my sword lost all mechanical niches:smallfrown:

[Tanarii]

o
Or . . .

The DM can indulge all his players equally for each player's individual sense of fun all the while ensuring balance of the PCs with respect to each other. DMs are capable of doing that.Not in a strategic combat-as-war grognard-style wargame campaign, he can't. If he indulges anyone, the entire campaign becomes pointless for the stated goal for all players. That type of game requires both a neutral DM referee, and players working under the same rules and degree of challenge as a team to survive.

It'd be like playing a coop-board game (Pandemic, Xcom) and allowing one player to bend the rules in his favor. It reduces the challenge and difficulty for all players, robbing them of a clean win.

[georgie_leech]

oNot in a strategic combat-as-war grognard-style wargame campaign, he can't. If he indulges anyone, the entire campaign becomes pointless for the stated goal for all players. That type of game requires both a neutral DM referee, and players working under the same rules and degree of challenge as a team to survive.

It'd be like playing a coop-board game (Pandemic, Xcom) and allowing one player to bend the rules in his favor. It reduces the challenge and difficulty for all players, robbing them of a clean win.

Yes, if it's Combat as War, they shouldn't. If it's not, fudging equally is fine. Conversely, if it's not Combat as War, the DM probably shouldn't be having the enemies respond en masse to an attack on the dungeon. Obviously the style of the campaign will inform how the DM handles treasure.

[Tanarii]

Obviously the style of the campaign will inform how the DM handles treasure.Absolutely. I've run a game before with one player, where we were basically writing his characters story. I've also done horror, orc-killing & pizza, political intrigue, serial adventure (ala Star Trek or any TV show), combat-as-war sandbox, and dungeon-as-a-boardgame. They all require totally different magic item rules, as well as lots of other variations.

This thread has eone me lots of good, because it's shown me the root for my preferred magic item style.

[Boci]

oNot in a strategic combat-as-war grognard-style wargame campaign, he can't.

I'd say he can. The idea that a Combat-as-War game falls apart because of one tweak to the rules that allows a certain character concept to be realized is ludicrous, especially since there is a handy divide between character creation and gameplay. The DM simply has to clarify that he is your friend during character creation and leveling up, but a neutral referee during gameplay.

[Pex]

oNot in a strategic combat-as-war grognard-style wargame campaign, he can't. If he indulges anyone, the entire campaign becomes pointless for the stated goal for all players. That type of game requires both a neutral DM referee, and players working under the same rules and degree of challenge as a team to survive.

It'd be like playing a coop-board game (Pandemic, Xcom) and allowing one player to bend the rules in his favor. It reduces the challenge and difficulty for all players, robbing them of a clean win.

If all the players have the same stated goal for the campaign then whatever indulges they have would contribute to maintain that stated goal. In the off chance a player suggests something that conflicts, he'd be shown how it doesn't work, he'd say "Oh right, yeah, forget it.", and move on.

[Tanarii]

I'd say he can. The idea that a Combat-as-War game falls apart because of one tweak to the rules that allows a certain character concept to be realized is ludicrous, especially since there is a handy divide between character creation and gameplay. The DM simply has to clarify that he is your friend during character creation and leveling up, but a neutral referee during gameplay.
We're talking about finding magic items during gameplay here, aren't we?

[Boci]

We're talking about finding magic items during gameplay here, aren't we?

Well no, if that would be problematic for the game then PC can start with the the item from their backstory (maybe requiring a command word/something before you can get its power). Although in functionality there is very little difference between the two.

I don't buy that a Combat-as-War game would suffer from PCs getting the right kind of magic weapons. The DMs doesn't have to do it, but I don't buy that their hands are tied and the whole feel of the game is lost because they allowed a character concept.

[Tanarii]

It suffers because you're allowing a mechanical advantage (specializing) without the normal corresponding disadvantage (harder to find appropriate magic items). And when you remove disadvantages for any player indulgently, you're making the game correspondingly easier for the entire party. If someone else's character gets an unfair advantage vs the baseline rules, my chance to win within the rules is taken away from me.

[Boci]

It suffers because you're allowing a mechanical advantage (specializing) without the normal corresponding disadvantage (harder to find appropriate magic items). And when you remove disadvantages for any player indulgently, you're making the game correspondingly easier for the entire party. If someone else's character gets an unfair advantage vs the baseline rules, my chance to win within the rules is taken away from me.

But D&D isn't a game of static power. Party composition and tactics, as well as optimization are all variables, and party strengths and weakness vs. the monster's, so the additional variable of allowing specialization without a disadvantage doesn't seem like that big a deal. The DM is going to have factors to consider from encounter design with or without, regardless of whether he's using his own or a modules.

[MaxWilson]

Technically that makes it easier to borrow cash and or magical swag, not harder.

Somehow I imagine his player would resist that idea. If the others did it anyway, Jandar would probably retaliate.

================================================


Now in 5e they say, "Give out as much or as little as you want." and even include tables where it is possible to gain such legendary items at unbelievably low levels. They say this is OK if I want it to be. But a +3 vorpal blade is not OK at level 5. We all know that. So essentially yeah, the DMG has nothing helpful for me.

Uh, no we don't. In the opening scenes of my campaign I gave out a Robe of the Archmagi, Wand of Web, and Sword of Life Stealing. I don't remember what level everyone started at (I had them roll 1d3 for starting level) but they had powerful magic items early on, and now at 8th through 14th level (varies by PC) they have probably twice that many, total. Giving out powerful items early (looted off the body of the Court Wizard who had just died, along with the kingdom's entire army except for the PCs) did not wreck the campaign.

So, I have no problems with a +3 Vorpal Blade at level 5, if that makes you happy. But I wouldn't want to see more than one of them, because personally I really hate magic items.

===============================================


It suffers because you're allowing a mechanical advantage (specializing) without the normal corresponding disadvantage (harder to find appropriate magic items). And when you remove disadvantages for any player indulgently, you're making the game correspondingly easier for the entire party. If someone else's character gets an unfair advantage vs the baseline rules, my chance to win within the rules is taken away from me.

You could make up a corresponding mechanical disadvantage though. "Okay, Crystal has a magic necromantic sword, and I have one karma point with which to make your life miserable at some future point." In the mood I'm currently in, that probably means "Crystal catches the attention of a bored lich, who will regularly show up to Cherry Tap her in various amusing (to it) ways, although it will save actually killing her and/or any other PCs for a special occasion." For example, "I'm going to beat you with this mundane longsword, which I'm not even proficient in." If the PCs manage to survive that one and/or beat the lich, next time it may permit itself the use of one spell. (Vampiric Touch?) If they die to the longsword, though, next time it may keep its eyes closed the whole time.

Either way, the PCs are severely weakened and easy prey for other monsters that may happen along.

[Regitnui]

I keep seeing the word "win" applied to DMs and Players. You can't win D&D. You can finish well, but that's not winning any more than Richard Branson won life instead of Freddy Mercury. Characters can win encounters, but the best word for the campaign is succeed.

[Tanarii]

I keep seeing the word "win" applied to DMs and Players. You can't win D&D.Bull****. You may choose to play in ways where you can't win D&D, but I and most of the players I play non-AL games with play those games to win.

Mostly by staying the hell alive in the face of great danger. But also by achieving objectives, defeating enemies, and gaining power. All of which we only find rewarding if both challenging, and more importantly done without special DM dispensation or indulgence. We want to overcome adversity due to our wits. That's how we win D&D.

[CantigThimble]

You say without special indulgence from the DM but he's the one designing the world from the ground up so your characters will be able to achieve your goals. I don't see the significance of him tailoring obstacles for your party but not loot.

[Socratov]

I keep seeing the word "win" applied to DMs and Players. You can't win D&D. You can finish well, but that's not winning any more than Richard Branson won life instead of Freddy Mercury. Characters can win encounters, but the best word for the campaign is succeed.


Bull****. You may choose to play in ways where you can't win D&D, but I and most of the players I play non-AL games with play those games to win.

Mostly by staying the hell alive in the face of great danger. But also by achieving objectives, defeating enemies, and gaining power. All of which we only find rewarding if both challenging, and more importantly done without special DM dispensation or indulgence. We want to overcome adversity due to our wits. That's how we win D&D.

I agree with both of you since you actually agree, just disagree in how you name it.

I think we can say that 'winning' at DnD is a combination of achieving the succes conditions of quests (of which one supposedly is to stay alive, unless otherwise planned), to succesfully reach objectives in campaigns and dare I say it, by all having fun. coudl you win at DnD by points? Money? or something else like some sort of sport? I don't think so. but I do think you can win, even definitely lose, at DnD.

[Broken Twin]

I tend to run my games with magic items being semi-rare. The party might find a couple every level or so. A big difference between how I distribute magic loot and what I'm seeing here is that, for the most part, I prefer to give out utility items, and I rarely deliver items with static bonuses. Sure, the party may find a flaming sword, but they're equally likely to find a compass that points towards the holder's quarry, or a goblet that purifies any liquid put into it. At MOST, they might find a +1 armor or weapon. Because I find static bonuses boring, and boring and magic should not share the same space. Magic items should have flavour, purpose, and history. Then again, I'm a big proponent of characters growing in versatility over straight power.

As to allowing a starting PC to start with a magic item... I dunno. They'd have to give me an amazing justification for it, and it would have to be of limited power (potentially growing in power over the course of the game). But that's mostly because I don't believe it would be fair to the other players, and I know they would probably be upset about it.

In general though, how prominent magic gear is within your group is entirely up to your group's individual preferences. You want to play a Monty-Haul game with all the loot randomly rolled? Go for it! You want to play a low magic game where the few items you receive are explicitly tailored to the people that receive them? Go for it! Some combination or middle point of the first two, or something else entirely? Go for it! As long as your group has fun, who cares what other people think?

[Baptor]

Uh, no we don't. In the opening scenes of my campaign I gave out a Robe of the Archmagi, Wand of Web, and Sword of Life Stealing. I don't remember what level everyone started at (I had them roll 1d3 for starting level) but they had powerful magic items early on, and now at 8th through 14th level (varies by PC) they have probably twice that many, total. Giving out powerful items early (looted off the body of the Court Wizard who had just died, along with the kingdom's entire army except for the PCs) did not wreck the campaign.

So, I have no problems with a +3 Vorpal Blade at level 5, if that makes you happy. But I wouldn't want to see more than one of them, because personally I really hate magic items.

But...you are the DM of that campaign. If you are the DM and you hate magic items, why do the players have magic items, let alone legendary ones at low level?

Also, you say it didn't break the game. I'll buy that if you started throwing CR 4's and 5's at them at level 3, but if you are going to say their battles with goblins were "fair and balanced" while they ran around with legendaries, I call shenanigans.

[Regitnui]

I agree with both of you since you actually agree, just disagree in how you name it.

I think we can say that 'winning' at DnD is a combination of achieving the succes conditions of quests (of which one supposedly is to stay alive, unless otherwise planned), to succesfully reach objectives in campaigns and dare I say it, by all having fun. coudl you win at DnD by points? Money? or something else like some sort of sport? I don't think so. but I do think you can win, even definitely lose, at DnD.

Yeah, but that's not winning anymore than a guy landing a job as CEO's assistant, seducing his boss' model daughter and getting a Ferrari as a company car is winning. Accurate, in a sense, i supposed, but much like calling the ocean 'wet'.

[Pex]

It suffers because you're allowing a mechanical advantage (specializing) without the normal corresponding disadvantage (harder to find appropriate magic items). And when you remove disadvantages for any player indulgently, you're making the game correspondingly easier for the entire party. If someone else's character gets an unfair advantage vs the baseline rules, my chance to win within the rules is taken away from me.

You're assuming one player is being treated differently than everyone else which assumes facts not in evidence. You're assuming the other players will automatically resent the player in question playing the concept he wants which assumes facts not in evidence.

[Tanarii]

You're assuming one player is being treated differently than everyone else which assumes facts not in evidence. You're assuming the other players will automatically resent the player in question playing the concept he wants which assumes facts not in evidence.I'm assuming one player is being indulged vs the baseline rules. But I'm also talking about strict rules, which is why I brought up a specific style of play that uses them. If all players are being indulged vs strict rules, they're not playing that type of game in the first place.

[MaxWilson]

You say without special indulgence from the DM but he's the one designing the world from the ground up so your characters will be able to achieve your goals. I don't see the significance of him tailoring obstacles for your party but not loot.

Sandbox SMs don't tailor obstacles either. The Tomb of Horrors is the same content with a first level fighter as a twentieth level cleric. The DM's only responsibility is to telegraph its deadliness to the players so they don't stumble into it by accident, but even that can be built into the environment instead of tailored.

[CantigThimble]

Sandbox SMs don't tailor obstacles either. The Tomb of Horrors is the same content with a first level fighter as a twentieth level cleric. The DM's only responsibility is to telegraph its deadliness to the players so they don't stumble into it by accident, but even that can be built into the environment instead of tailored.

Yes, there will be things that are too hard or too easy for the party as part of the world but DMs will also have some plot hooks that lead to encounters that are inexplicably appropriately challenging for the PCs. Part of the standard suspension of disbelief in RPGs is that the story will lead to enough encounters that are appropriate for level 3 before you run into encounters appropriate for level 4. (there's some overlap in those encounters but the point stands) There might be encounters that are too dangerous but they always have some way to avoid or escape them, at least until your party can handle them. Unless your DM is a conglomeration of donjon and random encounter tables then the world will be tailored to some extent to suit the PCs he has and the story the DM/players want to tell.

[MaxWilson]

But...you are the DM of that campaign. If you are the DM and you hate magic items, why do the players have magic items, let alone legendary ones at low level?

Also, you say it didn't break the game. I'll buy that if you started throwing CR 4's and 5's at them at level 3, but if you are going to say their battles with goblins were "fair and balanced" while they ran around with legendaries, I call shenanigans.

I gave out magic items despite my hatred for them because, obviously, I'm not a player in that campaign, so what I hate doesn't matter.

Who said they were fighting goblins? You did notice that (almost) everybody else in the 8000 man army was dead, right? They were facing an invasion of thousands of hobgoblins, for one thing, although they didn't really deal with that decisively until a few months later. At third level I believe they volunteered to investigate a missing village, fought a neogi Great Old Master and a few hatchlings that erupted from its belly during combat, and then set up and fought an ambush of eight neogis on siege weaponry, eleven umber hulks, and an eighth level neogi wizard, when the neogi came back to pick up their hatchlings. Then they weren't third level any more.

I think the Wand of Web might have been used during the ambush, but other than that the magic items had zero impact that I recall on the third-level fights. Mostly it was about planning, sewing caltrops, setting up traps, and troop management of the eighteen troops they managed to borrow from the king for this ambush.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, there will be things that are too hard or too easy for the party as part of the world but DMs will also have some plot hooks that lead to encounters that are inexplicably appropriately challenging for the PCs. Part of the standard suspension of disbelief in RPGs is that the story will lead to enough encounters that are appropriate for level 3 before you run into encounters appropriate for level 4. (there's some overlap in those encounters but the point stands) There might be encounters that are too dangerous but they always have some way to avoid or escape them, at least until your party can handle them. Unless your DM is a conglomeration of donjon and random encounter tables then the world will be tailored to some extent to suit the PCs he has and the story the DM/players want to tell.

You're assuming too much about how other people play. I know the style you're talking about, and I hate it and refuse to play it or inflict it on my players. You're claiming that everyone plays that way but it just isn't true.

[Socratov]

Yeah, but that's not winning anymore than a guy landing a job as CEO's assistant, seducing his boss' model daughter and getting a Ferrari as a company car is winning. Accurate, in a sense, i supposed, but much like calling the ocean 'wet'.

You don't call that winning? I'd personally call that snorting dried, powderized tigerblood while Charlie sheen is fanboying all over you.

[CantigThimble]

You're assuming too much about how other people play. I know the style you're talking about, and I hate it and refuse to play it or inflict it on my players. You're claiming that everyone plays that way but it just isn't true.

I apologize if I've made incorrect assumptions and at this point I'm just confused. If the DM includes no encounters that the PCs can possibly win how is the game supposed to function? Regardless of how hard the PCs need to work to find those encounters or make them winnable they need to exist for the game to progress mechanically.

[Pex]

I'm assuming one player is being indulged vs the baseline rules. But I'm also talking about strict rules, which is why I brought up a specific style of play that uses them. If all players are being indulged vs strict rules, they're not playing that type of game in the first place.

Then your problem is with the notion of the DM favoring one player over everyone else, a problem not in dispute, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with liking to have magic items.

[Tanarii]

Then your problem is with the notion of the DM favoring one player over everyone else, a problem not in dispute, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with liking to have magic items.No, it really isn't. It's to do with the DM making indulgences for *any* player in that type of game. It doesn't matter if it's one player or all the players. If the players are sitting down to take a challenge based on strict rules and a neutral DM referee, and the DM is hand-waving exceptions or indulgences to any or all, it's a problem. Randomness of magic items is an inherent balancing factor against specialization at the cost of flexibility, so it falls into the problems with indulgences category.

Note: It's not as common to play that way any more, but it was the baseline assumption of D&D originally. And you can still see that it's assumed throughout large parts of the game.

[rlc]

Wait, so now players should not write backstories? Their characters' lives don't exist until the game starts?

I guess we should throw out the entire background section.

[MaxWilson]

I apologize if I've made incorrect assumptions and at this point I'm just confused. If the DM includes no encounters that the PCs can possibly win how is the game supposed to function? Regardless of how hard the PCs need to work to find those encounters or make them winnable they need to exist for the game to progress mechanically.

In order to usefully respond to your question, I think I need to know more about where you're coming from. What do you already know about running a sandbox campaign, and where specifically does your confusion about not tailoring come in? One reason I'm confused is that a couple posts ago you showed some awareness of a few of the elements involved in running and playing sandboxes (don't have to always fight; don't have to always win; run away!; random tables) but now you profess to be confused as to how the game can even function. Are you claiming that sandboxes are not fun for you, or are you claiming that sandboxes cannot work for anyone? Where did this requirement come from that every interaction has to be a combat; every combat has to be life or death; and death is unacceptable?

Once I know where you are coming from I will be in a better position to answer your questions.

In the meantime, I leave you with the following tale of an unwinnable encounter which nevertheless produced huge amounts of enjoyment, at the time and for decades thereafter: http://www.dndadventure.com/html/articles/gaming_stories.html

[rlc]

its not. But choosing to specialize, gaining a benefit that comes with the cost of loss of flexibility, then wanting to skip the loss of flexibility by having the DM Deus Ex you a matching magic item only works for specific narrative styles of play.

By all means specialize in a fighting style or specific weapons (as the edition allows). Then go quest/create/auction-house for a matching magic item in-game, as the rules for that edition allow. But don't expect the DM to drop one in your lap so you can maintain the benefits but not cost, unless everyone at the table signed up for that kind of game.

Edit: to be clear, specializing is a mechanical choice & benefit. Even in a narrative game.

Also, I think that the major misunderstanding here is that you're arguing that people should have to do special things to get special things and other people are arguing that they want to be able to get special things. In other words, the two sides aren't even having the same argument. People who are arguing in favor of special items, at least in this thread, aren't saying that they want anything dropped into their lap.

[CantigThimble]

Well, you're playing D&D right? 90% of the mechanics are based around combat and characters becoming more powerful as a result. Unless you get all of your XP from roleplaying then at some point the players need to fight something and win. Therefore regardless of the setting a winnable encounter must exist. The party might have to avoid a dozen encounters that are too hard then set up an elaborate ambush in order to win that one encounter but that winnable encounter exists, and if it exists then the DM put it there. If he hadn't put it there then the game would not function mechanically as the players could not get XP. Also, those dozen too hard encounters need to be avoidable. You need to be capable of talking your way out of them or eluding them or not running into them in the first place. If they aren't then the game fails as the PCs just die with no way to avoid it. You could have a game that starts in a room with an inescapable, unreasoning, unrelenting iron golem but you don't, because the DM tailors the world in such a way that your characters can actually progress. What I'm saying is that even if the DM is purely focused on making a world with no regard for the players he needs to take into consideration the fact that he will have players in it and those players need opportunities to survive and succeed. You can discuss how much the world ought to be tailored for the players and in what ways but it needs to be to at least that extent or else the game won't function mechanically.

[ad_hoc]

Well, you're playing D&D right? 90% of the mechanics are based around combat and characters becoming more powerful as a result.

In 5e combat is only 1/3 of the game.

[Boci]

In 5e combat is only 1/3 of the game.

They didn't say combat was 90% of the game, just of the rules, which is maybe a little hyperbolic, but its certainly more than 33%.

[MaxWilson]

Well, you're playing D&D right? 90% of the mechanics are based around combat and characters becoming more powerful as a result. Unless you get all of your XP from roleplaying then at some point the players need to fight something and win. Therefore regardless of the setting a winnable encounter must exist. The party might have to avoid a dozen encounters that are too hard then set up an elaborate ambush in order to win that one encounter but that winnable encounter exists, and if it exists then the DM put it there. If he hadn't put it there then the game would not function mechanically as the players could not get XP. Also, those dozen too hard encounters need to be avoidable. You need to be capable of talking your way out of them or eluding them or not running into them in the first place. If they aren't then the game fails as the PCs just die with no way to avoid it. You could have a game that starts in a room with an inescapable, unreasoning, unrelenting iron golem but you don't, because the DM tailors the world in such a way that your characters can actually progress. What I'm saying is that even if the DM is purely focused on making a world with no regard for the players he needs to take into consideration the fact that he will have players in it and those players need opportunities to survive and succeed. You can discuss how much the world ought to be tailored for the players and in what ways but it needs to be to at least that extent or else the game won't function mechanically.

I'm not sure if this is addressed to me or not, but you seem to be confusing tailoring and design. Tailoring is PC-specific; I don't need to know anything about my players, their PCs, and their levels to create a campaign which is more open than just "iron golem in a box." All you need to do is create a world that has a justification for not being depopulated already--if you create a world that has a good reason for not having killed off all the NPCs already, the PCs are likely to be able to survive there too*. They may have to tailor their behavior to the world (e.g. take spells that let you run away when outmatched, scout ahead, keep retreat routes open, prefer talking to killing) but they'll survive for the same reasons the NPCs survive, with zero tailoring required.

Just because fighting will happen at some point doesn't mean you have to reward the PCs for picking stupid fights. Although so far my players have survived four out of five fights that I thought would surely get them killed (the one that did TPK them was a Medium encounter with a handful of drow soldiers in the Underdark, which made me soooooo gleeful), so sometimes even the stupid fights aren't as stupid as they look, and at least they get XP out of them.

* The trick is actually to destabilize the campaign a little bit at the premise, so that PCs are somewhat less likely than the average NPC to survive, otherwise you get an aimless campaign. As mentioned previously, in this campaign that premise was, "Everybody else in the army is dead, and now you're the kingdom's only hope of survival." Currently it isn't going well--the kingdom is overrun with vampire hobgoblins and being colonized by spelljamming races due to PCs breaking the IEN Interdict which kept advanced nations from interfering with native cultures, and there's currently a multi-way civil war ongoing between different factions vying for power because the PCs got the king killed off. So far the most successful thing the PCs have done is start a space colony on another planet and transport refugees there for a new start in a new kingdom far away. They're not ready to call it quits yet though.

[Boci]

I'm not sure if this is addressed to me or not, but you seem to be confusing tailoring and design. Tailoring is PC-specific; I don't need to know anything about my players, their PCs, and their levels to create a campaign which is more open than just "iron golem in a box." All you need to do is create a world that has a justification for not being depopulated already--if you create a world that has a good reason for not having killed off all the NPCs already, the PCs are likely to be able to survive there too. They may have to tailor their behavior to the world (e.g. take spells that let you run away when outmatched, scout ahead, keep retreat routes open, prefer talking to killing) but they'll survive for the same reasons the NPCs survive, with zero tailoring required.

In broad strokes yes, that's world building, but you will also need to design specific encounters, and that will be based of the party. You will need to combine monsters, equipment, terrain, behavior, and these things do contribute to how difficult or easy the encounter is. I'm not going to give a bunch of newbies the same encounter I would give to a group of veteran optimizer, even if they are both the same level and poking around Yardale Wood.

[MaxWilson]

In broad strokes yes, that's world building, but you will also need to design specific encounters, and that will be based of the party. You will need to combine monsters, equipment, terrain, behavior, and these things do contribute to how difficult or easy the encounter is. I'm not going to give a bunch of newbies the same encounter I would give to a group of veteran optimizer, even if they are both the same level and poking around Yardale Wood.

And round and round we go in circles. No, I don't need to do the part in bold. I don't do it at all, definitely not consciously and hopefully not unconsciously either. (I make it a point not to know my players' PCs' stats, and I never know in advance anyway which PCs they're going to be playing that session, or how many players will make it, so trying to tailor things would just lead to disaster even if I were inclined that way.)

You may play it that way, with tailoring, but I don't. I loath that style of campaign and refuse to inflict it on my players or to play in one myself. Trolls come in packs of 2d6, so when I need some trolls I roll 2d6, and that's how many trolls there are, no matter if the players are 2nd level newbies or 20th level veterans, no matter if it winds up being Easy or Deadly x8.

"Boci likes to play this way" and "everyone must play this way" are not the same thing.

[rlc]

Yeah, you don't need to know anything about the people who are going to play in a campaign to make a campaign, other than base assumptions like average level and that they can figure out how to complete certain tasks.
That being said, if you're making a campaign with a certain group in mind, you probably want to at least have hoops for them to jump through so that they can get their special things.

[Boci]

You may play it that way, with tailoring, but I don't. I loath that style of campaign and refuse to inflict it on my players or to play in one myself. Trolls come in packs of 2d6, so when I need some trolls I roll 2d6, and that's how many trolls there are, no matter if the players are 2nd level newbies or 20th level veterans, no matter if it winds up being Easy or Deadly x8.

Whilst its hard to make sweeping statements about this game, I feel fairly confident in saying that you represent a minority with this approach. Most DMs try to avoid an approach to encounters that will typically result in encounters being too easy 45% of the time, a good challenge 10% of the time and borderline TPK (or not borderline) 45% of the time. Trolls are semi intelligent, so they can be negotiated with, but how do you handle monsters that will only kill? Seems like it would disrupt things if 1 hour in the whole group dies because that was the encounter you rolled.

Not to mention, whilst there are certainly advantages to 5 minute level design, it also sets a capon how in depth and interesting an individual encounter can be, no matter how good a DM you are. Customizing monsters, fluffing their dynamics (do they work well together? why so, are they family, is the relationship professional? or is there a leader and a schemer amougst them?) or just their gear (instead of the usual weapons profile, this troll has a halbert taken from a raid he performed on Turz, it bears the insignia of the cloud giant village), as well as terrain feature for both the monsters and the party to use. It doesn't all have to be with the party set up in mind, its also about adding variety.


Yeah, you don't need to know anything about the people who are going to play in a campaign to make a campaign, other than base assumptions like average level and that they can figure out how to complete certain tasks.

According to MaxWilson you don't even need to know average level. A 2nd level and 20th level party both get the same encounter.

[MaxWilson]

Whilst its hard to make sweeping statements about this game, I feel fairly confident in saying that you represent a minority with this approach. Most DMs try to avoid an approach to encounters that will typically result in encounters being too easy 45% of the time, a good challenge 10% of the time and borderline TPK (or not borderline) 45% of the time. Trolls are semi intelligent, so they can be negotiated with, but how do you handle monsters that will only kill? Seems like it would disrupt things if 1 hour in the whole group dies because that was the encounter you rolled.

Most monsters that are so dumb they will only kill are pretty easily killed by tool users. All the most genuinely dangerous things in my campaign are intelligent.

My players did land on a moon a while ago which I knew to be infested with purple worms. They noticed that the cows they had let off the ship (because reasons) kept disappearing. Instead of sticking around to fight the purple worms (I think they even caught a glimpse of one from overhead in the ship), they left in a hurry. I rather think they could have successfully taken on a purple worm, but it doesn't matter, because it wasn't me choosing, it was them.

Yes, it's an old-school approach which is rare among young gamers, but so what? I've made my point.

[rlc]

According to MaxWilson you don't even need to know average level. A 2nd level and 20th level party both get the same encounter.

pretty sure that's not what he meant. More like trolls suitable for level 2 at level 2 and trolls suitable for level 20 at level 20.

[MaxWilson]

pretty sure that's not what he meant. More like trolls suitable for level 2 at level 2 and trolls suitable for level 20 at level 20.

No, Boci understood me correctly. I don't plan level-specific encounters or adventures. Higher-level PCs will have more options but as DM I have to be ready for anything, which sometimes includes the players playing brand-new first-level PCs instead of their usual mid-level guys.

If that means the first-level PCs get eaten by trolls, oh well.

[Boci]

Most monsters that are so dumb they will only kill are pretty easily killed by tool users.

Sometimes, but D&D does have a fair few monsters that are very intelligent yet cannot negotiated with (aberrations, certain outsiders, intelligent undead, even normal human psychopaths). Even magical beasts are often fluffed as being very cunning hunters, speaking of which intelligence is less relevant for the two CR 10 ambush beasts that slaughters half the party in the surprise round.


My players did land on a moon a while ago which I knew to be infested with purple worms. They noticed that the cows they had let off the ship (because reasons) kept disappearing. Instead of sticking around to fight the purple worms, they left in a hurry. I rather think they could have successfully taken on a purple worm, but it doesn't matter, because it wasn't me choosing, it was them.

I'm not saying it can't work, I just don't believe you can build a game on the prospect, at least not with the D&D system. But then I've never played spelljammer, and you have. I would certainly maintain that such an approach will not work if the party does not have their own magical spaceship.

[rlc]

No, Boci understood me correctly. I don't plan level-specific encounters or adventures. Higher-level PCs will have more options but as DM I have to be ready for anything, which sometimes includes the players playing brand-new first-level PCs instead of their usual mid-level guys.

If that means the first-level PCs get eaten by trolls, oh well.

Being unable to make adjustments doesn't fall under "be[ing] ready for anything."

[MaxWilson]

Sometimes, but D&D does have a fair few monsters that are very intelligent yet cannot negotiated with (aberrations, certain outsiders, intelligent undead, even normal human psychopaths). Even magical beasts are often fluffed as being very cunning hunters, speaking of which intelligence is less relevant for the two CR 10 ambush beasts that slaughters half the party in the surprise round.

If these things are all nothing but mindless auto-killing machines, why are they still alive? Shouldn't they have killed each other? Intelligent undead like vampires and liches can very much be negotiated with, potentially, and aberrations like beholders likewise. Old school (A)D&D heavily emphasizes the reaction roll at the start of an encounter, and you can see that in the gazebo story (notice that the paladin only pulls out his bow and arrows after a lot of thinking and a failed attempt at negotiation with the gazebo). There is no kind of guarantee that the lich won't kill you for amusement value, or that the beholder won't just feed you to its minions, but I don't jump straight to "roll initiative."

If there were something which was simultaneously intelligent, implacably hostile to the PCs, overwhelmingly powerful, and right here in your face right now, I would of course kill you without hesitation. (I have other mechanisms in place to ensure that such an event does not ruin the campaign.) So far that sort of thing has never come up, per se. I've also invested a fair amount of design effort into explaining why the drow and githyanki have not killed each other off, and the customs which keep their conflicts at limited scale, mostly formalized ritual combat with the loser either executed or redeemed via weregild payments*; the PCs have benefitted from those same customs. As I said earlier, if there's a good reason for the NPCs not to have killed each other off, there's a good chance the PCs can survive too, regardless of level.

* Of course, if the loser didn't seem very impressive, the winning side might decide to just attack the loser's side and take everything. But taking 50% casualties just to score some loot off a drow patrol is not something your average githyanki patrol wants to do on a regular basis.