To DMs- Do you also change magic weapons types to suit your players playstyle/feats?

[Benny89]

I honestly never knew a problem with "there is no unique magic Glaive/Battleaxe/Spear in the book, what should I give to my Paladin player?"

Well, there is Holy Avenger.... just change weapon type to Glaive and done? You have legendary Glaive. There is a lore attached to weapon? Modify it - you are DM, you are the final lore.

I have been doing it always with weapons. I always treated the book "examples" as general idea (and because 5e really lacks in magic weapons for each type) of how strong should be a legendary weapon, what unique things should a "Paladin end-game" weapon have, what very rare distance weapon power should be etc. It's more like guidance for me of power limits so you don't handle +5 weapon with 2d10 healing per turn, 3d10 extra dmg + free 9th level spell per short rest + extra +10 to all save throws.

Sure I many times just create my own magic weapons for players but if there is some really "cool one" in book that suits player really well, I just change its weapon type or if it's Legendary I say "this weapon magic change it's type to fit it's master preference".

If I find nice weapon that have statistics suitable for one of my players I just change weapon type so my PAM Paladin in party can have his Holy Avenger and have fun with it not regretting putting effort and time into leveling and choosing feats.

Do you also do that in your games? I thought for many years (even in older systems) it's quite normal common-sense thing for DM but lately I found out it might not be the case.

[nickl_2000]

Don't DM often, but my opinion is yes. If you are giving away a magical weapon and you want them to be able to use it, you change the item to be one that they would use.

That being said, just keep it in mind how it will combine with their play style. Do you want a player to have a weapon that does 2d6 extra damage on hit when they are able to attack more often due to PAM?



NOTE: this is, of course, assuming that you aren't playing adventure league.

[Unoriginal]

I don't. Magic items don't exist for the players, they're part of the world. Same way a bad guy doesn't change from Slaad to Devil just because a PC bought a silver weapon.

Now it isn't to say that there isn't magic items suitable for the PC's chosen style somewhere. It's a big world, and you can probably find what you want in one way or another if you search for it. But the content of the treasure chest doesn't change based on whom open the chest. And a DM doesn't "give" magic items, unless they're for free at character creation. Otherwise, they just happens to exist near the PCs and the PCs and NPCs may or may not be interested in them.


Sometime adventurers find their dream weapon, sometime they find a Robe of Many Eyes and a Bag of Tricks. That's what makes adventuring exciting, and that's part of what makes magic items more than just a power boost for PCs.

[Joe the Rat]

"The DMG is more a set of guidelines, than rules."

Holy Avenger Glaive? Oath Sling? Vorpal Warclub? Knock yourself out.

Keep in mind that just because such a thing can exist, doesn't mean it has to find its way into every hoard... but knowing of a Legendary weapon may drive your party to seek it out. We call those "plot hooks."

[Unoriginal]

"The DMG is more a set of guidelines, than rules."

Holy Avenger Glaive? Oath Sling? Vorpal Warclub? Knock yourself out.

Keep in mind that just because such a thing can exist, doesn't mean it has to find its way into every hoard... but knowing of a Legendary weapon may drive your party to seek it out. We call those "plot hooks."

Good point.

[ImproperJustice]

To answer your question: Yes. All the time.

We like fun. Getting magic items that are cool and fit your image is fun.

I am glad our GM likes fun.

[Benny89]

I don't. Magic items don't exist for the players, they're part of the world. Same way a bad guy doesn't change from Slaad to Devil just because a PC bought a silver weapon.

Now it isn't to say that there isn't magic items suitable for the PC's chosen style somewhere. It's a big world, and you can probably find what you want in one way or another if you search for it. But the content of the treasure chest doesn't change based on whom open the chest. And a DM doesn't "give" magic items, unless they're for free at character creation. Otherwise, they just happens to exist near the PCs and the PCs and NPCs may or may not be interested in them.


Sometime adventurers find their dream weapon, sometime they find a Robe of Many Eyes and a Bag of Tricks. That's what makes adventuring exciting, and that's part of what makes magic items more than just a power boost for PCs.

Of course they find magic items when they beat some challanges or as an reward for epic adventures, maybe even as an reward from their God celestial servant. I don't think they should be for free but I also don't restrict them much.

I still like to have stores with magic items in major cities, mostly just common and uncommon items but sometimes you can find some rare one for sell for huge amount of gold.

It gives that great feeling that after long adventure in some dirty dungeons or cold wilds party with a lot of treasures and gold have this "free time" in city and they go "shopping" buy themselves some magic scrolls, rings, cloaks etc.

Honestly you never see so much joy on players faces when they go "shopping" for magic items in DnD :D. I love that as DM.

It's just my style but I think that DnD without magic items is just not DnD.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have been doing it always with weapons. I always treated the book "examples" as general idea (and because 5e really lacks in magic weapons for each type) of how strong should be a legendary weapon, what unique things should a "Paladin end-game" weapon have, what very rare distance weapon power should be etc. It's more like guidance for me of power limits so you don't handle +5 weapon with 2d10 healing per turn, 3d10 extra dmg + free 9th level spell per short rest + extra +10 to all save throws.


That's explicitly what the DMG says about the magic items there. They are absolutely merely examples. They're not restrictive in any sense. Nor are the item tables designed to be anything other than one idea for a particular campaign style. DMs (except in AL, which is its own beast) are recommended to modify the items presented to suit their party or to make other new ones. There is no expectation of a mass-manufacture of magic items outside of potions, although that's a dial that settings can twist (e.g. Eberron).

This is in strong contravention to most previous editions:

2e AD&D: As I understand it (although I could be wrong), the default expectation was for DMs to use the loot tables and to not modify things under normal circumstances (campaign-specific items excepted). Strong expectation of having significant magic items all the way. Many settings had magic marts.
3e: Book items were preferred, with instructions for players making specific custom items under DM supervision. Magic-marts and "recycling" of items is normal. WBL specifies how much stuff a party should have at each level.
4e: Items are in the PHB--mix and match properties. Everything with explicit prices and a system requirement of having the right bonuses and abilities at the right points.

5e: Up to the DM. Entirely. Some loose recommendations, but the system does not require or expect particular items (especially +X to hit/AC items, as those are the worst offenders for bounded accuracy problems). Items can be customized by the DM, crafting is at the DM's discretion and requires questing for locations or items (as well as patterns). No magic mart (again, except in specific settings).

[Aett_Thorn]

I almost never have items that are just a part of a hoard (unless it’s for something like a dragon). Most of the time, I have the items be useful for the enemies the party is facing. For instance, a horde of Goblins is unlikely to have a magic longbow on them, even if I roll for that. So i’d change it to a sling or shortbow, something that they’re much more likely to have.

That said, if I had a player that really wants to be a spear and shield type fighter, i’d be more inclined to change something like a Flame Tongue sword to a spear, but only if the enemy was something that made sense for such a change.

[Sigreid]

This has come up before. I haven't, but I'm not opposed to it. In general if they want a magic weapon to fit their character they would have to spend down time researching stories and legends and actually look for what they specifically want.

[Xetheral]

I don't. Magic items don't exist for the players, they're part of the world. Same way a bad guy doesn't change from Slaad to Devil just because a PC bought a silver weapon.

Now it isn't to say that there isn't magic items suitable for the PC's chosen style somewhere. It's a big world, and you can probably find what you want in one way or another if you search for it. But the content of the treasure chest doesn't change based on whom open the chest. And a DM doesn't "give" magic items, unless they're for free at character creation. Otherwise, they just happens to exist near the PCs and the PCs and NPCs may or may not be interested in them.


Sometime adventurers find their dream weapon, sometime they find a Robe of Many Eyes and a Bag of Tricks. That's what makes adventuring exciting, and that's part of what makes magic items more than just a power boost for PCs.

Unless one is using a pre-written campaign (either published or homebrew), one knows the characters and the players when making design choices. While I'm all about making sure that the contents of the game world are internally consistent (e.g. enemies only have magic items that it makes sense for them to have), there is usually more than one equally-appropriate option for each design choice.

At that point I decide based on what I think will be most fun for the players, and knowing my players' preferences for themselves and their characters makes that much easier. Of course, maximizing fun doesn't mean always giving them what they want, but it's much easier to strike the right balance of immediate and delayed gratification if one knows what the players will find gratifying.

For example, let's say a player has had their character invest extensively in silvered backup weapons, but after a long stretch of play hasn't yet had an opportunity to use them. When fighting an enemy conjurer wizard who might just as plausibly summon a slaad or a devil, I'll absolutely pick the devil so that the player can have the gratification of their preparations finally being useful.

I realize some groups get their fun specifically from overcoming pre-determined, character-agnostic challenges, and when DMing for such groups, maximizing fun would mean not relying on one's knowledge of the players' preferences when deciding between equally-plausible options. But at other tables, knowledge of the players' preferences is a very powerful tool that can help make one's games more enjoyable.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Unless one is using a pre-written campaign (either published or homebrew), one knows the characters and the players when making design choices. While I'm all about making sure that the contents of the game world are internally consistent (e.g. enemies only have magic items that it makes sense for them to have), there is usually more than one equally-appropriate option for each design choice.

At that point I decide based on what I think will be most fun for the players, and knowing my players' preferences for themselves and their characters makes that much easier. Of course, maximizing fun doesn't mean always giving them what they want, but it's much easier to strike the right balance of immediate and delayed gratification if one knows what the players will find gratifying.

For example, let's say a player has had their character invest extensively in silvered backup weapons, but after a long stretch of play hasn't yet had an opportunity to use them. When fighting an enemy conjurer wizard who might just as plausibly summon a slaad or a devil, I'll absolutely pick the devil so that the player can have the gratification of their preparations finally being useful.

I realize some groups get their fun specifically from overcoming pre-determined, character-agnostic challenges, and when DMing for such groups, maximizing fun would mean not relying on one's knowledge of the players' preferences when deciding between equally-plausible options. But at other tables, knowledge of the players' preferences is a very powerful tool that can help make one's games more enjoyable.

I'm totally with you here. Adventure building always involves on-the-fly choices among a set of equally plausible (in-universe) choices. In such situations, any choice must be made with knowledge of the particular party. There is no veil of ignorance here. In such situations, choose the option that's the most fun (as far as you can judge) for that particular party.

Let the characters have opportunities to use their features, especially ribbons. If you can't (due to setting restrictions), let the player know at character creation/time of choice. For example, if there are no polearm wielders on the horizon (say you're fighting exclusively small creatures), tell the guy who picks PAM that he's going to be quite restricted in choices for items before he finalizes that choice. If you're punting the party to the elemental planes where humanoids are few and far between, tell the ranger that a favored enemy: humans is probably going to be a bad choice. Or the sorcerer that he shouldn't depend on hold person. But if you can, give them opportunities to use those shiny features they picked up.

[Vorpalchicken]

I like to uphold the tradition of making swords the awesome symbols of power that they are. I'm not against a more-than-vanilla polearm but I would never hand out a Vorpal glaive or a Holy Avenger hand crossbow.

[strangebloke]

I often allow for a re-purposing of a magic item.

For example, the boss had a magic two-handed warhammer. The paladin wanted a one-handed hammer. He had smith tools proficiency and a lot of down time, so I let him move the head onto a one-handed hammer haft.

Easy peasy.

[JeenLeen]

I think it's a normal and good practice.

Even for lesser magic items (like a +1 whatever), I think it's nice to modify it to be something the party uses. One of the last D&D games I was in -- forget if it was 5e or Pathfinder -- we found a +1 sword, but nobody wanted it since none of us specialized in swords. We wound up selling it for half price to buy weaker stuff we wanted. I think it would have been better if the DM had changed it to another weapon, or at least allowed a merchant to trade it for other +1 weapons.

I think the actual last D&D game I was in (5e) did have a shop where we could trade some stuff. Ah! I remember! I had the Acolyte background, so I was allowed to use my connections there to trade a +1 longsword for a +1 rapier, or something like that, from the temple armory in the capitol. It was a nice way for the DM to allow for flexibility while still keeping the 'magic items are rare' feel and incorporating our backgrounds.

[Benny89]

I often allow for a re-purposing of a magic item.

For example, the boss had a magic two-handed warhammer. The paladin wanted a one-handed hammer. He had smith tools proficiency and a lot of down time, so I let him move the head onto a one-handed hammer haft.

Easy peasy.

Yup, that is a good solution too. Same is with Glaives and swords for example. Since Glaive is basicelly a sword (not a greatsword maybe :P) on long shaft, if my players would say that they take it to Smith so he can remove hilt from sort and add to it a long shaft to make it Glaive- I would gladly allow it. I always think "more options in RPG is always better than fewer". Magical dagger blade uses as spear blade? Nothing a skillful Smith won't be able to do it.

Realism doesn't really apply here. Players run around with weapons that from the look and shapes (because Fantasy) would be totally ineffective in real life scenario as melee weapons and can summon fireballs from fingers. Letting them easily re-purpose weapons is a good solution too.

Or a simple exchange in magic item store as mentioned above. Exchange +1 sword for +1 rapier, exchange +1 Battleaxe for +1 Halberd etc.

[fbelanger]

Don’t let you disturb, Excalibur was a halberd.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yup, that is a good solution too. Same is with Glaives and swords for example. Since Glaive is basicelly a sword (not a greatsword maybe :P) on long shaft, if my players would say that they take it to Smith so he can remove hilt from sort and add to it a long shaft to make it Glaive- I would gladly allow it. I always think "more options in RPG is always better than fewer". Magical dagger blade uses as spear blade? Nothing a skillful Smith won't be able to do it.

Realism doesn't really apply here. Players run around with weapons that from the look and shapes (because Fantasy) would be totally ineffective in real life scenario as melee weapons and can summon fireballs from fingers. Letting them easily re-purpose weapons is a good solution too.

Or a simple exchange in magic item store as mentioned above. Exchange +1 sword for +1 rapier, exchange +1 Battleaxe for +1 Halberd etc.

Well, there IS a catch. Magical items are much harder to destroy (resistance to all damage), and are likely much harder to modify.

[Benny89]

Well, there IS a catch. Magical items are much harder to destroy (resistance to all damage), and are likely much harder to modify.

That is only a DM decision. I think a famous Brugnar Wondercrafter - dwarf Smith in Waterdeep who specialize in making magical weapons wouldn't have much problem with that, don't you think? ;)


Don’t let you disturb, Excalibur was a halberd.

Yes, in my world Excalibur was a Halberd. And it talks... a lot, because Excalibur was also a woman.

[Unoriginal]

Modifying a magic weapon into another weapon would require knowing the magic item formula for the end result, IMO.

You can't just break a whole and keep the magic.

[Benny89]

Modifying a magic weapon into another weapon would require knowing the magic item formula for the end result, IMO.

You can't just break a whole and keep the magic.

That is where NPC comes to play who have skill and knowledge and will do that for payment from players? It's as old and standard as RPGs itself.

[some guy]

I like a mix.

A barbarian I played found a Trident of Fish Command; rubbish, but you better believe I switched to it when we fought certain enemies. A PAM fighter I played received a magic great axe which didn't match his feat. At first I was a bit peeved, but now I like that my character is encouraged to switch between weapons depending on the situation.

As a dm, I usually give random weapons not styled to the pc's, but in my last campaign there were several story hooks which allowed the pc's to find/steal/loot magic weapons matching their preferred style.

[jas61292]

To me it depends largely on the level of play. By the time a party reaches high levels, yes, they can expect to have magic weapons that match their play style. This does not mean they get exactly what they want. I like magic items to make sense in context, so if one player has a build based around using big two handed great weapons, he'll eventually get one, but it will not necessarily be a maul just because that's what he's been using previously. If it makes more sense for an enemy to wield a magic great axe, then that's what they will get. But they will always get something they can use well.

That said, as mentioned, this is at higher levels. At the mid levels where magic weapons first start entering play, I will rarely give out weapons tailored to players. In fact, I'll often do the exact opposite. Not necessarily by having weapons worthless, but by making them suboptimal. If the party's only martial weapon proficient melee combatant is the aforementioned great weapon user, the play may frequently find themselves coming across magic scimitars or tridents. This is not to punish players, but to force them to make decisions, and to make weapon resistance an interesting mechanic.

When players always get the kinds of magic weapons they want, non magic weapon resistance becomes boring. It is an on off switch that simply makes a fight substantially harder or easier depending on whether you have magic weapons yet. But if the magic weapons you have are not ideal, there is actually a decision making process that comes into play. Do you use your normal maul and great weapon master as normal, or do you use the slightly weaker but way more reliable magic scimitar? It becomeseven more interesting when multiple party members can use the magic weapons but none are ideal for anyone. Who is best served with which weapon? Who is fine without one? Is anyone better off supporting a magic weapon user than just attacking themselves without one?

Over time as resistance gets more and more common this process gets less interesting, which is why I make it go away as players get more and more ideal items, but to just skip this stage entirely is, in my mind to waste am entire interesting game mechanic.

[ImproperJustice]

I like to uphold the tradition of making swords the awesome symbols of power that they are. I'm not against a more-than-vanilla polearm but I would never hand out a Vorpal glaive or a Holy Avenger hand crossbow.

Maybe consider a player finding Van Helsing’s Crossbow?
A Holy Avenger Crossbow could be awesome.
Just like Olaf’s Tankard of Disruption (the ultimate weapon when bar fighting the Undead).

[Benny89]

TSnip

That is actually a very interesting reason. I usually don't give magic weapons till level 8, where players start to find +1 weapons here and there.

I honestly never cared much about magic resistance, but maybe I should have. Well, too late for now for my current party but I will definitely experiment with what you said next time I get players to start from scratch.

[Unoriginal]

Another thing to consider is that as the PC rises in power, skill and renown, and the threats they face grow the same, so do the people who have a reason to be grateful to the PCs.

Having a PAM Fighter be approached by a group of blacksmith with a personalized magic glaive , as thanks for saving them from the great dragon, or having the god Baccot change the Wizard's robe into a Robe of the Stars, got to be more memorable than just finding one in a pile of loot by "coincidence"

[Sindal]

Beyond standard magical items that they find. The misc ones that is.
Each of my current players has a 'signature' item that I've designed based on what they lacked. All of them have clauses and don't just 'do the thing', even if the clause has a minor step.

My necromancer was the first to receive hers. At the time she was only lvl 3, and necromancers only get their first taste of 'proper necromancy raising dead' spells. So after they encountered a animated dragon skull, i had the leftover magic fused with some of her spellbook pages and become The fingerbone pen. It basicly acts as a special modified version of raised dead. To use it, she has to give me the name of someone who has definitely died. If I don't know the name, she has to explain to me how that person died.
Names ive' gotten so far:
-Tinkerbell
-Lank, the goblin barbarian
-Sans
-Papyrus
-Jeffery the towns casualty

The second was for my beast master. She didn't pick any healing spells but she loves her black bear companion to smitherines. So i gave her a set of magical hand wraps called 'The animist wraps'. They were found in the mansion of a dwarven transmutation wizard. The wraps can be used to heal beasts, and only beasts. She also has to be around a beast when she takes a long rest for the wraps to regain any charges.

Third was for our bard. Who for 'reasons' needs to hide who they really are. So, earlier in the campaign, when that player went off on a tangent, i had them find a gem. After the gem had been charged by absorbing magick cast around it, it became charged. The bard found it resonated with an amulet he had. When taking it to a mage, the mage used the gem to charge the amulet, and turned it into The Harlequins Ego. The amulet now perfectly projects an illusion over their body and hides a certain aspect about them. Though it's still an illusion. If they want, they can expend the charge inside it to produce an aoe charm or fear, but they would lose the illusion doing so, for the day, making them decide between using magic or keeping their secret hidden.

The last is for our paladin. He's a very standard sword and board fellow who doesn't get very fanciful with his comabt so i wanted to make it a little interesting. Our paladin is plagued with guilt after having sold a false cure to a village experiencing a life threatening disease. He was told it waas legitimate from some goblins he trusted (And he killed them for it). Eventually, he found himself in a situation of being offered a cure for it. but from some 'questionable sources'. After the sources were dealt with for being generally untrustworthy, the 'cure' changed, after being exposed to a certain type of magic, and became Trinity Spices. Spices from the bag can now be used to 'spice' his weapons to make them deal different kinds of elemental damage, the same way you would apply resins in dark souls (nerfed appropirately). Anyone with skill in cooking skills (like he is) can choose the kind of spice to use, others will use it at random.

All of the items above are very clearly personalized, but could still be used by another character with reasonable success.
Anyone could use an extra skeleton, weapon resins or a free aoe control mechanism.
But it helps you to feel special.
Because theres nothing worse than finding a bunch of cool magical weapons that NO ONE WANTS TO USE.

[Laserlight]

Do you also do that in your games?

Of course.

The exception would be a magic weapon which has lore behind it. If you favor a battleaxe and the loot includes a +1 weapon, that's a +1 battleaxe. But if you find the glaive River of Frozen Tears and nobody uses glaives, well, you still get to learn more about the world you're in, and whose tomb you're defiling. That's more of an art object that happens to be usable as a weapon.

I've had an occasion or two when, for example, we were looting a druid stronghold and found only druid-attunement stuff (and no explanation why the druids would keep druid gear locked away instead of using it; you'd think the stack of stuff forgotten in the back would be the plate armor and greatsword). Nobody could use it, there was nowhere to sell it, there wasn't any lore, and (from that DM, combined with other things he did) it came across as "there are magic items in the world, and you can't have them, nyah nyah nyah!"

The point is to have fun. Loot that you can't use, sell, or learn from is not fun. Loot that you can use is more fun. Loot that you can use and has a story attached, or has been tailored for you, is most fun. I'd be happy to get a +1 rapier but I'd be happier with Cloud Strife, the white jade sword blessed by Mela Who Summons Thunder To Battle and used by my previous incarnation, which gives the user Featherfall and expertise on Deception.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Modifying a magic weapon into another weapon would require knowing the magic item formula for the end result, IMO.

You can't just break a whole and keep the magic.

Yup. I would give the item the property that allows it to change within reason to a style more suitable to its master, but only rarely would I allow PCs to modify magic items. And then only if they studied enough to do it properly. More often than not I don't give magic items this property though.


Another thing to consider is that as the PC rises in power, skill and renown, and the threats they face grow the same, so do the people who have a reason to be grateful to the PCs.

Having a PAM Fighter be approached by a group of blacksmith with a personalized magic glaive , as thanks for saving them from the great dragon, or having the god Baccot change the Wizard's robe into a Robe of the Stars, got to be more memorable than just finding one in a pile of loot by "coincidence"

That's a great point and a much more meaningful part of the story that we weave together when we all play. It's way better for anything, be it combat, items, consequences, or down time activity, to be driven by the narrative of the story in my opinion. Doing that with magic items is a great way to make players salivate over them all the more. It means way more if a Dwarf king makes you a masterpiece magic hammer rather than you just finding it in some random treasure chest. Not to say there are zero magic items sitting in random chests, but still.


I like a mix.

A barbarian I played found a Trident of Fish Command; rubbish, but you better believe I switched to it when we fought certain enemies. A PAM fighter I played received a magic great axe which didn't match his feat. At first I was a bit peeved, but now I like that my character is encouraged to switch between weapons depending on the situation.

As a dm, I usually give random weapons not styled to the pc's, but in my last campaign there were several story hooks which allowed the pc's to find/steal/loot magic weapons matching their preferred style.

This is why I tend to mix it up. I'll start making a list of magic items that are tailored to each player after the first two or three sessions. Then I place them in the world to supplement other unspecific magic items. Some of them I might dangle right in front of the players intentionally. Others have a known location to me, but the players might never go there or come close to finding them. Some magic items might even pass right under their noses. I might even have an NPC find it later so the party knows there are things hidden around the world that are available to them, but I won't always make it obvious.

I think there's a balance to strike there of rewarding players who search through the world carefully while not putting a bunch of gold and shiny things in literally every crate and barrel around the world. Same for quests that the party completes. Sometimes the reward and the treasure found won't be all that great, but sometimes it certainly will. It helps build anticipation when we can do this well as DMs.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

It basicly acts as a special modified version of raised dead. To use it, she has to give me the name of someone who has definitely died. If I don't know the name, she has to explain to me how that person died.
Names ive' gotten so far:
-Tinkerbell
-Lank, the goblin barbarian
-Sans
-Papyrus
-Jeffery the towns casualty



Let us know when she says, "The radio star."

[strangebloke]

Modifying a magic weapon into another weapon would require knowing the magic item formula for the end result, IMO.

You can't just break a whole and keep the magic.

Why not?

This houserule of mine:
Provides fun usage of tools. (massively underutilized)
Allows players to make use of downtime
Ensures that a player doesn't get screwed because the enemies never drop a two-handed weapon.
Makes their weapons more personalized and interesting.


As to the fiction, that's completely trivial. It's an enchanted blade, not an enchanted haft or pommel. In real life switching these out was easy as pie and the enchantment isn't changing at all. You can rule that its totally impossible to detach a magic blade from its hilt without destroying the item, but that's a ruling and I don't see what purpose it serves.

[HappyDaze]

Generally, no. If I did, then I would never change them outside of group (simple/martial) and type (melee/ranged). This means that you would never find a Defender longbow or an Oathbow light crossbow.

[Unoriginal]

Ensures that a player doesn't get screwed because the enemies never drop a two-handed weapon.

A player wouldn't get screwed even if enemies never dropped a two-handed weapons, because the enemies' weapons don't exist for the player's convenience. Players are not owed magic items by the world.

If they want to turn a two-handed hammer in a one-handed one, they can go and find the secret of magic one-handed hammers. That'll make the event interesting and personalized.


As to the fiction, that's completely trivial. It's an enchanted blade, not an enchanted haft or pommel.

No, it's an enchanted sword. Or an enchanted glaive, halberd, dagger, axe, hammer, flail, or whatever.



You can rule that its totally impossible to detach a magic blade from its hilt without destroying the item, but that's a ruling

Which is why I said "IMO".



and I don't see what purpose it serves.

It serves at giving the magic item weight and importance, rather than being something any yahoo with a smith kit can reforge as if it was a common piece of material.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's important to make the world feel alive, and also for the players to feel rewarded, not awarded. Incentivized by their own actions/decisions, and not just an incremental growth because the universe was giving away handouts.

There are not many weapon specialties required in 5e, so I don't really need to worry about certain items not being used. If the Barbarian uses two handed weapons, then he might just have to deal with the fact that the weapon the team got is versatile. It creates group conflict and group decision making. It's not because I handed him "The Barbarian Axe of Barbarians", but because the group worked together and made the choice, that the item should belong with the Barbarian.

If the players decide to seek something specific or show interest in it, I have no problem providing it as a reward for a quest, by helping some wizard or artificer, but it cheapens everything when they receive what they want despite the effort put into getting it, or the choices made to earn that item. Providing the Barbarian Axe of Barbarians to the party means that the Paladin probably didn't feel like he had much choice in the matter in how that weapon was used, but providing the party with a magical versatile weapon of mysticism means that the Paladin can now make that choice to give it to the Barbarian. The end results may be the same in both scenarios, but one was because I decided to make that decision for them, and the other was because I let the players make that decision themselves.

And empowering player decisions amongst the team builds in-game and real life relationships.

I find that making things both generalized but unique makes for much more interesting characters than "That one Barbarian that hits really hard" or "That one Necromancer who can spend a Hit die to heal undead". Now, it's the fact that the Barbarian is the one using the Burning Shield of the Eternal Flame (that's usable in magical Darkness) because he's Human, and the party has to huddle around the Barbarian to fend off the Drow.

It creates unlikely, interesting scenarios that will be more memorable.

[Willie the Duck]

If I find nice weapon that have statistics suitable for one of my players I just change weapon type so my PAM Paladin in party can have his Holy Avenger and have fun with it not regretting putting effort and time into leveling and choosing feats.

Do you also do that in your games? I thought for many years (even in older systems) it's quite normal common-sense thing for DM but lately I found out it might not be the case.

No. I change magic items all the time, but not because of the player's builds. In part because, with 5e tending towards the... well, with you having to find uses for gold, and weapon grades going from +0-+5 to +0-+3, well, magic items have to be a meaningful challenge to acquire or there just aren't enough 'benes' in the game to get (or not get, with the difference being a victory).

Therefore, sometimes people are going to get partial victories, and that's often where the changed magic items fit in. Want a longsword +1? Well, this dungeon has a Morningstar +1 the summons bat swarms. That's a nice partial victory on your way to what you want, right? (might not seem like as good as getting what you want on the first go of it, but my players definitely get real bored of succeeding all the time, too, which is why we have slowly played with more and more of the gritty rule options).

Regardless, I try to set up dungeons to be full of part appropriate treasure (the BBEG was a trident fighter? Well then he'll have tried real hard to get a magic trident), and genuinely random stuff from my modified list of options (he too might have gotten the bat-summoning Morningstar instead of what he wanted). But the treasure doesn't change to a halberd because the player picked up PAM. If you are going to pigeonhole yourself, you might have to wait a little longer for that full victory (or actively seek out that thing you want, or figure out a workaround like the magic weapon spell, or the like).

Mind you, this is rather weighted towards the fact that my group is seeking ways to stretch out the challenge of this edition, so it is rather group-specific.



Keep in mind that just because such a thing can exist, doesn't mean it has to find its way into every hoard... but knowing of a Legendary weapon may drive your party to seek it out. We call those "plot hooks."

Very much so.


I still like to have stores with magic items in major cities, mostly just common and uncommon items but sometimes you can find some rare one for sell for huge amount of gold.

It gives that great feeling that after long adventure in some dirty dungeons or cold wilds party with a lot of treasures and gold have this "free time" in city and they go "shopping" buy themselves some magic scrolls, rings, cloaks etc.

Honestly you never see so much joy on players faces when they go "shopping" for magic items in DnD :D. I love that as DM.

That's the exactly opposite of what we found. I know there was some level of magic item shopping bitd (else who was it buying the magic items you sold off for the xp-value?), and we did a little of it (again, making a quest/adventure hook out of the quest for the magic whatsit). But in general, the instant 3e turned magic items into a much more full-not-partial commodity, it took the magic out of it. That, plus the issue of if you can spend gold on direct character-build-improvements, can you ever feel good about spending it on other things? (not sure if we feel that internally, but I'm aware of the argument, and why the designers decided to make magic item purchasing significantly more of an optional rule).

All in all, we generally like having getting the exact item you want fairly challenging. I'm currently playing, not GMing, and my character took hand crossbow (for RP reasons, he's a bartender who keeps a 'pistol' under the bar), and we've yet to run into a magic one. If we run into a non-magic-weapon-resistant monster, he's got a trusty dagger+1. We find fun in the limitation.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

Why not?

This houserule of mine:
Provides fun usage of tools. (massively underutilized)
Allows players to make use of downtime
Ensures that a player doesn't get screwed because the enemies never drop a two-handed weapon.
Makes their weapons more personalized and interesting.


As to the fiction, that's completely trivial. It's an enchanted blade, not an enchanted haft or pommel. In real life switching these out was easy as pie and the enchantment isn't changing at all. You can rule that its totally impossible to detach a magic blade from its hilt without destroying the item, but that's a ruling and I don't see what purpose it serves.

I think @Unoriginal's point was that the player just being able to do this without any particular set of skills or knowledge of magic items would break the fiction in a way that's nontrivial. I tend to agree with that. I wouldn't allow my PCs to craft magic items until they learned the necessary skills, so I wouldn't allow them to alter them either in most cases. You're making a ruling that it's an enchanted blade rather than an enchanted sword as a whole, but that doesn't mean that's how magic items work in fiction unless WotC provides more information. Maybe they have said that and I just haven't read it, which is entirely possible.

I'm not trying to down the idea of altering magic items, but doing it willy-nilly doesn't give the same satisfaction to players in my experience. And Spencers don't use the words willy-nilly willy-nilly. I think there are two ideal options:

1) Give the players the item they want in the first place (If you don't mind them changing it on the spot then there's minimal reason not to just do this straight away. It's a more authentic experience in my view to find the magic item you've been longing for rather than turning something close to what you wanted into something closer "cause reasons").

2) Give them a quest to train somehow or learn more about magic items or take the weapon to someone else who can alter it. This provides a story hook and makes the weapon and the transformation of the weapon more meaningful pretty much always.

[Pex]

When the DM is ready to hand out magic weapons he should have some of them be in the form players use. They don't have to be specific named ones from the book. A holy avenger glaive or sunbow (sunblade in hand crossbow form) aren't necessary, though a DM can be kind to provide for them anyway at the appropriate time. They can be generic +1/+1d6 damage of a color type or custom made to suit the campaign or party level.

Not giving everything players want is not the same thing as never giving what they want, so yes, sometimes the DM should give them what they want.

[Willie the Duck]

When the DM is ready to hand out magic weapons he should have some of them be in the form players use.
...
Not giving everything players want is not the same thing as never giving what they want, so yes, sometimes the DM should give them what they want.

I'd go so far as to say if the DM isn't going to hand out magic versions of a given weapon type, that should be clear before character creation begins (so that the only people picking it would be someone who wants that challenge/is about to play a forge cleric, or the like). I do recall a 2e AD&D campaign where the expanded weapon options from The Complete Fighter's Handbook were in play, but the treasure chart was still the one from the PHB.

[MaxWilson]

I'd go so far as to say if the DM isn't going to hand out magic versions of a given weapon type, that should be clear before character creation begins (so that the only people picking it would be someone who wants that challenge/is about to play a forge cleric, or the like). I do recall a 2e AD&D campaign where the expanded weapon options from The Complete Fighter's Handbook were in play, but the treasure chart was still the one from the PHB.

I'll go even further: ideally, a DM should clearly communicate to his players what his game is about. I don't say you need to do this before the very first session--sometimes it's easier to tell than to show--but if for example your idea of a D&D game is a bunch of players competing with each other to be the first one to the best treasure, and your DM's idea of a D&D game is an epic story about saving the world while obeying the laws of narrative and conservation of detail, and your buddy Ryan's idea of a D&D game is a platform for showcasing his bard's personality quirks in a broad variety of situations... you need to reconcile those expectations so that everyone can decide if you really all belong at the same table or not, and if 5E is the right system within which to meet those expectations.

"Will I get magic items to match my build?" is just the tip of the iceberg.

But if you're just playing a couple of one-off adventures it doesn't much matter yet.

[strangebloke]

A player wouldn't get screwed even if enemies never dropped a two-handed weapons, because the enemies' weapons don't exist for the player's convenience. Players are not owed magic items by the world.

I feel like this is sideways from my point.

I'd agree that players aren't 'owed' items in the sense that I should throw glaives at the glaive guy constantly, or that magic plate should never show up for a party of people who don't wear plate. I'm not disagreeing with your point here so I'm not sure why you brought it up.

I'm just saying that if you take PAM early on but never see a polearm that's so much as moon-touched, that's going to be pretty lame. You're either not using that feat at all, blackmailing the cleric (if you have one) to cast magic weapon or dealing half damage to creatures with nonmagic resistance. It's unfun, and I'd like to avoid that if possible. This solution allows for a bit of customization without either having ye olde magic shoppe or the personalized loot hoard.

If they want to turn a two-handed hammer in a one-handed one, they can go and find the secret of magic one-handed hammers. That'll make the event interesting and personalized.
This very simply only works in slow-paced sandbox campaigns. And if there's a specific custom-made-by-the-DM enchantment, it requires them to find that exact secret. Personally I'd find making sure that the exact formula for the item they want being available and easy to track down/steal more of a personalization of the campaign world to the players' interest. And then you've given your players not just the ability to change that one hammer, but the ability to create as many of that hammer as they want.

I don't view this as a general solution, nor as a one that really solves the problem even in campaigns where its appropriate.

No, it's an enchanted sword. Or an enchanted glaive, halberd, dagger, axe, hammer, flail, or whatever.
That's part of the fiction, and is at the discretion of the DM. Hence why I said "The fiction of it is trivial to set up." Well, I didn't say 'to set up' but that's what I meant, anyway.

YMMV but I think it's a cooler image, that someone was beating this enchantment into a blade as they were making it, rather than assembling a clockwork enchantment out of many constituent parts or applying the enchantment onto a finished blade.

Which is why I said "IMO".
Sure. But like I said, I don't see what purpose it serves.

It serves at giving the magic item weight and importance, rather than being something any yahoo with a smith kit can reforge as if it was a common piece of material.
'reforge' is different from 'reassemble.'

If someone wanted to make a spear into an axe, that'd be a more difficult challenge.

But I really don't see how reassembling a weapon with weeks of downtime is less respectful of magic items as a concept when compared with selling the holy avenger at the local pawn shop.


I think @Unoriginal's point was that the player just being able to do this without any particular set of skills or knowledge of magic items would break the fiction in a way that's nontrivial. I tend to agree with that. I wouldn't allow my PCs to craft magic items until they learned the necessary skills, so I wouldn't allow them to alter them either in most cases. You're making a ruling that it's an enchanted blade rather than an enchanted sword as a whole, but that doesn't mean that's how magic items work in fiction unless WotC provides more information. Maybe they have said that and I just haven't read it, which is entirely possible.
The question of what the lore is for WotC's settings is a separate issue. We're talking about what works at the table.


1) Give the players the item they want in the first place (If you don't mind them changing it on the spot then there's minimal reason not to just do this straight away. It's a more authentic experience in my view to find the magic item you've been longing for rather than turning something close to what you wanted into something closer "cause reasons").

It makes more work for the DM
You might as well just have a magic shop, really, and control gold access
Its very contrived. What are these goblins doing with a magic warhammer?


obviously this is the 'novelist vs. sandbox vs. video game' debate again, but I'd tend to say that contrived scenarios are always to be avoided.


2) Give them a quest to train somehow or learn more about magic items or take the weapon to someone else who can alter it. This provides a story hook and makes the weapon and the transformation of the weapon more meaningful pretty much always.

A more complex modification, particularly one to the enchantment, might require higher checks, formulas, or special training, sure. But attaching a blade to the end of a longer haft should not be a major issue.

[Willie the Duck]

I'll go even further: <going further>

Agree all around. That was just bigger in scope than I though the thread was about. Yes, people should all make sure they are all sitting down to play the same game (and where they are not, negotiate, compromise, or whatever needs to happen).


I'm just saying that if you take PAM early on but never see a polearm that's so much as moon-touched, that's going to be pretty lame. You're either not using that feat at all, blackmailing the cleric (if you have one) to cast magic weapon or dealing half damage to creatures with nonmagic resistance. It's unfun, and I'd like to avoid that if possible. This solution allows for a bit of customization without either having ye olde magic shoppe or the personalized loot hoard.


I will agree that there should be intermediate solutions. My personal preference is to let the loot fall where it may, but make 'Joe really wants to find a magic Bohemian earspoon, let's check the literature to see if there's some famous dead guy's haunted tomb in need of some graverobbinglegally-questionable-acquisition.' Mind you, the dynamic of the guy who uses a non-magic weapon until the werewolves show up, and then switches to their backup non-feat-supported magic weapon... and the dynamic of the guy who makes nice with the spellcasters to have them give him some combat support when needed... those are not nearly as bad as you make them sound (and in fact can be kind of fun dynamics, depending upon your group). Beyond that, from a basic power level, a guy with GWM and PAM making do with a non-magic halberd and a +1 warhammer (or the like), is probably not that far off, power-wise, from the guy who is maxing out his Strength (or Strength and Dexterity) as quick as possible, choosing defensive fighting style, and has his pick of the litter in terms of magic weapons. It's quite possible that that is a level playing field. Again, if and only if you and your group can find some fun in the adversity, it's not the horrid of a place to be.

[Ganymede]

I generally let my players "reincarnate" the non-artifact magic weapons they find into an appropriately masterwork non-magic weapon.

[MaxWilson]

I'm just saying that if you take PAM early on but never see a polearm that's so much as moon-touched, that's going to be pretty lame. You're either not using that feat at all, blackmailing the cleric (if you have one) to cast magic weapon or dealing half damage to creatures with nonmagic resistance.

Or proactively consulting a sage about legendary lost magic halberds and leads on their current whereabouts (see: Sage background feature), or researching enchantment formulas for magical weapons, or negotiating with wizards to do the work for you in exchange for favors.


This very simply only works in slow-paced sandbox campaigns. And if there's a specific custom-made-by-the-DM enchantment, it requires them to find that exact secret. Personally I'd find making sure that the exact formula for the item they want being available and easy to track down/steal more of a personalization of the campaign world to the players' interest. And then you've given your players not just the ability to change that one hammer, but the ability to create as many of that hammer as they want.

Maybe. It depends on what the secret is, and what rules the DM has for enchantment. Some methods are not repeatable, and DMs who don't want magic item assembly lines will use those methods. (Magic As Mystery.) Other DMs are fine with item repeats as long as each one has an economic cost. (Magic As Technology, converting time and money into power.)

[strangebloke]

Or proactively consulting a sage about legendary lost magic halberds and leads on their current whereabouts (see: Sage background feature), or researching enchantment formulas for magical weapons, or negotiating with wizards to do the work for you in exchange for favors.

Maybe. It depends on what the secret is, and what rules the DM has for enchantment. Some methods are not repeatable, and DMs who don't want magic item assembly lines will use those methods. (Magic As Mystery.) Other DMs are fine with item repeats as long as each one has an economic cost. (Magic As Technology, converting time and money into power.)

Right. I run more Magic-as-mystery, with the only method available to buy or sell magic items a shady service of backroom dealers, who for a price will try to find a buyer or seller for what you're interested in. You can ask for a certain item, but its an open question how much it will cost and whether or not it'll be accessible.

But that's more a result of wizards, warlocks, and bards all being rather feared in my setting, and Druids and Clerics being the more well-respected ones.

Of course, Clerics and Druids can make magic items too, as can perfectly normal blacksmiths, but such people are as a rule tied to powerful churches and/or guilds and they're not really open to business for just anyone. I mean, the king is their biggest customer and he doesn't want them selling out flametongues or worse, necklaces of fireball to random merchants.

[tieren]

I try to go with what is best for the story.

If the heroes are at a point where its appropriate to find magic weaponry they can use, fine. If I have no Great Weapon User but I have a story element great sword that may need delivering to some even more epic hero, its luggage.

Case in point, I have Curse of Strahd game with no sword users in the party. the Sun Blade is now a sun axe, simple change that doesn't derail anything.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

It makes more work for the DM
You might as well just have a magic shop, really, and control gold access
Its very contrived. What are these goblins doing with a magic warhammer?


obviously this is the 'novelist vs. sandbox vs. video game' debate again, but I'd tend to say that contrived scenarios are always to be avoided.


A more complex modification, particularly one to the enchantment, might require higher checks, formulas, or special training, sure. But attaching a blade to the end of a longer haft should not be a major issue.

Okay, but if you're only arguing for a changing out the pommel then you aren't actually making the weapon any different mechanically right? So you're not making a longsword into a shortsword or a hammer into an axe. You're making a hammer with a 4 ft golden handle into a hammer with a 4.5 ft silver handle. I don't care so much about that stuff, so unless the appearance is specific in my mind and important, I'd just as soon give a general description and have the player tell me how it looks in detail (runes etched onto the sword, gilded hilt, etc.).

And I don't see how it's more work to give the players what they want straight away than to give them something and tell them they can change it to suite their liking. It seems more "contrived" to do the latter IMO. I didn't say anything about goblins having a magic warhammer though so I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

[Vorpalchicken]

Maybe consider a player finding Van Helsing’s Crossbow?
A Holy Avenger Crossbow could be awesome.
Just like Olaf’s Tankard of Disruption (the ultimate weapon when bar fighting the Undead).
I would consider a crossbow of Disruption.
If a player has specialized in a funky weapon to gain some mechanical advantage, I may throw him or her a bone, but eschewing the classic sword means you're not getting some of the coolest legendary weapons.
There's a reason the game was designed like it was.

[Nhorianscum]

No. Drops are random and are the default weapon/item type.

I do however using Xanathars Market/Crafting rules and will generally allow All Official + MFoV content so players can buy/trade/build what they need with no hassle.

[Lunali]

Things to consider as far as wider impact goes.

If the players find magic items that are entirely unsuited for them, they will try to sell the item.

Unless the players are the only people in the world that find magic items, other people will also find magic items that they don't want and try to sell them.

This means that if the players are finding items that don't work for them, they will reasonably expect to be able to buy the items they actually want.

[Sception]

I generally offee a mix of totally random items that are then up to the players to find creative uses for and tailored items that i know they'll be excited to get their hands on.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not a fan of the way magic items become a generic commodity in most settings and campaigns.

[Pex]

Another thing to consider is that as the PC rises in power, skill and renown, and the threats they face grow the same, so do the people who have a reason to be grateful to the PCs.

Having a PAM Fighter be approached by a group of blacksmith with a personalized magic glaive , as thanks for saving them from the great dragon, or having the god Baccot change the Wizard's robe into a Robe of the Stars, got to be more memorable than just finding one in a pile of loot by "coincidence"

That's fine. Have the Fighter get his magical glaive in whatever fantastical heroic fashion suitable for the game, as long as he actually gets one instead of figuratively saying so sorry so sad to the Pole Arm Master player there are no magical glaives in the DMG so he never gets one.

[Benny89]

That's fine. Have the Fighter get his magical glaive in whatever fantastical heroic fashion suitable for the game, as long as he actually gets one instead of figuratively saying so sorry so sad to the Pole Arm Master player there are no magical glaives in the DMG so he never gets one.

Exactly, that would be lame and directly harm a player. A balance between players is very important. You have sword and shield Paladin who gets yet another magic sword because for some reason DMG is full of magic swords but you have second player with Polearm Mastery Fighter who gets nothing because "There is no magic Glaive in DMG, which means they don't exist".

So in thousands of years of Faerun/Whatever other world history nobody got an idea to make Magic Glaive/Halberd. Sure.

It's not only a lazy (in my opinion) approach but it makes one player having access to bunch of potential magic weapons because 9/10 of them are swords while PAM or Hand Crossbow players are getting nothing because authors of DMG were too lazy to put at least 3 unique magic weapons for each weapon category.

It's also not that hard to simply modify an item in book to not be exact copy. It's one Minute job.

Fast Legendary weapon creation:

Let's take mentioned many time Holy Avenger:

+3, extra 2d10 radiant to fiend or Undead, Aura 10 feet- advantage vs spell saves.

Ok, so general idea is: +3, +2d10 bonus and good passive. Ok, I got an idea what Legendary item should be like.

And we then we make:

Dragons Slayer, a legendary magical Glaive with blade and shaft made out of various dragons scales and bones, reflecting all kinds of colors under the light:

+3, extra 1d8 damage from either (cold, acid, electric, fire, poison- Player can chose before attack roll which kind of dragon essence is activated) + 10 feet Aura that gives resistance to elemental damage (cold, fire, acid, poison, electric).

Done. Add to it some history/lore about long forgotten Dragon Slayer guy who was hunting dragons long before current times and you have legendary Glaive for your hero. Glaives, lances and spears many times were used in fantasy as dragon slaying weapons so the theme is also cool.

It's a weapon worth a legendary quest to get it (similar to Holy Avenger) and you have one hell of a happy player who will get it. It's just a simple one minute idea, you can add more lore to it or some unique features (like making all dragons in area feel uneasy because a Dragons Slayer wielder is around).

[Kwinza]

As a DM, yes, literally always if needed and the following is the reason why.

As a player I've played through Curse of Strahd(sp?) twice. Want to make a guess how many times the Sunsword has been used? ZERO.
Because we didn't have a sword n board or a single hander player either time rendering one of the best items in the campaign completely useless.

So you can bet your life if I end up DM'ing that book the Sunsword will transmute into a two hander if needed.

[HappyDaze]

As a DM, yes, literally always if needed and the following is the reason why.

As a player I've played through Curse of Strahd(sp?) twice. Want to make a guess how many times the Sunsword has been used? ZERO.
Because we didn't have a sword n board or a single hander player either time rendering one of the best items in the campaign completely useless.

So you can bet your life if I end up DM'ing that book the Sunsword will transmute into a two hander if needed.

Sunsword is a longsword, right? That means it has Versatile. What is it lacking that prevents it from being used two-handed? Sure, the base damage is only going to be 1d10 vs 2d6 for a great sword, but that's only a loss of 1.5 damage per hit, and that's a small price to pay for the other benefits.

[Man_Over_Game]

Not a fan of the way magic items become a generic commodity in most settings and campaigns.

To be fair, that's the DM's call, not the edition. 5e explicitly tries to make magical items much more wondrous and hard to come by, to the point where most magic items don't have a price tag.

But a lot of DMs have a hard time finding ways to show growth for the character and the campaign that satisfies that need for change, so they throw in a magic item or two or five to guarantee the characters are satisified.

A good rule of thumb is that a character should have as many magic items as: (Level / 5)^2

Which correlates to be these magic items per level values:


0
0
0
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
25


Now, this is based on uncommon values. Players may see some common magical items as early as level 2-3, and shouldn't see an artifact until level 15 or so, but otherwise this is a rough estimate as to how many magic items most adventurers should see.

[Sindal]

Sunsword is a longsword, right? That means it has Versatile. What is it lacking that prevents it from being used two-handed? Sure, the base damage is only going to be 1d10 vs 2d6 for a great sword, but that's only a loss of 1.5 damage per hit, and that's a small price to pay for the other benefits.

Doesn't really change that no one else'd it because 'using the sunsword, this magical cool weapon perfect for vampires' wasn't as important as having fun.

[Man_Over_Game]

Doesn't really change that no one else'd it because 'using the sunsword, this magical cool weapon perfect for vampires' wasn't as important as having fun.

But the player wouldn't have fun with a versatile weapon that deals 1 damage less?



You could have handed the party a versatile (in the English sense) weapon that almost anyone in the party could have used, and they could have come to their own conclusion that it'd be best given to the two-handed Fighter who has no magical weapon, have his damage stay the same and get a bunch of other benefits.

But by making the weapon specific for a single player, you end up taking that group decision making away from them. They didn't make the decision to help the Fighter, you did.

[Kwinza]

But the player wouldn't have fun with a versatile weapon that deals 1 damage less?



You could have handed the party a versatile (in the English sense) weapon that almost anyone in the party could have used, and they could have come to their own conclusion that it'd be best given to the two-handed Fighter who has no magical weapon, have his damage stay the same and get a bunch of other benefits.

But by making the weapon specific for a single player, you end up taking that group decision making away from them. They didn't make the decision to help the Fighter, you did.

The only melee weapon user both times through was a paladin with a great sword. Both times both players chose a smiting great sword over the sunsword.

And since that's what they found most fun, that's the correct way to play.

[Unoriginal]

The only melee weapon user both times through was a paladin with a great sword. Both times both players chose a smiting great sword over the sunsword.

And since that's what they found most fun, that's the correct way to play.

By that reasoning, shouldn't you say that the Sunsword *should not* be turned into a greatsword, since a Smiting Greatsword is considered better/more fun by greatsword users, and that's the correct way to play?

Where did they find Smiting Greatswords in Curse of Strahd, by the way?

[Kwinza]

By that reasoning, shouldn't you say that the Sunsword *should not* be turned into a greatsword, since a Smiting Greatsword is considered better/more fun by greatsword users, and that's the correct way to play?

Where did they find Smiting Greatswords in Curse of Strahd, by the way?

What? I meant the paladin power to smite things? Holy Power? Whatever its called lol, I haven't played one myself.

[Unoriginal]

What? I meant the paladin power to smite things? Holy Power? Whatever its called lol, I haven't played one myself.

So you're saying that both Paladins outright refused all the additional powers of the Sunsword, including the fact they could use it with their Smites... for 1.5 point of damage average that would have been compensated by the Sunsword's powers?

[Man_Over_Game]

The only melee weapon user both times through was a paladin with a great sword. Both times both players chose a smiting great sword over the sunsword.

And since that's what they found most fun, that's the correct way to play.

Isn't the Sun sword a +2 weapon?

Sun sword with two hands: 1d10 + 2 = 7.5 average, magical radiant damage.

Greatsword with two hands: 2d6 = 7 average, non-magical slashing damage.

I mean, sure? I guess those players were really big on big weapons. It could have been a player decision to just not use bigger weapons (#1), or maybe they didn't understand the benefits of using a +2 magical radiant weapon (#2), but I consider both issues being important to the game (Issue #1 being that sometimes a character has to adapt and grow, issue #2 as understanding basic dice statistics).

[MaxWilson]

The only melee weapon user both times through was a paladin with a great sword. Both times both players chose a smiting great sword over the sunsword.

And since that's what they found most fun, that's the correct way to play.

Sounds like an argument for why finding customized magic items is completely unnecessary. The DM's job isn't to make sure that the players use the Infinity -1 Sword. It is to enable the players to have a meaningful play experience with lots of decisions of discernable impact, integrated into the play experience. Apparently that's exactly what these players got from their choice of build so mission accomplished.

P.S. Frankly you'd get about the same utility out of the Sunblade by giving it to the party wizard. The main thing you want it for is sunlight in a 30' radius, not making attacks. I'm not surprised the paladins didn't want it but I am surprised if the party didn't make use of the sunlight. Maybe that's the fault of the module writers--I don't remember how many sunlight-vulnerable vampires/etc. are actually in the adventure path.

[Man_Over_Game]

Sounds like an argument for why finding customized magic items is completely unnecessary. The DM's job isn't to make sure that the players use the Infinity -1 Sword. It is to enable the players to have a meaningful play experience with lots of decisions of discernable impact, integrated into the play experience. Apparently that's exactly what these players got from their choice of build so mission accomplished.

P.S. Frankly you'd get about the same utility out of the Sunblade by giving it to the party wizard. The main thing you want it for is sunlight, not making attacks.

Well, the Sun Sword does have Finesse, deals radiant damage, and is a +2 magical weapon (and remember that most attackers don't deal inherent magical damage). The sunlight is cool, but there are racial and class abilities that can duplicate that, but finesse on a high damage weapon is hard to come by, and radiant damage is really good in Curse of Strahd.

[MaxWilson]

Well, the Sun Sword does have Finesse, deals radiant damage, and is a +2 magical weapon (and remember that most attackers don't deal inherent magical damage). The sunlight is cool, but there are racial and class abilities that can duplicate that, but finesse on a high damage weapon is hard to come by, and radiant damage is really good in Curse of Strahd.

But vampires take radiant damage from sunlight already, and there's no need to inflict radiant damage on every attack, let alone twice on a given attack (smiting AND Sunsword radiance). Vs. zombies, yeah, radiant is moderately nice if you're not smiting, but they were smiting, and you can also just hit them hard enough that they fail their Undead Fortitude saves. (Don't get me wrong--from a pure DPR optimization point of view the Sunsword probably would have been slightly better, but the difference isn't that large.) I own Curse of Strahd but have never run it so I don't remember how many zombies are actually in it or whether they come in sufficient densities that a paladin can't just smite them all.

Finesse is IMO not that big of a deal since Dex-specialized characters ought to be archery-primary in the first place, with melee only as a backup option. And the weapon is only moderately high damage once the opportunity cost of lost Sharpshooter/GWM attacks is factored in--you only get the +1d8 against undead IIRC. Inherent magical damage can be a big deal if you don't have other means of getting it, but again that depends on the adventure writer, and paladins do have other ways of getting it (Sacred Weapon, Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon), plus if they were smite-oriented, all the smite damage would bypass weapon resistance anyway.

It honestly sounds like the players made a very defensible decision to stick with their trusty old weapons instead of the Sunsword. The difference isn't that great, except for the sunlight.

[EggKookoo]

Do you also do that in your games? I thought for many years (even in older systems) it's quite normal common-sense thing for DM but lately I found out it might not be the case.

I do it.

In fact, in my upcoming campaign, I plan to have lots of one-time-use (or limited use) magic items that the PCs can lug around in the hopes of getting a good opportune use out of, or just sell off somewhere. But scattered among them will be set items quite tailored to the PCs (although I won't tell them who they're meant for or even that they're meant for specific characters -- part of the fun is working that out). The set items will grow in power as one acquires more items in the set, and I'll mostly make the set items available at certain points as the PCs level up, so that power will scale with them.

[Rafaelfras]

In my games i tend to do both
When i roll for treasure hoards i stick to what i get in the tables, for some weapons i also roll for the weapon type so a lucky player has a shot on the loot instead of just swords ( witch would favor the group fighter)
For quest rewards, especialy big ones like the end of a campaign or a big milestone i give something that I know my player want
For exemple I gave a flame tougue to our sword and board fighter, to our monk a frostbrand spear and will give a "flame tougue" bow that does lightning damage to our rogue as reward for closing the respective elemental nodes on POTA.
In a priveous campaing I gave a holly avenger spear to the paladin who was specialized in it.
So, in my opinion a mix between the 2 will get you the most. If you go only random you realy risk your characters never finding something they can use, and never getting that one item they really want, if all is custom they get spoiled, afects your immersion and force you to having to Constantly pay attention for witch player is getting each reward and taking the decision from the party

[mephnick]

I do and I don't. Most of my world was created when 5e first came out and those things are set. This includes hoards and rumours of powerful weapons. Doesn't mean I can't add a magic polearm if I feel the need when I flesh out an area I haven't finished yet. That also doesn't mean the players will hear about it unless they do some deep investigating. I'm never going to tailor a hoard for a player because my world is created to be party neutral, which is the style of game I've always ran.

All my hoards are rolled randomly ahead of time using a custom magic item list (because the DMG one is terrible) and if I roll a magic weapon I also roll for the type. Yes, I've had a party find a magic sling they "couldn't use" except..you know..when they did. Smart players will find a use for things outside of their character build. I find that more interesting than the PAM Fighter getting gifted a holy spear because they reached a certain level.

[Man_Over_Game]

I do it.

In fact, in my upcoming campaign, I plan to have lots of one-time-use (or limited use) magic items that the PCs can lug around in the hopes of getting a good opportune use out of, or just sell off somewhere. But scattered among them will be set items quite tailored to the PCs (although I won't tell them who they're meant for or even that they're meant for specific characters -- part of the fun is working that out). The set items will grow in power as one acquires more items in the set, and I'll mostly make the set items available at certain points as the PCs level up, so that power will scale with them.

This is almost exactly how the Numenera system hands out magical items. Most of them are unique, single use consumables that can turn the tide of an entire battle, but a select few are permanent items that generally are used throughout the course of the campaign.

DMs like handing out magical stuff to players, but too many permanent increases ends up creating a sort of inflated growth problem, where some classes/builds are devalued or enemies have to become dramatically more difficult than they are normally scaled for. By handing out lots of consumables, you can still create that sense of accumulated wealth, while still allowing character growth and player creativity.

[ad_hoc]

We roll for each treasure hoard.

If it just says 'magic weapon's we roll for the type.

[Misterwhisper]

It depends on a few things:

1. Does the weapon make sense for the enemy that had it, or for where it was found?

ex. Not a big difference if the orc chief had a great axe or a Glaive but does not make much sense for him to have a short sword.

If the group just took out an orc horde of barbarians and fighters and one of my players used great swords, sure I would greatly up the chance that the +1 weapon that was there is a great sword but only to like 50%.

2. Some items they just plain did not put in the freaking game.

I played an open hand monk who was all old school, no armor, no weapons, that was when we realized there are NO MAGIC HAND WEAPONS. None, they did not even bother to put in magic hand wraps or unarmed weapons.

My Dm, got a good kick out of laughing for a while when everyone else in the group had +1 or +2 magic weapons and on with a flame tongue, but the monk has nothing at all.

DM: Feel like admitting monks suck and using a quarterstaff yet?
Me: Nope, I made an unarmed monk and I will stick with it.
DM: Fine, I am still never giving you a weapon though.
Me: Whatever.

Trust me, it got old really freaking fast.

So every time I run a game I add in "Wraps" or at least a "Cestus" to the random weapon list. It only comes up under normal magic weapon though, no specific ones exist.

3. If all weapons in the world are rolled at random with a pretty likely chance that the weapons found do not match what the user actually wields then the elven archer who found a great sword is just as likely as the paladin who found a longbow, and in major cities there would be a market for that kind of thing. A trade of the item + 25% of its cost can get you the item you actually need assuming you are in a city big enough, and you put in some downtime work.

[EggKookoo]

DMs like handing out magical stuff to players, but too many permanent increases ends up creating a sort of inflated growth problem, where some classes/builds are devalued or enemies have to become dramatically more difficult than they are normally scaled for. By handing out lots of consumables, you can still create that sense of accumulated wealth, while still allowing character growth and player creativity.

The idea for it came to me as I read through Dragon Heist and a few other published adventures. Often treasure was "a large diamond worth 100gp" or "a pair of fine gloves with gold filigree worth 150gp" or something else like that. For the most part my players won't find that thrilling, and keeping track of money like that is just bookkeeping. I know some of these things are provided as material items for spellcasters but that just shifts the problem around. For the most part, material components -- especially consumed ones -- are just a money sink, so it defeats the purpose by having these components show up as treasure.

Instead, I thought, what if that large diamond worth 100gp could also cast shield, once? Once cast, the diamond goes dull and is worth at most 1gp. The player can hold onto it for selling if they want the 100gp, or use it at a clinch moment. Much more interesting, I think. The gloves? You can cast burning hands once, after which you might be able to get 1-2gp for them maybe for their materials. I feel like my players would put tactical or gameplay thought into these items instead of just shrugging and writing down some gp-equivalent on their sheets. They would muse over the possibilities, or enjoy having that "wait, I have an app for that!" moment.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

The idea for it came to me as I read through Dragon Heist and a few other published adventures. Often treasure was "a large diamond worth 100gp" or "a pair of fine gloves with gold filigree worth 150gp" or something else like that. For the most part my players won't find that thrilling, and keeping track of money like that is just bookkeeping. I know some of these things are provided as material items for spellcasters but that just shifts the problem around. For the most part, material components -- especially consumed ones -- are just a money sink, so it defeats the purpose by having these components show up as treasure.

Instead, I thought, what if that large diamond worth 100gp could also cast shield, once? Once cast, the diamond goes dull and is worth at most 1gp. The player can hold onto it for selling if they want the 100gp, or use it at a clinch moment. Much more interesting, I think. The gloves? You can cast burning hands once, after which you might be able to get 1-2gp for them maybe for their materials. I feel like my players would put tactical or gameplay thought into these items instead of just shrugging and writing down some gp-equivalent on their sheets. They would muse over the possibilities, or enjoy having that "wait, I have an app for that!" moment.

As a player I like a mix of gems etc. and gold for currency. Gold is always gold, but gems and rocks and things can be bartered, traded, and bluffed for more than their actual value depending on the situation. I haven't done this a ton, but it's come in handy to get the party some good deals on things we're looking to buy. Typically our DM says that we can exchange it on the spot and for the gold value, or it's on us to find someone to sell it to later. We choose both at different times depending on the treasure and if we think it'll be easy to sell later for a higher value.

[Willie the Duck]

Instead, I thought, what if that large diamond worth 100gp could also cast shield, once? Once cast, the diamond goes dull and is worth at most 1gp. The player can hold onto it for selling if they want the 100gp, or use it at a clinch moment. Much more interesting, I think. The gloves? You can cast burning hands once, after which you might be able to get 1-2gp for them maybe for their materials. I feel like my players would put tactical or gameplay thought into these items instead of just shrugging and writing down some gp-equivalent on their sheets. They would muse over the possibilities, or enjoy having that "wait, I have an app for that!" moment.

Monte Cook's Invisible Suns has mechanics like that. There are things like orbs (orbs being a standard form of money) and 'mage coins' which can be used as money, but can also be used to refill various ability pools (similar to, say, a monk getting back a ki point or the like). The game also has a bunch of single-use magic items (ranging from 'you get to skip sleeping tonight without fatigue' to 'you can come back from the dead one time' -- the game has it's own concepts of balance to be sure).

[MaxWilson]

This is almost exactly how the Numenera system hands out magical items. Most of them are unique, single use consumables that can turn the tide of an entire battle, but a select few are permanent items that generally are used throughout the course of the campaign.

DMs like handing out magical stuff to players, but too many permanent increases ends up creating a sort of inflated growth problem, where some classes/builds are devalued or enemies have to become dramatically more difficult than they are normally scaled for. By handing out lots of consumables, you can still create that sense of accumulated wealth, while still allowing character growth and player creativity.

Another way to do it is to hand out lots of unlimited-use but destructible magic items. That's how things worked in AD&D--fail a saving throw vs. Fireball and now all of your magic items have to make a saving throw vs. magical fire too or be destroyed. It makes the choice of which items to carry with you meaningful. Say you've got a Longbow +1 and a Shortbow +2. Do you bring them both with you on the dungeon crawl even though you probably can't use them both, or do you leave one of them at home as a backup in case the other gets nuked?

I have only done this to a mild degree in 5E (the 5E idiom seems to be that items are sacrosanct and effectively immune to damage as long as they're being carried by a non-incapacitated creature) but if I wanted to hand out lots of magic items I would turn up the destructibility. E.g. say that only the items currently in your hands, and items that you have attuned, share the idiomatic 5E invulnerability; but if you're carrying 20 Healing Potions and you fail your saving throw against a Shatter spell, a large number of those Healing Potions are going to burst, notwithstanding the "isn't being worn or carried" clause in Shatter.

[EggKookoo]

Yeah, I obviously don't play enough games. It's hard enough to get a D&D group together...

[The Jack]

I strongly feel that the 5e devs don't know how a magical item economy should work, and that they know very little about weapons beyond what they think is cool.

what DnD limits magic weapons to is just idiotic. Enlighten me on why a flameblade is swords only, or how berserker weapons should always be axes. There's no good rationalization for it (there are some rationalizations for it, but give me a good one)



My world is for players, not their characters. They're not going to find more magic mauls because their character likes mauls, just like they're not going to find a load of bracers of AC because they're mostly playing monks.




-Magic swords/daggers are going to be more common than axes/blunt equivalents, because they're generally lighter and easier to wear and their increased cost is inconsequential to anyone who can afford a magic weapon. Martial Anti-armour weapons will be the next most common weapon type, as they cover an area swords suck at.

- Magic polearms will be the most common type of Magic great weapon. Not only is this based on reality (polearms are the most widely used battlefield weapons across all social classes), it's better for the game; more feats apply to Polearms than shorter great weapons, and I like players fiddling with reach mechanics.

-Magic Bows may be more common than crossbows under the assumption that crossbows are generally newer (although both develop alongside eachother). However, in settings with technological stasis (IE most of em) this isn't a thing. Also the Bow is likely considered more noble than the crossbow, and thus gets more enchantment focus.


Silver bludgeoning weapons aught to be the most common, because they shouldn't need some 100gp silvering process; just put a little silver over the tip of something heavy and hard. I give all my town guards silver-tipped light hammers/maces/war picks where it could really matter. I'll give my players fairly easy access to them; They needn't spend more than 10gp, and can start with a non-blade silver weapon if they're allowed 'any martial weapon' so long as it's worth less than 10gp

[MaxWilson]

-Magic Bows may be more common than crossbows under the assumption that crossbows are generally newer (although both develop alongside eachother). However, in settings with technological stasis (IE most of em) this isn't a thing. Also the Bow is likely considered more noble than the crossbow, and thus gets more enchantment focus.

And for entirely rational reasons: a skilled warrior will generally get more mileage out of a bow than a crossbow (unless he is a Crossbow Expert), so skilled warriors gravitate to bows over crossbows, leaving crossbows for the unskilled.


Silver bludgeoning weapons aught to be the most common, because they shouldn't need some 100gp silvering process; just put a little silver over the tip of something heavy and hard. I give all my town guards silver-tipped light hammers/maces/war picks where it could really matter. I'll give my players fairly easy access to them; They needn't spend more than 10gp, and can start with a non-blade silver weapon if they're allowed 'any martial weapon' so long as it's worth less than 10gp

+1. Monsters vulnerable specifically to silvered weapons (and cold iron weapons, and wooden weapons, and other such weapons) should be more like a puzzle ("can you work out what this creature is vulnerable to?") than a collector's game. IIRC in the original werewolf movie (The Wolf Man) about what's-his-name Talbot, the werewolf was ultimately slain by a silver knob on a walking stick.

[Man_Over_Game]

I strongly feel that the 5e devs don't know how a magical item economy should work, and that they know very little about weapons beyond what they think is cool.

what DnD limits magic weapons to is just idiotic. Enlighten me on why a flameblade is swords only, or how berserker weapons should always be axes. There's no good rationalization for it (there are some rationalizations for it, but give me a good one)



My world is for players, not their characters. They're not going to find more magic mauls because their character likes mauls, just like they're not going to find a load of bracers of AC because they're mostly playing monks.




-Magic swords/daggers are going to be more common than axes/blunt equivalents, because they're generally lighter and easier to wear and their increased cost is inconsequential to anyone who can afford a magic weapon. Martial Anti-armour weapons will be the next most common weapon type, as they cover an area swords suck at.

- Magic polearms will be the most common type of Magic great weapon. Not only is this based on reality (polearms are the most widely used battlefield weapons across all social classes), it's better for the game; more feats apply to Polearms than shorter great weapons, and I like players fiddling with reach mechanics.

-Magic Bows may be more common than crossbows under the assumption that crossbows are generally newer (although both develop alongside eachother). However, in settings with technological stasis (IE most of em) this isn't a thing. Also the Bow is likely considered more noble than the crossbow, and thus gets more enchantment focus.


Silver bludgeoning weapons aught to be the most common, because they shouldn't need some 100gp silvering process; just put a little silver over the tip of something heavy and hard. I give all my town guards silver-tipped light hammers/maces/war picks where it could really matter. I'll give my players fairly easy access to them; They needn't spend more than 10gp, and can start with a non-blade silver weapon if they're allowed 'any martial weapon' so long as it's worth less than 10gp

Part of the issue is that there are two halves to DnD: The Game and The World.

Making silvered weapons might not be that expensive in the scheme of The World, but balance-wise, that cheapens every instance that a level 7-ish character gets to attack with magical damage. Making it 100 gp means that players can still gain a method to deal with silver-vulnerable enemies, but they have to plan around it. 100gp isn't accessible to a level 2 character, but it is very accessible to a level 5 (when most characters get some method of bypassing the issue in a few levels). It's a balance choice. The designers tried to stay 50/50, between a natural world and game balance, but sometimes that means that bypassing magical resistances with silver is more expensive than it normally should be. Giving everyone silvered weapons means that the players' preemptive choice doesn't feel like a valuable one. Werewolves may as well not have the feature, if they face all combatants the same.

But that's my guess as to why the devs priced it that way. What's more important to you, The Game or The World?

-------

Or, alternatively, provide readily available silvered weapons at low levels, but still have enough instances where players who silver their weapons feel value for their choice, and that other classes who attack magically (like Monks) still feel value from their level 6 feature.

[MaxWilson]

Part of the issue is that there are two halves to DnD: The Game and The World.

Making silvered weapons might not be that expensive in the scheme of The World, but balance-wise, that cheapens every instance that a level 7-ish character gets to attack with magical damage. Making it 100 gp means that players can still gain a method to deal with silver-vulnerable enemies, but they have to plan around it. It's a balance choice. The designers tried to stay 50/50, between a natural world and game balance, but sometimes that means that bypassing magical resistances is more expensive than it normally should be.

But that's my guess as to why the devs priced it that way. What's more important to you, The Game or The World?

It's not a very good way to balance The Game. Forcing a one-time 100gp expenditure has almost zero impact on The Game. A better choice is to make different creatures vulnerable to different things: fey to cold iron (as opposed to natural weapons), vampires to once-living substances like wood, ghouls to hawthorn, trolls to weapons coated in ash, etc. Now you have to either get a magic weapon or plan around the specific creature you're actually dealing with, instead of just spending 100 gp once at level 3 and thereafter ignoring that entire aspect of The Game.

[Misterwhisper]

Why does it always seem perfectly fine to shoehorn the marital classes into lack of gear but the idea that a caster can not find certain magic components even if they are cheap is anathema?

When is the last time anyone has seen a wizard not able to find the right ink to scribe their spell book?
Now how often is the fighter who used heavy weapons, finding longswords?

All this talk of changing up immunities or resistances to be more of a puzzle to solve just makes people want to play martial classes even less.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's not a very good way to balance The Game. Forcing a one-time 100gp expenditure has almost zero impact on The Game. A better choice is to make different creatures vulnerable to different things: fey to cold iron (as opposed to natural weapons), vampires to once-living substances like wood, ghouls to hawthorn, trolls to weapons coated in ash, etc. Now you have to either get a magic weapon or plan around the specific creature you're actually dealing with, instead of just spending 100 gp once at level 3 and thereafter ignoring that entire aspect of The Game.

Sure. I think that's a great idea.

I'm thinking the 100gp requirement was there to create more distinction between martial and magical characters. Early on, only your mages can deal with Werewolves, so the rest of your team better play defensively and protect them. Eventually (around level 4), 1-2 your martials can invest in something that helps even the playing field, but at this point, creatures that are resistant to physical damage but not vulnerable to silver start showing up occasionally, so the distinction between mages and martials is still there.

For most, 100gp is a decent amount of money. You have to choose to make that investment. By the time that 100gp is no longer any real value, you likely have some other means of bypassing those resistances. But I feel like 10 gp is a bit too low. You can afford to just do it at almost any level, because it's better, which doesn't really have much decision making involved.

[MaxWilson]

Why does it always seem perfectly fine to shoehorn the marital classes into lack of gear but the idea that a caster can not find certain magic components even if they are cheap is anathema?

When is the last time anyone has seen a wizard not able to find the right ink to scribe their spell book?
Now how often is the fighter who used heavy weapons, finding longswords?

All this talk of changing up immunities or resistances to be more of a puzzle to solve just makes people want to play martial classes even less.

I think the word you're looking for is "commoditization," and the question is "when did spell ink become a commodity?" The answer is: definitely before 5E was invented. I never played 5E but the impression I get is that it may have happened when WotC bought TSR, at least when it comes to spell scrolls. (Spellbooks in AD&D were commoditized, but scribing spell scrolls required special inks that could only be obtained through adventuring.)

In 5E, even the acquisition of spells has been commoditized: you don't go on an adventure to discover the lost art of Simulacrum creation, you just pick Simulacrum as one of your free picks on level-up. If this were a thread about wizards I'd be talking about alternate ways you could have written those rules instead, to integrate spell research/discovery with adventuring activities instead of chargen.

So don't assume that the people talking about different ways to do weapon resistance don't also have ideas about different ways to do magic.

[The Jack]

Well, not all monsters are immune to silver, and the price will go up with larger weapons.

Somewhat arbitrary listing;

Silver
light Hammer- +1g
Mace +5g
Pick +10g
Warhammer +20g
Greatclub+50g (note- Sensible Greatclubs do 1d10 damage)
Maul +100g

Bullets- 100g for 100 pieces.


Alchemical silver.
Dagger-+50g
Sword/Axe +75g
Longsword/Rapier/Battleaxe +100g
Greataxe +125g
Greatsword+ 200g
All polearms +50g

Arrows 100g for 10 pieces.

[Man_Over_Game]

So don't assume that the people talking about different ways to do weapon resistance don't also have ideas about different ways to do magic.

Man, that'd be a daunting task. I don't even know where I'd start on that. Wizards and Sorcerers could have their own specific way of learning spells, but how would Druid or Warlocks do it?

[MaxWilson]

Man, that'd be a daunting task. I don't even know where I'd start on that. Wizards and Sorcerers could have their own specific way of learning spells, but how would Druid or Warlocks do it?

My sketch for this is:

Clerics and druids learn spells by rote and tradition. The fact that "all clerics know all cleric spells" really just means "the Church (or Churches, or Hierocracy) have a fixed liturgy and teach it to everyone." This is why clerical/druidic magic is based on Wisdom instead of Intelligence BTW: how dedicated are you to learning stuff by rote even if you may not understand it until years later? Clerics could theoretically research or find new spells, but in practice they don't really, because people who are into experimentation and acquisition of knowledge typically go into Wizardry instead of theurgy. Clerics/druids basically just stick with what they're already comfortable with.

Sorcerers spontaneously manifest spells. For the sake of The Game, you can retain the pick-one-spell-as-you-level-up rule. It's as good as any other, especially since the sorcerer spell list is already pretty constricted. Sorcerers won't be spontaneously manifesting complicated effects like Planar Binding or Animate Dead or Rary's Telepathic Bond or Simulacrum--they mostly just manifest direct effects like mind control or blasting. If you wanted to you could even switch to a wildcard system wherein sorcerers spontaneously manifest their spells at a moment of great need--when you gain a new "spells known" slot, you the player just hang on to that slot until it's dramatically appropriate for you to will a new ability into existence, i.e. declare a new spell known.

Wizards learn spells only through research or finding them in play. (There's nothing stopping you from proactively seeking out lost magical secrets even before you reach the level where you can comprehend them: you can set out on an expedition to find the lost secret of Simulacrum or Wish even when you're only 9th level, and then you just keep the spell book on hand until you finally master the spells at 13th/17th level.)

Warlocks, well, I'm never sure what to do with them or how they're distinct from wizards. I'd like to rewrite them to be about forbidden/forgotten knowledge, Int-based instead of Cha-based, and to explain just what is the deal with them and their pacts and patrons and how it is that these patrons can grant abilities like True Polymorph even if the patron themself does not have that ability. Frankly I sometimes feel that they shouldn't be a character class at all--gaining weird abilities/penalties should be something that happens in play, orthogonal to the class levels you gain. If a 9th level wizard gains super-powered Fire Bolts and the ability to refresh 1/3 of his spell points by drinking a flask of virgins' blood, but domestic animals now cringe and run away when they see him, and he has nightmares every night where a demon shows him the torments that await him if he doesn't murder an innocent tomorrow, to me THAT's what warlocking is about. It shouldn't be a class choice.

[Man_Over_Game]

My sketch for this is:

Clerics and druids The fact that they can swap out spells each day kinda bugs me. It doesn't quite match what seems "natural" for a practiced clergyman. Perhaps making it so that they have prepared the recommended amount of spells (Wisdom + Level), but you can only swap a number of spells equal to your Wisdom, implying that their abilities are learned, but they can effectively ask their god for alternate powers when they dream (or something).



Sorcerers I pretty much agree with you here. Sorcerers should be "creating" their own magic, even if they happen to "create" a spell that other people have created/written down/studied for centuries


WizardsI like this idea, but it's hard to implement and it kinda punishes Wizards rather hard. Maybe they can learn spells through leveling up still, but only spells that are within their school (through mastery, studying, perfection, etc). Not sure what to do with the other non-school subclasses, though, besides creating brand new spell lists to accommodate. Or, alternatively, if they don't have a school, they can pick from any school at a spell level up to half of their Wizard level, rounded down, making them more versatile but not gaining the higher level wizard spells right off the bat.


Warlocks Yeah, it's pretty difficult for me to justify, too. Bards, too, are pretty hard for me to figure out.

For Warlocks, I'd just set something up so that you can only gain a level as a Warlock as part of a bargain between you and your Patron. As in, you sleep, have a conversation with them, explained what you're doing to further their investment, and then they decide to reward you for your diligence. If you didn't further their goals or they feel you're slacking, then you get no level. As part of the reward, though, you "bargain" for the spells and powers that you want without the restrictions that hinder the Wizard.

[MaxWilson]

The fact that they can swap out spells each day kinda bugs me. It doesn't quite match what seems "natural" for a practiced clergyman. Perhaps making it so that they have prepared the recommended amount of spells (Wisdom + Level), but you can only swap a number of spells equal to your Wisdom, implying that their abilities are learned, but they can effectively ask their god for alternate powers when they dream (or something).

Just think of them as a different kind of wizard, with memorized spellbooks. Whatever "preparing" spells entails in 5E terms, that's what clerics do when they swap out their spells. I am not trying to change the nature of the spell system here.


I like this idea, but it's hard to implement and it kinda punishes Wizards rather hard.

Eh. Not-altering-the-class-balance is a non-goal here. In practice it's not very punishing anyway, because I have rules for spell research already and a permissive sandboxy style which doesn't punish wizards for taking the time to research spells. The main effect, because of how spell research works, is to make powerful high-level spells like Simulacrum and Wish more of an adventuring goal (the wizardly equivalent of looking for a Holy Avenger) than an aspect of chargen (like selecting a feat). Yes, that's a nerf to high-level wizards, but I also consider it an improvement to both flavor and gameplay. Any player who has a problem with that should go read Mazirian the Magician before complaining.


For Warlocks, I'd just set something up so that you can only gain a level as a Warlock as part of a bargain between you and your Patron. As in, you sleep, have a conversation with them, explained what you're doing to further their investment, and then they decide to reward you for your diligence. If you didn't further their goals or they feel you're slacking, then you get no level. As part of the reward, though, you "bargain" for the spells and powers that you want without the restrictions that hinder the Wizard.

I'd just make that an alternate source of knowledge. If you can't find Simulacrum anywhere else, you can try to bargain with Orcus to learn it. That doesn't require class levels or anything, it's just part of gameplay. The wizard is trading one set of restrictions (I don't know Simulacrum) for another (I owe Orcus a favor/some sacrifices/whatever).

[Sigreid]

Just a thought here, from a certain perspective not customizing the magic weapons to cater to your players makes their choices of combat style (fighting style, feats, etc.) of vastly more consequence. The choice to be a PAM paladin when all holy avengers are swords can be of huge consequence, for example.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just a thought here, from a certain perspective not customizing the magic weapons to cater to your players makes their choices of combat style (fighting style, feats, etc.) of vastly more consequence. The choice to be a PAM paladin when all holy avengers are swords can be of huge consequence, for example.

Agreed, and unless the players know that going in it's false agency. Agency requires a knowing choice. Either choice (tailored or not) is fine for me if it's done with full prior knowledge on both sides.

Same goes for other class features and feats. A DM should make it clear if a choice will not do any good before you make it. If it's situational, that's fine. But useless? Give warning.

[Sigreid]

Agreed, and unless the players know that going in it's false agency. Agency requires a knowing choice. Either choice (tailored or not) is fine for me if it's done with full prior knowledge on both sides.

Same goes for other class features and feats. A DM should make it clear if a choice will not do any good before you make it. If it's situational, that's fine. But useless? Give warning.

I'm probably spoiled by having a long time group. Everyone in the group already knows what the defaults are, and that any variation from them is a DM intervention.

Anyway, I agree that if in the above example a player says "I'm going to make a PAM Pally" the DM should remind them that Holy Swords are, in fact, swords if that is the case.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Agreed, and unless the players know that going in it's false agency. Agency requires a knowing choice. Either choice (tailored or not) is fine for me if it's done with full prior knowledge on both sides.

Same goes for other class features and feats. A DM should make it clear if a choice will not do any good before you make it. If it's situational, that's fine. But useless? Give warning.
I think that's the best answer. Let your players know if you'll be tailoring or not ahead of time so that they can decide whether trying to specialize in a more esoteric weapon is worth it or not. They shouldn't be getting mad if you're being transparent.

It makes for a different play experience. Some people will love it, some people won't.

[MaxWilson]

I think that's the best answer. Let your players know if you'll be tailoring or not ahead of time so that they can decide whether trying to specialize in a more esoteric weapon is worth it or not. They shouldn't be getting mad if you're being transparent.

It makes for a different play experience. Some people will love it, some people won't.

Yep. Also let them know whether or not you consider it their responsibility or yours to make sure they avoid unwinnable fights, to set the pacing (when to rest for an hour or a day), to present the players with certain kinds of information (if the DM doesn't give you a map of the dungeon before you enter it, does that mean he doesn't want you to have one/will quash attempts to gain one, or does it mean it's on the chainlock's familiar and/or the rogue to conduct recon?), to set strategic goals (is it out of bounds/unfair for the players to start recruiting defeated enemies to join their mercenary army? will that wreck the game or is the DM just fine with that?), etc.

It's probably not possible to convey all aspects of the game you run up front but you can try to at least give them the gist.

[Benny89]

Just a thought here, from a certain perspective not customizing the magic weapons to cater to your players makes their choices of combat style (fighting style, feats, etc.) of vastly more consequence. The choice to be a PAM paladin when all holy avengers are swords can be of huge consequence, for example.

I think it's worse as DM to give player message that they need to build/choose feats based on an end-game weapons (which they will probably get like level 17+) or magic weapons list in general. If people would follow such tip, everyone would just go for sword builds because 9/10 magic weapons are swords in DMG. Which is even more silly. It's not a cRPG game like Baldurs Gate where you could skip some areas and rush straight for Krasomir +5 with Paladin.

So if a player want to make PAM but has to think like "but then when I will be months into game I won't be able to get any legendary weapon because my DM can only take ready items from book so I better go greatsword". It's imo not a good solution.

Do you think anyone chose Paladin Oath based on it's capstone? So like "ow, it's has awesome capstone so I will just wait 20 levels to finally get what I planned to use".

Sorry, but If my player would be afraid to make a PAM or crossbow Paladin just because he is afraid to "skip" Holy Avenger level weapon - I would feel bad as DM. If my player wants to be PAM Paladin- I will just give him holy glaives. Easy peasy. Doesn't have to be Holy Avenger, it can be Holy Slayer - glaive with same stats. Or with different but of equal level if I had two Paladins- one GS and one PAM, I would give one Hole Avenger from book and other one custom created Holy Slayer. Both players are happy, nobody complains.

My opinion only as I have my style, as anyone here.

[Misterwhisper]

I think it's worse as DM to give player message that they need to build/choose feats based on an end-game weapons (which they will probably get like level 17+) or magic weapons list in general. If people would follow such tip, everyone would just go for sword builds because 9/10 magic weapons are swords in DMG. Which is even more silly. It's not a cRPG game like Baldurs Gate where you could skip some areas and rush straight for Krasomir +5 with Paladin.

So if a player want to make PAM but has to think like "but then when I will be months into game I won't be able to get any legendary weapon because my DM can only take ready items from book so I better go greatsword". It's imo not a good solution.

Do you think anyone chose Paladin Oath based on it's capstone? So like "ow, it's has awesome capstone so I will just wait 20 levels to finally get what I planned to use".

Sorry, but If my player would be afraid to make a PAM or crossbow Paladin just because he is afraid to "skip" Holy Avenger level weapon - I would feel bad as DM.

My opinion only as I have my style, as anyone here.

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier kind of like playing an unarmed monk, fits thematically and all, but there are no magic unarmed items in the game at all. So you will never have a chance to get +1, 2, 3 weapons or any weapons with special abilities like wounding or well, anything because they forgot to add them.

[Benny89]

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier kind of like playing an unarmed monk, fits thematically and all, but there are no magic unarmed items in the game at all. So you will never have a chance to get +1, 2, 3 weapons or any weapons with special abilities like wounding or well, anything because they forgot to add them.

That is why my monk player got unique bone knuckle-duster +1 that also deal extra 1k6 necrotic damage. He was very happy as he was last that got his +1 weapon.

Nobody could ever convience me that leaving that monk player without magic weapon would be fair and good idea, just because he wants to stay unarmed monk and because authors didn't put any unarmed magic weapon.

I did what I could so my player would be happy, hooked and satisifed. Also not left behind other players in team.

If ever in my DM games I would see that my player is regretting all time and effort he made into his character build just because now he can't get the good stuff from DMG (or just stuff on that level) and he feels bad about his choices of a character- I would personally feel very bad as DM. Nothing worse then seeing player regretting his character choices (build choices, not roleplay choices), espeically after so many month of "hoping" to get something great.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier kind of like playing an unarmed monk, fits thematically and all, but there are no magic unarmed items in the game at all. So you will never have a chance to get +1, 2, 3 weapons or any weapons with special abilities like wounding or well, anything because they forgot to add them.

So maybe you wind up pursuing other roles besides direct damage, like claiming a Horn of Valhalla (hordes of berserkers goes well with your Stunning Strike) or Winged Boots (synergizes well with your high movement rate to strike behind the lines at enemy squishies) or a Ring of Regeneration to push your already-high staying power even higher.

Presumably you wouldn't have been a monk in the first place if DPR was your goal, so this isn't a huge change for you. Monks have mediocre-to-decent DPR, and no dependency on magic weapons to let them hit things.

P.S. Besides, you can use shortswords, quarterstaves, etc. perfectly well as a monk. You don't have to stay an "unarmed monk" if you don't want to.

[Benny89]

So maybe you wind up pursuing other roles besides direct damage, like claiming a Horn of Valhalla (hordes of berserkers goes well with your Stunning Strike) or Winged Boots (synergizes well with your high movement rate to strike behind the lines at enemy squishies) or a Ring of Regeneration to push your already-high staying power even higher.

Presumably you wouldn't have been a monk in the first place if DPR was your goal, so this isn't a huge change for you. Monks have mediocre-to-decent DPR, and no dependency on magic weapons to let them hit things.

P.S. Besides, you can use shortswords, quarterstaves, etc. perfectly well as a monk. You just can't use them as bonus action attacks.

Or maybe his DM could like give him you know- gloves +1? I don't think it's that hard.

Besides maybe his goal was DPR as monk. Not all people calculate Nova and DPR when making builds or everyone would just run Vuman Sorcadins... What if he is the only melee DPR in party or other melee are cleric and blade bard?

As I said- nothing worse for me as DM than punishing players for making a playable character. As a DM I deal very carefully with "DM has last word", because if I stay alone at table - I can chew on my last word :D.

[MaxWilson]

Besides maybe his goal was DPR as monk.

Then he chose poorly. An unarmed monk does crummy damage at low levels (d4 + Dex), and not much better damage at higher levels. Normally monks rely quite a lot on weapons at low levels, especially quarterstaves (d8 + Dex because versatile).

[Pex]

Just a thought here, from a certain perspective not customizing the magic weapons to cater to your players makes their choices of combat style (fighting style, feats, etc.) of vastly more consequence. The choice to be a PAM paladin when all holy avengers are swords can be of huge consequence, for example.


Agreed, and unless the players know that going in it's false agency. Agency requires a knowing choice. Either choice (tailored or not) is fine for me if it's done with full prior knowledge on both sides.

Same goes for other class features and feats. A DM should make it clear if a choice will not do any good before you make it. If it's situational, that's fine. But useless? Give warning.

I don't think anyone is saying there must be a Holy Avenger Pole Arm. It would be nice, yes, but there doesn't have to be one just because a paladin player uses Pole Arm Master. Not even a sword and shield paladin is guaranteed a Holy Avenger. The point is the player likes to use the feat and that type of weapon. At some point when the DM is ready for the party to have magic weapons the player should acquire a magic pole arm. What the enchantment is and how the character gets it can be whatever suits the campaign - found in a hoard, gifted as a reward, the party researched and sought it out, spontaneous enchantment of a normal pole arm for Doing Something Important, whatever you want, as long as the player gets one.

[MaxWilson]

I don't think anyone is saying there must be a Holy Avenger Pole Arm. It would be nice, yes, but there doesn't have to be one just because a paladin player uses Pole Arm Master. Not even a sword and shield paladin is guaranteed a Holy Avenger. The point is the player likes to use the feat and that type of weapon. At some point when the DM is ready for the party to have magic weapons the player should acquire a magic pole arm. What the enchantment is and how the character gets it can be whatever suits the campaign - found in a hoard, gifted as a reward, the party researched and sought it out, spontaneous enchantment of a normal pole arm for Doing Something Important, whatever you want, as long as the player gets one.

From a certain point of view, this is a way of invaliding a player's choice to play a Paladin of Devotion or a Monk, since you're giving out their class features (magic weapon attacks) for free to everyone.

But as long as it's clear to everyone up front that you're going to do this, players can just take that into account and maybe just decide not to play a Paladin of Devotion or a Monk.

[Sigreid]

I think people are are a bit too wrapped up in the magic item fit to the character. If your PAM guy never finds a magic pole arm but has a magic sword, ok, the pole arm is for work a day killing and the sword is used when needed. Adventuring is all about adapting to less than ideal situations. That said, we aren't at each other's tables so, whatever works for your table is fine.

[Benny89]

Then he chose poorly. An unarmed monk does crummy damage at low levels (d4 + Dex), and not much better damage at higher levels. Normally monks rely quite a lot on weapons at low levels, especially quarterstaves (d8 + Dex because versatile).

No, he did not. He chose what he wanted to play as. Punishing him for wanting to have fun as DPR fist-monk is for a me a sign of bad DMing. If he did not made a "optimized" choice (seriously, what DM demand from players optimized choices?) I would certainly not try to make it for him harder than it already will be as main party DPR. And gloves or knuckle-dusters +1 doesn't cost me anything as DM, really, like my crown won't fall from my head and I won't crumble from my God pedestal.

He chose DPR monk. You as DM can make that DPR monk work. Or you can show him "you should have chose Fighter". Guess which one will be more welcomed and respected at table.

There is no "poor choice" when player makes character. The point is that he roleplay it well, have fun and go with me as DM on adventures. I don't lead "optimized meta adventures"...


From a certain point of view, this is a way of invaliding a player's choice to play a Paladin of Devotion or a Monk, since you're giving out their class features (magic weapon attacks) for free to everyone.

But as long as it's clear to everyone up front that you're going to do this, players can just take that into account and maybe just decide not to play a Paladin of Devotion or a Monk.

Come on, 9/10 players I ever played with in DnD like to play DnD because of magic and magic items. Sooner or later everyone will have magic items/weapons in most DnD scenarios. That does not take anything from Devotion Paladin who still has his CHA bonus to rolls, great Aura, level 15 feature, Smites and other Pally stuff + tons of good spells (well, not from Oath).


I think people are are a bit too wrapped up in the magic item fit to the character. If your PAM guy never finds a magic pole arm but has a magic sword, ok, the pole arm is for work a day killing and the sword is used when needed. Adventuring is all about adapting to less than ideal situations. That said, we aren't at each other's tables so, whatever works for your table is fine.

That is just your style (and I respect it). For me Adventuring is all about roleplaying and fun. Players have fun when they are cool, have cool stuff and do cool things. Sure if someone made multi-weapon master (a defense style Battlemaster Fighter that change weapons all the time) they will have various types of weapons. But if someone CLEARLY focuses his build on one type (PAM, X-bow mastery etc.) then it's clear he imagine himself as a character wielding that weapons. I am here as DM (my style) to make his dreams in RPGs come true. That is why we play RPGs- to be someone we can't be in real life.

If I would like to make my players struggle with equipment, not get any magic items etc. - I would just play Warhammer instead.

Again- different playstyles.

[Misterwhisper]

Most of these problems would disappear if you could retrain a feat.

Spending a fighting style is not usually that big a deal because it covers a lot of things, crossbow expert is also fine usually, I have seen more than one longbow archers take it just for the melee range shooting.

PAM is the biggest issue, it has a rather small group of weapon choices and is SO common for power builds that those that take it feel shafted later when they never find one.

Also I find it bothersome that there are no special holy symbols like there are with rods of the pact keeper, bards instruments and the like.

[Sigreid]

That is just your style (and I respect it). For me Adventuring is all about roleplaying and fun. Players have fun when they are cool, have cool stuff and do cool things. Sure if someone made multi-weapon master (a defense style Battlemaster Fighter that change weapons all the time) they will have various types of weapons. But if someone CLEARLY focuses his build on one type (PAM, X-bow mastery etc.) then it's clear he imagine himself as a character wielding that weapons. I am here as DM (my style) to make his dreams in RPGs come true. That is why we play RPGs- to be someone we can't be in real life.

If I would like to make my players struggle with equipment, not get any magic items etc. - I would just play Warhammer instead.

Again- different playstyles.

Actually, as I said further up the thread if a player wants an item that isn't going to pop up on the random tables in the DMG their character needs to spend some resources trying to find such an item. Same if they want a specific item that exists in the DMG.

[Benny89]

Also I find it bothersome that there are no special holy symbols like there are with rods of the pact keeper, bards instruments and the like.

Really? ;) I made few for my clerics and paladins. Though I prefer to call them "holy relics" assosiated to their Gods.

But I agree that it's lame that there are none in books, but considering how many weapon types lacks any sort of magic examples, I mostly considered that authors did poor and lazy job when it goes to listing magic items.

[Pex]

From a certain point of view, this is a way of invaliding a player's choice to play a Paladin of Devotion or a Monk, since you're giving out their class features (magic weapon attacks) for free to everyone.

But as long as it's clear to everyone up front that you're going to do this, players can just take that into account and maybe just decide not to play a Paladin of Devotion or a Monk.

You say that like a Devotion Paladin would never want a Holy Avenger because he can already make his weapon magical and add his CH modifier to attack rolls.

A Devotion Paladin will be just as happy with a magic weapon as any other player. He can still channel to add his CH modifier to attack rolls. If there are other warrior players in the party he's likely to let them have first dibs when the first magic weapon appears since he can make his weapon magical if need be. That's called team play, not resentment. He'll get a magic weapon eventually and be happy.

As for the monk he can use some weapons which can be magical, so he's not out of the market, but he can also let others have first dibs. Perhaps the player really is gung ho only using his hands, feet, and other body parts. In that case he doesn't want a magic weapon or it's very low in priority. The DM could make up a Magical Wrap or something for fist enchantments, but that's being very generous and I'm not advocating a DM must do that. Instead the monk player wouldn't even be focusing on magic weapons preferring other magic items. He could join the spellcasters in making a claim for the bracers of defense or the cloak/ring of protection. Maybe he'll take the robe of useful items. There are plenty of magic items that are not magic weapons for which the monk might enjoy, or do you also claim the monk and barbarian seethe with anger because the fighter acquired full plate +1 of fire resistance.

[Benny89]

Actually, as I said further up the thread if a player wants an item that isn't going to pop up on the random tables in the DMG their character needs to spend some resources trying to find such an item. Same if they want a specific item that exists in the DMG.

My approach is to give them an epic quest where they obtain that item at the end. It also gives me boost to create new side quests during campaigns :)

[HappyDaze]

PAM is the biggest issue, it has a rather small group of weapon choices and is SO common for power builds that those that take it feel shafted later when they never find one.
I'm perfectly OK with PAM users getting shafted (yeah, I like your pun). But are they really? Perhaps the game designers were actually clever enough to predict that PAM was very effective and the dearth of powerful magical polearms is an intentional balancing act.

[Pex]

I'm perfectly OK with PAM users getting shafted (yeah, I like your pun). But are they really? Perhaps the game designers were actually clever enough to predict that PAM was very effective and the dearth of powerful magical polearms is an intentional balancing act.

It's just as likely the feat was created to encourage more people to use those weapons since they were not historically commonly used in the past. I also think it unkind for anyone to be encouraged a player gets screwed over for choices he makes the game said he could make.

[ad_hoc]

I'm perfectly OK with PAM users getting shafted (yeah, I like your pun). But are they really? Perhaps the game designers were actually clever enough to predict that PAM was very effective and the dearth of powerful magical polearms is an intentional balancing act.

Yeah, pole-arms are meant to be unconventional/rarely used weapons.

The game works perfectly fine with non-magical pole-arms as well.

5e is written so that magic items are special. It's not wrong to play with a magic-mart or equivalent, I just think doing so takes a lot of wonder, excitement, and interesting character development out of the game.

I've seen people be puzzled by other things in the game too just because their playstyle involves having a ton of items. Things like abilities which turn attacks into magical ones. These are great abilities, unless everyone gets a magic weapon at level 3. In default 5e characters won't likely have a magic weapon at 6th level, and may not even have one at 10th.

Versatile weapons are another thing.

People: Versatile weapons make no sense and is a completely useless property
Also people: It's not fair that my character who uses 2-handed weapons found a magic versatile weapon. Great Weapon Fighting is written specifically to be used with versatile weapons. That wasn't an accident.

[Lord Vukodlak]

There is no point to giving the PCs a magic item they can’t use. Not unless they can trade it for something they can. He’ll i think the DMG even said something to that effect.

One campaign module I played had and issue of all the magic weapons available were melee. Not a single solitary ranged magic weapon from levels one through thirteen. The DM has to add one.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm perfectly OK with PAM users getting shafted (yeah, I like your pun). But are they really? Perhaps the game designers were actually clever enough to predict that PAM was very effective and the dearth of powerful magical polearms is an intentional balancing act.


There's a quote around here about how it's very poor game design to balance powerful options with tedium or frustration (or something to that effect), and I think it applies here.

[Sigreid]

My approach is to give them an epic quest where they obtain that item at the end. It also gives me boost to create new side quests during campaigns :)

Sounds like we may not be that far off. My snarky side puts it as there's a difference between expending effort to get what you want and the magic item fairy following around.

[Angelalex242]

I play adventure league...and since a +3 anything is on the evergreen list, pay for it and it's yours. You'll just never get anything better than a plain old boring +3.

[Trustypeaches]

Really? ;) I made few for my clerics and paladins. Though I prefer to call them "holy relics" assosiated to their Gods.

But I agree that it's lame that there are none in books, but considering how many weapon types lacks any sort of magic examples, I mostly considered that authors did poor and lazy job when it goes to listing magic items.Or, as explained at the start of that section, the glossary of magic items are meant can serve as a template or inspiration for your own magic items.

Besides with holy symbols they need to be tightly connected to their gods, which would make them far more thematically niche / restrictive than other class-specific items IMO. I agree they should’ve had a generic template for a holy symbol though.

Edit: Curse of Strahd also has a holy symbol of Ravenkind, fwiw

[The Jack]

Yeah, pole-arms are meant to be unconventional/rarely used weapons.

In what world? Spears utterly dominated the weapon market till early modern warfare. Every man and his dog had a spear. Magical spears permeate mythology; Gungir, Gae Bulg and all those other irish spears, Poseidon's trident, that spear that created japan...Notable magic Swords are certainly more common, but polearms aren't in shortage. They definitely beat out axes.


Greatswords, Greataxes and Mauls are unconventional/rarely used weapons.


Two more points of damage or reach? One of these options is for smart players.

[hamishspence]

Weren't the historical greatswords (zweihanders etc) primarily an anti-polearm/anti-spear weapon?

[EggKookoo]

In what world?

They're unconventional and rare in D&D (in actual play).

Which is too bad, honestly. One thing I liked about Planescape: Torment was the distinct lack of swords. I emulate that a lot in my D&D settings.

[Benny89]

In what world? Spears utterly dominated the weapon market till early modern warfare. Every man and his dog had a spear. Magical spears permeate mythology; Gungir, Gae Bulg and all those other irish spears, Poseidon's trident, that spear that created japan...Notable magic Swords are certainly more common, but polearms aren't in shortage. They definitely beat out axes.


Greatswords, Greataxes and Mauls are unconventional/rarely used weapons.


Two more points of damage or reach? One of these options is for smart players.

I agree here. There is no mention as far as I know in any DnD 5e book that polearms are rare items, therefore if it's not mentioned I tend to use logic:

1. Polearms where most common/used weapons in the history of melee warfare - from ancient time (B.C, ancients greeks, Macedonians infantry, Rome, Vikings, common soldier in medieval times, cavalery, mercenary/professional infantry in late medieval times, guards, anti-cavalery weapons, defenders etc etc.).

2. Polearms like Glaives were rare to be honest in Europe because Glaive were more popular in Asian warfare scenarios, but Halberds, Pikes, Spears, Poleaxes etc. were much much more common and popular than swords, greatswords or exotic things like Scimitars or dueling weapons (not used in battles) like rapiers or spades. But Sword Coast culture is not our culture so Glaives could easly be as popular here as Halberd in Europe.

3. Polearms in a world where you fights with large or massive creatures (you have Ogres, Dragons, Giants, Trolls etc etc.) make much more sense to be more common and vastly used as any warrior with enough brain would prefer to use long-reach weapon when fighting vs large creature that has:

a) longer reach than him because of size,
b) have vital organs/points higher/further away and
c) it's easier to pierce deeper through thick skin (the bigger creature the thicke skin mostly) than slash through it, that is why long spears were always used when hunting Boars, Bears or other large animals as trying to hurt it with sword would be silly to say the least.

4. When fighting inside Dungeons etc. despite what most people think- having long poke/thrust weapon in front of you is much better than other melee weapons. 3-4 people with reach thrust weapons in the tigh dungeon corridors will poses much better defense/threat than 4 people with swords.

Therefore I always treat Polearms as most common martial weapons in DnD and spears as most common simple weapon too. They are super effective, makes more sense in a word with large enemies and 90% of soldiers in any profesional army formations use Polearms/Spears as it the most effective weapon when fighting in formation, especially vs enemy cavalery/infantry but also in a world where you can have flying enemies or large monsters on battlefield. Polearms/Pikes/Long spears would be even more vastly used in DnD world by armies than in our times.

Of course that is only my interpretation and anyone has it's own rules about DnD world.

[HappyDaze]

There's a quote around here about how it's very poor game design to balance powerful options with tedium or frustration (or something to that effect), and I think it applies here.

That doesn't mean your missing quote is correct. Besides, there are lots of examples in D&D where balance requires things to be less awesome than they otherwise could be (in fact, pretty much anything could be cranked up if balance wasn't an issue), so I'll actually just go ahead and say your missing quote is pure garbage.

[EggKookoo]

That doesn't mean your missing quote is correct. Besides, there are lots of examples in D&D where balance requires things to be less awesome than they otherwise could be (in fact, pretty much anything could be cranked up if balance wasn't an issue), so I'll actually just go ahead and say your missing quote is pure garbage.

It doesn't follow that the solution to "too powerful" is "make tedious to use."

[Trustypeaches]

That doesn't mean your missing quote is correct. Besides, there are lots of examples in D&D where balance requires things to be less awesome than they otherwise could be (in fact, pretty much anything could be cranked up if balance wasn't an issue), so I'll actually just go ahead and say your missing quote is pure garbage.i think in this case the best tactic would be to “fail forward”.

You find a magic weapon you can’t use? Now it serves as a hook for a side quest to find the local magic item marketplace (or black market) and haggle for something you want. Or perhaps there is a renowned blacksmith in the area you need to find or earn the favor of to repurpose your magic whatchamackallit. Or perhaps this magic item isn’t just a +1 Weapon, but also serves as the “key” to secret dungeon or could provide leverage important social interaction (depending on its history).

Don’t have disastifaction and frustration be the endpoint of the players experience.

[HappyDaze]

i think in this case the best tactic would be to “fail forward”.

You find a magic weapon you can’t use?
In a game with a party of 4-6 adventurers, there's almost no weapon that they are unlikely to be truly unable to use. Does it mean that one of them might not be wielding their dream weapon because they're making the best of what they found? Sure, but that's far different from "can't use" and becomes "chooses not to use" which is something that reeks of entitlement to me.

[Max_Killjoy]

The sword / spear debate strikes again.

Keep in mind that most adventuring is not warfare, and there are a lot of reasons that the sword was a highly popular sidearm throughout much of human history. (That have nothing to do with all the silly arguments about "status" and "style" and "badge of whatever" that some try to condemn the sword with.)

[Sigreid]

The sword / spear debate strikes again.

Keep in mind that most adventuring is not warfare, and there are a lot of reasons that the sword was a highly popular sidearm throughout much of human history. (That have nothing to do with all the silly arguments about "status" and "style" and "badge of whatever" that some try to condemn the sword with.)

Yes, easier to carry than most main line weapons is a big one. Spears and pole arms typically have to be carried as opposed to worn. Add to that being practically functional in smaller spaces than the larger weapons and you have a reason to choose sword.

[HappyDaze]

The sword / spear debate strikes again.

Keep in mind that most adventuring is not warfare, and there are a lot of reasons that the sword was a highly popular sidearm throughout much of human history. (That have nothing to do with all the silly arguments about "status" and "style" and "badge of whatever" that some try to condemn the sword with.)

This is the same reason that many "action heroes" in settings with guns carry pistols even when the standard military carry rifles or carbines.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, easier to carry than most main line weapons is a big one. Spears and pole arms typically have to be carried as opposed to worn. Add to that being practically functional in smaller spaces than the larger weapons and you have a reason to choose sword.


This is the same reason that many "action heroes" in settings with guns carry pistols even when the standard military carry rifles or carbines.

These are true.

Another consideration is that of aesthetics. For many people, polearms are ugly or awkward stylistically. Whether due to fiction (movies, books, etc) or whatever, there are a significant number of people who don't like polearms and wouldn't use them even if they're "optimal". Take my players. None of them want to take PAM, because they don't like polearms. Yes, they know it's more optimal and more "historical". No, they don't care.

5e D&D does not attempt to be a historical simulator. Polearms have their place of privilege on Earth; that does not necessarily transfer to non-Earth histories. "Best" is a contingent, context-dependent word.

Plus, dealing with a 6-15' pole in a 5-8' wide, 10' high (at most) tunnel is...suboptimal. And that's if you can just poke with it; most of the fancier maneuvers require a bit more space.

[Benny89]

Plus, dealing with a 6-15' pole in a 5-8' wide, 10' high (at most) tunnel is...suboptimal. And that's if you can just poke with it; most of the fancier maneuvers require a bit more space.

Actually a pike or long spear is very optimal in this case. Fancier maneuvers are only in movies.

Some Interesting Facts:

I have been training HEMA (European martial arts) and Kendo (japanease sport fencing) for many years and had opportunity to face with sword/axe/shield a spear user and having myself use spear vs sword users and if you have best swordsman and place him to face an above average spear user- I would still place my money on spear user 7/10 times. Shield (best Kite shield or large round shield) is your best bet to be able to have enough defense to be able to cut distance and strike (as you can see in video below). Because if you really do train an actually historical melee martial arts- first what you learn is that reach is biggest advantage you can get and smaller opponent will always have harder time that bigger one (same as shorter weapon vs longer weapon), mostly due to reach. Those are not impossible odds but greatly favourite a opponent with better reach. The whole - smaller enemy is faster, more agile etc. is not accurate (again movies and games), as you don't jump around like monkey in real fight and do fancy manouvers as mostly you use effective side-steps, fowards steps or lunge whil keeping yourself in pose that gives enemy the least open areas on your body to strike. Longer legs and arms helps a lot as you can cut distance faster and move back faster. And bigger enemy was not your over-muscled bodybuilder from movies but also a fast and agile opponent fighter. Second is- it's super hard to cut distance to opponent having long, agile and tip-moving weapon with superior reach. Third- it's really hard to parry or block fast thrusts, especially that even after you block it- spear user can back off immidietly while you have mostly only ONE CHANCE to cut distance after it.

Here is a very good video showing why spears are better than swords: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U&t=472s

Mind all of those people are of simillar skills . But all uses techniques that are historical accurate. In real fight it would be ever harder as here they can allow themselves for some reckless attacks forward because they know they won't get hurt or die, but in real life duel a spear in front in hand of someone who can use it is a fearsome weapon. Of course there are other factors in real combat- armor, terrain, scale of fight, accuracy of strike etc. But in general - spear in dueling scenario is more effective than sword. Also it's better vs chainmail/gambeson or plate armor unless you have good thrusting sword, then I would take half-swording vs spear vs plate armor user (though fighting someone in plate is silly in first place unless you also have plate). Of course war-hammer or mace are best vs plate but here I focus on sword vs spear.

There is also a reason why we are still teaching spear techniques with bayonets since the invention of musket.

Of course DnD and fantasy does not care about it but if we bring a "logic" arguments into debate- well, there it is.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actually a pike or long spear is very optimal in this case. Fancier maneuvers are only in movies.

Some Interesting Facts:

I have been training HEMA (European martial arts) and Kendo (japanease sport fencing) for many years and had opportunity to face with sword/axe/shield a spear user and having myself use spear vs sword users and if you have best swordsman and place him to face an above average spear user- I would still place my money on spear user 7/10 times. Shield (best Kite shield or large round shield) is your best bet to be able to have enough defense to be able to cut distance and strike (as you can see in video below). Because if you really do train an actually historical melee martial arts- first what you learn is that reach is biggest advantage you can get and smaller opponent will always have harder time that bigger one (same as shorter weapon vs longer weapon), mostly due to reach. Those are not impossible odds but greatly favourite a opponent with better reach. The whole - smaller enemy is faster, more agile etc. is not accurate (again movies and games), as you don't jump around like monkey in real fight and do fancy manouvers as mostly you use effective side-steps, fowards steps or lunge whil keeping yourself in pose that gives enemy the least open areas on your body to strike. Longer legs and arms helps a lot as you can cut distance faster and move back faster. And bigger enemy was not your over-muscled bodybuilder from movies but also a fast and agile opponent fighter. Second is- it's super hard to cut distance to opponent having long, agile and tip-moving weapon with superior reach. Third- it's really hard to parry or block fast thrusts, especially that even after you block it- spear user can back off immidietly while you have mostly only ONE CHANCE to cut distance after it.

Here is a very good video showing why spears are better than swords: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afqhBODc_8U&t=472s

Mind all of those people are of simillar skills . But all uses techniques that are historical accurate. In real fight it would be ever harder as here they can allow themselves for some reckless attacks forward because they know they won't get hurt or die, but in real life duel a spear in front in hand of someone who can use it is a fearsome weapon. Of course there are other factors in real combat- armor, terrain, scale of fight, accuracy of strike etc. But in general - spear in dueling scenario is more effective than sword. Also it's better vs chainmail/gambeson or plate armor unless you have good thrusting sword, then I would take half-swording vs spear vs plate armor user (though fighting someone in plate is silly in first place unless you also have plate). Of course war-hammer or mace are best vs plate but here I focus on sword vs spear.

There is also a reason why we are still teaching spear techniques with bayonets since the invention of musket.

Of course DnD and fantasy does not care about it but if we bring a "logic" arguments into debate- well, there it is.

When the pole is as long as the area available with twists and turns, you can't even carry it without running the risk of tripping someone behind you. Dueling is a completely separate thing from tunnel fighting.

[Benny89]

When the pole is as long as the area available with twists and turns, you can't even carry it without running the risk of tripping someone behind you. Dueling is a completely separate thing from tunnel fighting.

Agree that dueling and tunnel fighting are different, but as long as you have enough space ahead of you - spear is better when fighting a small/simillar to your party group of enemies or single enemies. Also you are not tripping anyone as turning with classic spear (2 heads higher than wielder) even in such space is not hard with certain manouvers that are basic for every spear training.

But if talk about fighting inside dungeon in very limited small area like small room or when enemies will attack really close from a lot of directions where you don't have a chance to establish a line of defense with enough space in front of you or if you are attacked by horde (which means mass of enemies WILL ram into you making a poke style spear defense totally useless as you are lone spear user or there are only couple of you)- I fully agree that for example an axe/mace + shield, short thrusting swords (like Gladius) or half-swording long sowrd with good thrusting end would be much better option when it comes to melee fight than spear or anypolearm. Even classic long daggers + shield would be better.

However slash based sword would be as terrible as long spear in that scenario. Greatswords would be even more useless, or long axes (called two-handed axes in fantasy) or fictional two-handed hammers.

Tunnel fighting is a very specific scenario but imagine a 20 defenders in 2-3 rows in such tunnel with spears (or spears + shields) vs attacking enemies in tunnel. Carnage. Even 4-5 spear users in such tunnel vs small group of enemies (of course if space ahead is enough for spear) attacking would be a fearsome defense line, though backup weapons would be highly recommended as they don't have second line behind to help with closing in enemies.

[Max_Killjoy]

As soon as I see the absolute phrasing "X are better than Y" when it comes to this sort of "debate", I'm skeptical.

Sword... easier to carry, more versatile, better defensive weapon than most, etc. There are a lot of reasons that real people so often went with the sword or something like it as their "carry weapon" outside of actual pitched battles.

Basically, there was this backlash against the sword in certain scholarly and gaming circles based a lot of inapplicable comparisons to actual pitched battle, confusing how common pole arms were in war with how common they were in other contexts, and pulling in a little ignorance based on Hollywood crap about swords as big clumsy metal clubs, and so on.

Out in the wilds, the first time I have to climb something, or duck under something, or whatever, I'd be much happier to have the sword I can wear sheathed than a 7+ foot poll I have to lug around by hand.

[Benny89]

As soon as I see the absolute phrasing "X are better than Y" when it comes to this sort of "debate", I think I can move along.

Well, in games it actually a moot debate as realism doesn't matter here and "better" can only apply to math/stats behind it. But in real-life scenario a warfare tactics through years did not use some stuff because it's cool or looks goods. It was used because it was more effective. Same as stupid old arguments about plate armor making user hard to move because it's like that in games to balance them while they are totally nonsense in real-life warfare.

But this is all off-topic, so I suggest we move on, yes. Sorry for writing so much about it. Melee martial arts are my passion :P.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, in games it actually a moot debate as realism doesn't matter here and "better" can only apply to math/stats behind it. But in real-life scenario a warfare tactics through years did not use some stuff because it's cool or looks goods. It was used because it was more effective. Same as stupid old arguments about plate armor making user hard to move because it's like that in games to balance them while they are totally nonsense in real-life warfare.

But this is all off-topic, so I suggest we move on, yes. Sorry for writing so much about it. Melee martial arts are my passion :P.

First, we're not talking about war in most RPG contexts. That's one of the spurious arguments made a about the spear being the "better weapon" -- its ubiquity in pitched battles gets confused for superiority in radically different contexts.

Second, most of the arguments against the sword are about as silly as the claims about plate harness ("oh, you'd have to get winched into your saddle and you can't stand up if you fall down...")

[Pex]

The missing quote in question:

Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.

If a rule isn't working right fix the rule. Don't let it happen and make a player regret he's using it. As I like to say it, don't punish a player for doing what he's supposed to be doing. Pole Arm Mastery is fine. There's no reason to deny a player forever a magic pole arm just because he has the feat. If you don't like the feat don't have it in your game. Do not let the player have it and out of spite deny him a magic pole arm.

[Willie the Duck]

Must we do this again in the middle of this other, pretty interesting, discussion? I see all the same arguments we've all seen every time before--reach, ubiquity, swords as sidearms, you need to include armor and shields in the analysis, ability to carry in scabbard easily along with another main weapon (true but that's a battle long lost in D&D, since encumbrance only tracks weight), throwing dragons and trolls into the mix alters the analysis, someone alludes to HEMA or Asian martial art experience (we can't confirm it, so it doesn't change anything), adventurers are not medieval military units, and so on and so forth. We've done this. I'm not apposed to doing so again, but can it be a separate thread? This is a good topic and some of the people who have gone hammer and tongs on the subject previously are finding common ground!

[Tanarii]

As a DM - no. I either use what the module has (for AL or one-shot series of adventures), or for my campaign randomly generate using the tables. Plus randomized weapon tables I found online for weapon types, when it can be one of several. Otoh I don't run a campaign for a single group of PCs that adventure together in lockstep. I don't even know which Players (let alone which PCs) will be encountering an area when I design it. Players can have their PCs hunt down rumors and organize other players into an adventuring party and schedule a session with me if they want to try and find something specific ... and they occasionally do.

Otoh I never tailored weapons to PCs even when I did run non-module based campaigns for a lockstep party in prior editions. As a player, not knowing what magic items I'll find, and finding ways to make use of them I'll find, has always been part of the excitement and fun. I've had DMs explicitly hand out tailored items before, and it always seems horribly contrived, and frankly a bit of a let down every time they get used after that. They never feel properly earned. Just as defeating an encounter (combat or otherwise) tailored to a party I was in wouldn't feel earned.

Of course, I'm sure it's happened occasionally without me being aware (both for magic items and encounters). But most DMs that do that kind of thing do it regularly and aren't very subtle about it.

[Rafaelfras]

I think the best way to handle a tailored magic item is as a reward on a big quest.
For exemple i gave a holly avenger spear for our group paladin after the group saved Gareth Dragonsbane paladin ruler of Damara on Faerum. They released his soul from a prison in the plane of shadows and then our cleric was able to resurrect him so he could lead Damara to victory in the war against Vaasa
The group had made a great deed and earned the gratitude of a ruler of a great nation who happens to be a paladin. So in my mind there would not be any better place and occasion for a paladin to receive as a reward a holly avenger that was made for her (so a spear because she got those mounted charge talents from 3.0). To radon hoards I think is ok to put some treat here and there ( your player want some boots of elvenkind so let me put it here)
But I agree it break immersion when you find a frost brand +2 handwraps perfect for our party monk in the goblin chief hoard

[The Jack]

Let me go through some fantasy tropes, pretending I only have the option of spear or sword.

5ft wide straight dungeon corridor- spear
5ft wide dungeon corner-sword
home invasion- Sword
Dense forest- spear
High ground-Spear
Low ground- Spear
Flat ground-Spear
Climbing a wall- Sword
Defending a wall- Spear
On a mount-spear
Against a mount-Spear
Attacking into/out of water- spear
Underwater combat- Posiedon has a trident, does he not?

Swarm of monster rats- sword, but I'd rather get out of dodge.
Humanoids with shields- Swords
Humanoids without shields- Spears.
defending from a wolf pack- sword
Attacking a wolf- spear.
Ogre-Spear
Dragon-Spear

14/20 times a spear is better, unless we make that sword a greatsword, in which case we're looking at 17/20 situations. Most games I've been in haven't been that dungeon heavy that the second issue is that big of a deal.


That said, When I make a -mah realism- fighter, and I have money, I tend to carry a primary weapon for adventures (if not a shield) and keep a versatile weapon as a sidearm, with a dagger too. When I get swamped I drop the main weapon and draw the close combat weapon even though it has no mechanical benefit, I do it because it's cool and I wanna wrestle people to the ground and put daggers into their eyes. There's no mechanics that prevent you from dropping a spear and draw your other weapon the moment you want to do so, it doesn't require an action.

Related note; I don't wear heavy armour when I'm in a civilian environment. Most DMs I've been with have allowed me strip down my armour to lesser levels. I can take a few pieces off of plate for half plate or a breastplate, or chain for 'scale' or a chain shirt, and underneath that I'm wearing padded (but maybe 'studded leather' if I threw some money around). Obviously,I the rules don't give me bonuses for this, I don't get 19 ac because I'm wearing padded under plate, but it's a nice touch. For this reason I really prize the mithril armours you can wear under your clothes.

Carrying a greatsword around is just as weird as carring a spear around, if not weirder.

[djreynolds]

It's level dependent.
At what level does a holy avenger drop into your lap?

At what level could players pay someone to make a legendary weapon?

At what level could your party caster make one?

[Tanarii]

It's level dependent.
At what level does a holy avenger drop into your lap?
Anything below 19-20 is the DM giving a player a massively unintended power-up for free. The chances of that happening with the tables is vanishingly small. The odds are still Low you'll see in in T4 at all. Let alone a custom one.

[Max_Killjoy]

Must we do this again in the middle of this other, pretty interesting, discussion? I see all the same arguments we've all seen every time before--reach, ubiquity, swords as sidearms, you need to include armor and shields in the analysis, ability to carry in scabbard easily along with another main weapon (true but that's a battle long lost in D&D, since encumbrance only tracks weight), throwing dragons and trolls into the mix alters the analysis, someone alludes to HEMA or Asian martial art experience (we can't confirm it, so it doesn't change anything), adventurers are not medieval military units, and so on and so forth. We've done this. I'm not apposed to doing so again, but can it be a separate thread? This is a good topic and some of the people who have gone hammer and tongs on the subject previously are finding common ground!

I'm done, I just have to comment in opposition when the ridiculous and baseless "swords suck" meme rears its misbegotten head.

[Benny89]

I'm done, I just have to comment in opposition when the ridiculous and baseless "swords suck" meme rears its misbegotten head.

You are exaggerating here. Nobody said anywhere "sword sucks" just that polearm weapons are better in certain scenarios. Saying that ferrari is better race car than pick-up truck is not saying that pick-up truck sucks. It's just it's not the best at racing.


Anyway- backing to the topic. I agree that something like Holy Avenger should not drop below 19 level.

However a custom made weapon +2 with bonus 1k8 dmg or some spell to be used 2 times per long rest is not a god-slaying weapon and can be perfectly fine.

[Pex]

When the spellcaster is casting 9th level spells at 17th level I don't see why it's too early for the paladin to have a holy avenger.

[Sigreid]

Eh, the proper time for the paladin to have a holy avenger is when the DM is ready to deal with the paladin having a holy avenger.

[ad_hoc]

As a DM - no. I either use what the module has (for AL or one-shot series of adventures), or for my campaign randomly generate using the tables. Plus randomized weapon tables I found online for weapon types, when it can be one of several. Otoh I don't run a campaign for a single group of PCs that adventure together in lockstep. I don't even know which Players (let alone which PCs) will be encountering an area when I design it. Players can have their PCs hunt down rumors and organize other players into an adventuring party and schedule a session with me if they want to try and find something specific ... and they occasionally do.

Otoh I never tailored weapons to PCs even when I did run non-module based campaigns for a lockstep party in prior editions. As a player, not knowing what magic items I'll find, and finding ways to make use of them I'll find, has always been part of the excitement and fun. I've had DMs explicitly hand out tailored items before, and it always seems horribly contrived, and frankly a bit of a let down every time they get used after that. They never feel properly earned. Just as defeating an encounter (combat or otherwise) tailored to a party I was in wouldn't feel earned.

Of course, I'm sure it's happened occasionally without me being aware (both for magic items and encounters). But most DMs that do that kind of thing do it regularly and aren't very subtle about it.

Agreed 100%. I think people should give this sort of playstyle a shot. It's so much fun to work together to get the best out of the magic items you do have. It's also exciting to find them, as they aren't guaranteed. It's easy to get low rolls and get nothing.




Anything below 19-20 is the DM giving a player a massively unintended power-up for free. The chances of that happening with the tables is vanishingly small. The odds are still Low you'll see in in T4 at all. Let alone a custom one.

Well, that power level is available at level 11.

11-16 Hoard: 8% for table I

Then 3% for the Holy Avenger. So the Holy Avenger itself is a pretty low chance, but an item from that table is reasonable to get at 11+.

[Sindal]

I think it's fair to say that:

-This argument depends on who you are and who your playing with, because the subject is so broad and farreaching that theres never going to be 'a correct answer' for this. Both answers 'i edit magic items' and 'i don't edit magic items' are correct for their own merits.

I will say that "I probably won't edit things that are already in a campaign. But I'm not apposed to it as a practice".

I've ran my current players through a dungeon with quite a number of magical items baked in it (including potions). Among that list was a magic flail+1 which would probalby have been good to use from the paladin. Did he even glance at it? Nope. The idea that 'people are entitled and should learn to work with what they have' can work, but the counter argument is that classes have been built to function WITHOUT them. So why should they care, if they don't actually 'need' magic items and that they are just 'nice to have'. Why would a paladin care about specific magic weapons if he has the ability to smite thing with his current weapon that he likes. Why would an archer care about a long sword if they make it their duty to be as far away from fighting as heavenly possible. Why should you, as the dm, care if they don't care?

So I've found that it's really nice to give each player a signature item (Check back on page one for them if you want to see them). That way they have something that's magical, special to 'them' and that they get to care about, and every other magical item (Which I've mostly made non combat ones) is just 'nice to have as a backup to give us more solutions. The necromancer out of my players squealed when I gave her something that would let her do something she 'will be able to do later, beta version'. The items haven't made them much stronger, because most things can still kick you accross the room if they wanted to.

That's what's worked for me anyway. My players seem pretty chuffed

Whatever works for your players at your table is the right way.

[Rafaelfras]

When the spellcaster is casting 9th level spells at 17th level I don't see why it's too early for the paladin to have a holy avenger.

Agree
One important thing to note is for paladins the holy avenger is the ultimate weapon, so they tend to stick with it until the end of the game
Give it too early (besides the huge power spike) and he will not get anything to hope for (weapon wise ofc) later on
But it's nice that any weapon user have the chance to use his ultimate weapon for at least a couple levels IMO

[mephnick]

Then 3% for the Holy Avenger. So the Holy Avenger itself is a pretty low chance, but an item from that table is reasonable to get at 11+.

Ugh, do not use the DMG treasure tables as any measure of balance.

[MaxWilson]

Well, that power level is available at level 11.

11-16 Hoard: 8% for table I

Then 3% for the Holy Avenger. So the Holy Avenger itself is a pretty low chance, but an item from that table is reasonable to get at 11+.

Once you account for the fact that PCs can take on CR 11 enemies before they reach level 11, hey, that Holy Avenger might pop up at level 3 instead.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. The earlier it turns up, the more interesting it will be, the more history the PC will have with his weapon, and the more influence it will have on the campaign and the PC's reputation.

[Tanarii]

Well, that power level is available at level 11.

11-16 Hoard: 8% for table I

Then 3% for the Holy Avenger. So the Holy Avenger itself is a pretty low chance, but an item from that table is reasonable to get at 11+.
You might want to crank those numbers before you claim its "reasonable". Across the entirety of all D&D tables, it'll happen somewhere. At a given table, might as well be zero chance.

There's a (low) chance it'll actually show up in time for an epic level T4 conclusion-of-campaign battle though.

Edit: misread. Yes there is a low chance (~37%) of the party getting at least one item table I in T3 by level 16. But it's only a 1% of a Holy Avenger by level 16. Which is, like I said, effectively zero chance.


Ugh, do not use the DMG treasure tables as any measure of balance.

Totally fair for him to discuss numbers on them when I brought them up. ;)

[Pex]

Personally I've always found treasure tables, regardless of edition, to be worthless. No magic item exists without the DM's permission, so it should be the DM who decides what magic item is in what treasure hoard. I can understand some randomization of things helps a DM so he doesn't have to think on something or prevent bias, but treasure is one thing I think the DM should make the effort to deal with and be biased. If running a module and want to use what it says, fine. No harm in tweaking but as written is fine. When creating your own be the DM and make decisions.

Despite that, I can see the appeal of letting randomization of treasure inspire.

[Unoriginal]

Personally I've always found treasure tables, regardless of edition, to be worthless. No magic item exists without the DM's permission, so it should be the DM who decides what magic item is in what treasure hoard. I can understand some randomization of things helps a DM so he doesn't have to think on something or prevent bias, but treasure is one thing I think the DM should make the effort to deal with and be biased. If running a module and want to use what it says, fine. No harm in tweaking but as written is fine. When creating your own be the DM and make decisions.

No offense meant, but I find your post pretty funny given your adamantine stance why there should be tables for ability check DCs and why not having them is one of 5e's failings.

Not to mention your signature mocking 5e for encouraging the DMs to do what you're advocating for here.


Apparently DMs should make decisions and create their own things when it come to loot and magic items, because nothing exist without the DM's permission... but DMs making decisions about how difficult things are, which rules they use and if they want to create their own is bad.

[Tanarii]

No offense meant, but I find your post pretty funny given your adamantine stance why there should be tables for ability check DCs and why not having them is one of 5e's failings.

Not to mention your signature mocking 5e for encouraging the DMs to do what you're advocating for here.
It's consistent with Pex's overall stance: Pro-player. He sometimes slips into anti-DM, but in general the basis behind his views is enabling player control of their characters.

And tailored magic items to a player's build let the players make choices in advance and not have to worry about having to adapt to the game nor see them become worthless. (This sentence intentional phrased to be provocative as to benefits and downsides.)

[MaxWilson]

It's consistent with Pex's overall stance: Pro-player. He sometimes slips into anti-DM, but in general the basis behind his views is enabling player control of their characters.

And tailored magic items to a player's build let the players make choices in advance and not have to worry about having to adapt to the game nor see them become worthless. (This sentence intentional phrased to be provocative as to benefits and downsides.)

Then why even put magic item creation under the DM's control in the first place? For maximum player control, you wouldn't want the DMs choosing them at all--you'd want the DM to write an adventure which says something like, "Bob the Fighter, you search the body of the Death Knight and find a Very Rare magic item! What is it?"

[Unoriginal]

It's consistent with Pex's overall stance: Pro-player. He sometimes slips into anti-DM, but in general the basis behind his views is enabling player control of their characters.

And tailored magic items to a player's build let the players make choices in advance and not have to worry about having to adapt to the game nor see them become worthless. (This sentence intentional phrased to be provocative as to benefits and downsides.)

I don't see how "a DM should bite the bullet and take decisions, even if biased ones, because nothing exist without their accord" can be considered consistent with "DMs should follow written tables rather than making things up and it's a bad things that 5e's rules aren't considered binding".

Also, nothing in the post I quoted advocated for magic items tailored to the player's build. Pex said that treasures should be up to the DM, regardless of their bias, which means that it supports a DM who takes the decision of not include tailored items as much as it does one who does include them.

[ad_hoc]

I think if you expect the DM to give the characters the items they want then you should just stop pretending and have the players actually choose the items.

If you're going to have the equivalent to magic item shops, don't pretend they aren't, just have them.

Have the players choose, or don't. Don't have the DM choose but have it only be okay for the DM to provide the items the players want.

[Pex]

No offense meant, but I find your post pretty funny given your adamantine stance why there should be tables for ability check DCs and why not having them is one of 5e's failings.

Not to mention your signature mocking 5e for encouraging the DMs to do what you're advocating for here.


Apparently DMs should make decisions and create their own things when it come to loot and magic items, because nothing exist without the DM's permission... but DMs making decisions about how difficult things are, which rules they use and if they want to create their own is bad.

Touche


It's consistent with Pex's overall stance: Pro-player. He sometimes slips into anti-DM, but in general the basis behind his views is enabling player control of their characters.

And tailored magic items to a player's build let the players make choices in advance and not have to worry about having to adapt to the game nor see them become worthless. (This sentence intentional phrased to be provocative as to benefits and downsides.)

Ding ding! We have a winner!

Not every magic item has to be tailored. I just see nothing wrong with a DM giving a PC a magic item his player would like.

[EggKookoo]

I think if you expect the DM to give the characters the items they want then you should just stop pretending and have the players actually choose the items.

Why? I mean, why does it have to be that simple?

What if I have a party? Say five players. And I come up with five magic items that I plan to give them, each item more or less designed to work well with each player (or PC, to be accurate). I don't have to tell my players that these items await them. I don't have to specifically give each PC the item meant for that PC (or have that PC discover it or whatever). I just have the party find these items as they go. The players will have some degree of fun determining who should get which item, and hey, they may even surprise me. But in the end, they'll think they got some "random" items, and that they used their brains to work out who should get what item. And they'd be right from their own point of view.

This is really no different than setting a level-appropriate challenge for a party. Sure, you also throw some easy stuff at them and some RUN AWAY stuff at them. Just like you give them some truly random, potentially useless magic items. But the items you expect them to actually use, you design so they can actually use.

[Pex]

I don't see how "a DM should bite the bullet and take decisions, even if biased ones, because nothing exist without their accord" can be considered consistent with "DMs should follow written tables rather than making things up and it's a bad things that 5e's rules aren't considered binding".

Also, nothing in the post I quoted advocated for magic items tailored to the player's build. Pex said that treasures should be up to the DM, regardless of their bias, which means that it supports a DM who takes the decision of not include tailored items as much as it does one who does include them.

Creating the world is the DM's job. The rules for playing the game is the game designers' job. The existence of a magic item is the former.

A DM not giving everything a player wants is not the same thing as never giving something a player wants. I do look askance at a DM who never gives what a player wants. I had even quit a game because that was the DM's attitude, and magic items had nothing to do with it.

[GreyBlack]

It depends.

If this is a weapon which the PC is specifically targeting (for example, they're looking for a specific weapon of their god), then I'll absolutely change it to fit the character. Some weapons, however, are more a part of the world than they are for the PC. In these cases, I won't change it.

[MaxWilson]

What if I have a party? Say five players. And I come up with five magic items that I plan to give them, each item more or less designed to work well with each player (or PC, to be accurate). I don't have to tell my players that these items await them. I don't have to specifically give each PC the item meant for that PC (or have that PC discover it or whatever). I just have the party find these items as they go. The players will have some degree of fun determining who should get which item, and hey, they may even surprise me. But in the end, they'll think they got some "random" items, and that they used their brains to work out who should get what item.

It never ceases to amaze me how some DMs think their deceptions are infallible and undetectable.

Humans are wired to spot patterns even when they don't really exist. You really think players don't know what you're doing? If they are not credulous fools, they know.

[Sindal]

Here's a though:

What is the difference between:
-Having a magic shop with a selection of magic items that you can purchase depending on what you want
-Finding loot around various adventures (that may or may not be applicable to your character's interests and prefered playstyle)
-'crafting' or tailor making magic items, either by the dm, or by players gathering resources and making one.

and also:
Out of players, which of the above is the most popular method of obtaining a magic item

I'd honestly like to know.
I have one player who has been trying to buy magic items left right and center like they grow on trees and I have to keep telling him no XD
The others couldn't be bothered

[EggKookoo]

Humans are wired to spot patterns even when they don't really exist. You really think players don't know what you're doing? If they are not credulous fools, they know.

I'm curious what it is you think the players will actually "know I'm doing." All I'm saying is I'll have items good (and to my mind meant) for each PC, in among other items perhaps more randomly determined. It'll be up to the players to work out who gets which of these tailored items. There's no deception on my part. I'm not going to pretend these items came from the DMG or something. I'm not going to say anything about that. I even said they might surprise me and distribute the items not the way I intended them to. That's up to them.

Are you saying they'll know I created these items wholesale rather than pulling them from the DMG or some other published source? Unlikely, but that's because I know my players and they have better things to do than browse for such things. They also know I'm the type to tweak published content anyway so it wouldn't shock them that I did that (even with the non-tailored items), assuming they spent the time to think about it. I expect that they'll work out what "I'm doing" to about the same degree that they'd care. They'll enjoy the items (I hope) and that's the goal.

[Benny89]

Here's a though:

What is the difference between:
-Having a magic shop with a selection of magic items that you can purchase depending on what you want
-Finding loot around various adventures (that may or may not be applicable to your character's interests and prefered playstyle)
-'crafting' or tailor making magic items, either by the dm, or by players gathering resources and making one.

and also:
Out of players, which of the above is the most popular method of obtaining a magic item

This is interesting question. I will answer from my own experience that most popular are 1 and 2, so magic shop and finding loot. From my experience the first option is a classic approach of not only most fantasy RPGs, but also older DnD editions and video game cRPGs. People like (like in real life) to aquire money/gold and go shopping for things they need/want. It's just good feeling. Earning leads to reward. Same as salary leads to buying yourself somthing. In games it works the same, people want to get gold to buy some new, cool thing. In DnD that won't obviously be non-magic item as who wants that in high-magic setting like DnD.

Second is of course classic finding loot because its also part of most RPGs, cRPGs and general idea of finding lost treasures in dungeaons, necropolias, caves etc. Getting scales for dragon to get yourself a dragon scale armor when you are back in city. Getting old unidentify cursed sword so it can be sold back in big city, so you can buy yourself something you wanted from store for a long time.

It's a system as old as RPGs. And I always like to say, like in kitchen "you can't beat classic in the end".

To be honest mostly in my life as RPG player and DM/GM I just found that mix of both above is the most popular style. Most typical items (ring of protection, weapon +1/2/3 etc.) can be found in few stores in biggest cities or on corpses of some enemies while most epic magic items/treasures can be find only from some quests/dungeon/bosses/adventures/puzzles etc

It's been always working best for me and most players I have met.

As for crafting- honestly most people I have played with never bothered with it. Not saying everyone, but most either want to get it as reward/loot or buy it for gold they earned. Because also- let's be honest, there is mostly nothing else to do with huge amounts of gold players get in RPGs other than to buy themselfs new, better gear.

[Xetheral]

It never ceases to amaze me how some DMs think their deceptions are infallible and undetectable.

Humans are wired to spot patterns even when they don't really exist. You really think players don't know what you're doing? If they are not credulous fools, they know.

It doesn't matter if the players know in the abstract that they are being deceived. Consider stage magicians: audiences go into a show expecting that the performer is going to mislead and trick them, and (if the magician was skilled) leave knowing they were tricked. That doesn't lessen the value (or success) of the illusion.

Similarly, players can expect a DM to cloak OOC-motivated world-building choices (e.g. tailoring items) in IC rationales without the players automatically seeing through each such deception. That's a necessary component of maintaining verisimilitude, and many tables expect DMs to do that as a matter of course. Sure, sometimes the DM may not succeed, and the underlying OOC motivation is laid bare to the players, just like sometimes an audience member will see through a stage magician's trick. But a stage magician who fails to successfully deceive most of the audience most of the time isn't much of a stage magician, and a DM who fails to consiatently maintain verisimilitude (at tables that value verisimilitude) isn't much of a DM.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there are skilled DMs out there who successfully mislead most of their players most of the time into overlooking the underlying OOC motivation for world-building decisions. You might well quibble with whether a particular DM belongs in that category, but i don't see how you can suggest that no DMs belong in that category unless you're also prepared to say that highly-verisimilitudinous games don't exist at all.

[MaxWilson]

It doesn't matter if the players know in the abstract that they are being deceived. Consider stage magicians: audiences go into a show expecting that the performer is going to mislead and trick them, and (if the magician was skilled) leave knowing they were tricked. That doesn't lessen the value (or success) of the illusion.

Similarly, players can expect a DM to cloak OOC-motivated world-building choices (e.g. tailoring items) in IC rationales without the players automatically seeing through each such deception. That's a necessary component of maintaining verisimilitude, and many tables expect DMs to do that as a matter of course. Sure, sometimes the DM may not succeed, and the underlying OOC motivation is laid bare to the players, just like sometimes an audience member will see through a stage magician's trick. But a stage magician who fails to successfully deceive most of the audience most of the time isn't much of a stage magician, and a DM who fails to consiatently maintain verisimilitude (at tables that value verisimilitude) isn't much of a DM.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there are skilled DMs out there who successfully mislead most of their players most of the time into overlooking the underlying OOC motivation for world-building decisions. You might well quibble with whether a particular DM belongs in that category, but i don't see how you can suggest that no DMs belong in that category unless you're also prepared to say that highly-verisimilitudinous games don't exist at all.

I wonder if you are perhaps using "verisimilitude" to mean something different than I am accustomed to seeing it used to mean, because at first blush there doesn't seem to be any relationship at all between verisimilitude and illusionism. You can have a world full of verisimilitude (faux-realism, the appearance of infinite detail) even if the players are 100% aware of exactly what is in your DM's notes for every session. But you can't fool them into "[thinking] they got some 'random' items, and that they used their brains to work out who should get what item" if they're aware of what's in your DM's notes, and I think that's what I'm responding to here: the claim (common in some circles) that you can pull a fast one on your players without them ever noticing. Sometimes this comes up in discussing of die fudging or HP adjustment during combat; in this case it's coming up in the context of magic items. It doesn't matter what the context is: if you think you can fool your players with illusionism without it ever affecting your players' perceptions of in-game agency, you're either a champion liar and probably an amazing poker player, or you're wrong.

So there isn't any middle ground (hypothesized by ChrisBasken, unless I misunderstood his point) where you get to have your cake and eat it too. Either your players know that some things are being customized for their benefit (and ad_hoc's suggestion is therefore valid, though you don't have to take it), and they're either fine with it or they're not, or else you just don't customize at all (Tanari'i's approach). But "customize without them ever knowing" doesn't really work on anyone you're going to play with more than a couple of times.

[Pex]

Here's a though:

What is the difference between:
-Having a magic shop with a selection of magic items that you can purchase depending on what you want
-Finding loot around various adventures (that may or may not be applicable to your character's interests and prefered playstyle)
-'crafting' or tailor making magic items, either by the dm, or by players gathering resources and making one.

and also:
Out of players, which of the above is the most popular method of obtaining a magic item

I'd honestly like to know.
I have one player who has been trying to buy magic items left right and center like they grow on trees and I have to keep telling him no XD
The others couldn't be bothered

I'm not keen on magic shops. I suppose players need something to buy with their gold, but making magic items a commodity doesn't feel right. I don't object to them existing and have utilized them as a player, but it's tolerantly accepting. It's too meta.

Finding or crafting I fully support. I also like receiving a magic item as a reward for accomplishing something. Finding items is a testament to the DM, and I like that best. He placed the items there so he wants them in the game and for players to enjoy. The meta part, which isn't too meta, is the DM being nice to the players as opposed to playing the bad guys trying to kill the party. The DM is not the players' enemy and not the point when he's playing the bad guys, but it's still a nice feeling not having the DM play the adversarial role for a moment and it's all good news to the players. Crafting magic items is a Cool Thing. The item is in the game because the player wanted it and he made it. I don't like how 5E implements the process, but that's a different topic.

[Max_Killjoy]

I wonder if you are perhaps using "verisimilitude" to mean something different than I am accustomed to seeing it used to mean, because at first blush there doesn't seem to be any relationship at all between verisimilitude and illusionism. You can have a world full of verisimilitude (faux-realism, the appearance of infinite detail) even if the players are 100% aware of exactly what is in your DM's notes for every session. But you can't fool them into "[thinking] they got some 'random' items, and that they used their brains to work out who should get what item" if they're aware of what's in your DM's notes, and I think that's what I'm responding to here: the claim (common in some circles) that you can pull a fast one on your players without them ever noticing. Sometimes this comes up in discussing of die fudging or HP adjustment during combat; in this case it's coming up in the context of magic items. It doesn't matter what the context is: if you think you can fool your players with illusionism without it ever affecting your players' perceptions of in-game agency, you're either a champion liar and probably an amazing poker player, or you're wrong.

So there isn't any middle ground (hypothesized by ChrisBasken, unless I misunderstood his point) where you get to have your cake and eat it too. Either your players know that some things are being customized for their benefit (and ad_hoc's suggestion is therefore valid, though you don't have to take it), and they're either fine with it or they're not, or else you just don't customize at all (Tanari'i's approach). But "customize without them ever knowing" doesn't really work on anyone you're going to play with more than a couple of times.

Exactly.

Illusionism and verisimilitude are at best orthogonal, and worst diametrically opposed.

[Tanarii]

, and I think that's what I'm responding to here: the claim (common in some circles) that you can pull a fast one on your players without them ever noticing. Sometimes this comes up in discussing of die fudging or HP adjustment during combat; in this case it's coming up in the context of magic items. It doesn't matter what the context is: if you think you can fool your players with illusionism without it ever affecting your players' perceptions of in-game agency, you're either a champion liar and probably an amazing poker player, or you're wrong.Yup. The idea that your players won't know what you're doing if you do it on a regular or semi-regular basis is the amazingly insidious and incorrect assumption of illusionism-ists. And as you note, common among dice fudging DMs.

They may be okay with whatever is being done. Or they may not. But don't assume they won't know. (Depending on what's been done, they may even assume you're doing it when you're not, if it's a common thing for DMs in the field to do.)

[Marcloure]

As a player, I like to collect random items. Historical relics, cursed items, that useless staff that stands vertical when released, gems, I like to collect things and then look at them and remember all places and things my character has done.

As a DM, I like to reward my players with those things. One of my player's most memorable loot is a bloodthorn scimitar that none in the group uses, it just stands there on the wall of their wagon. Another example, I put a magical maul as loot in a certain occasion, and although the Fighter carries it as a reserve weapon, the character rarely uses it.

Of course, there is also no reason to not reward your players accordingly. In that same table, the Sorcerer character seeks for his father (a genie) and he found a magical dagger which belonged to him. I wound never give him a dagger of poison or whatever, of course it was a dagger made for casters.

So, I guess I rather do a mix of both cases. If I feel like I should power up the party or if the reward is directly related to some character, that item must fit a character. Otherwise, I'm ok with random items, relics and stuff like "a small stone disc that stands afloat".

[Xetheral]

I wonder if you are perhaps using "verisimilitude" to mean something different than I am accustomed to seeing it used to mean, because at first blush there doesn't seem to be any relationship at all between verisimilitude and illusionism. You can have a world full of verisimilitude (faux-realism, the appearance of infinite detail) even if the players are 100% aware of exactly what is in your DM's notes for every session. But you can't fool them into "[thinking] they got some 'random' items, and that they used their brains to work out who should get what item" if they're aware of what's in your DM's notes, and I think that's what I'm responding to here: the claim (common in some circles) that you can pull a fast one on your players without them ever noticing. Sometimes this comes up in discussing of die fudging or HP adjustment during combat; in this case it's coming up in the context of magic items. It doesn't matter what the context is: if you think you can fool your players with illusionism without it ever affecting your players' perceptions of in-game agency, you're either a champion liar and probably an amazing poker player, or you're wrong.

So there isn't any middle ground (hypothesized by ChrisBasken, unless I misunderstood his point) where you get to have your cake and eat it too. Either your players know that some things are being customized for their benefit (and ad_hoc's suggestion is therefore valid, though you don't have to take it), and they're either fine with it or they're not, or else you just don't customize at all (Tanari'i's approach). But "customize without them ever knowing" doesn't really work on anyone you're going to play with more than a couple of times.

It's certainly possible that we're using "verisimilitude" differently. I define it to mean the game world has a feeling of self-consistency and plausibility. In contrast, where verisimilitude is lacking, the game world feels like it exists only to serve to game--it feel like it lacks it's own reality. Verisimilitude is subjective, and different people find different things can add to or damage it.

The middle ground you refer to exists at tables where knowing that a particular world-building decision was customized would be damaging to verisimilitude, but the abstract knowledge that some world-building decisions are customized is not. At these tables, a skilled DM has room to conceal the specific customizations without needing to conceal that some elements are customized. That's why I drew the analogy to stage magicians: the audience knows they will be tricked, but can't necessarily identify where they were tricked.

Let's take an example. Suppose I'm playing a polearm fighter in a game where I know the DM will sometimes customize the game world to the players. In the pre-established lore of the campaign world, the Captain of the King's guard is a famous halberdier. In the course of our adventures, we end up choosing to confront the Captain's daughter, and it tuns out she's also a halberdier. Did the DM make the daughter a halberdier to continue the family tradition? Or did the DM decide to make the daughter a halberdier so that I had an opportunity to get a magic halberd? And did the DM decide to include the daughter of the Captain in order to plausibly introduce a halberdier so that I could get a magic weapon? Or did the DM introduce the daughter of the Captain because the plot thread we're tugging on involves royal intrigue? I have no way of knowing, and that ambiguity is enough to preserve versimilitude for me. (Other people, with different subjective standards, might find the mere possibility that the introduction of the magic halberd was customized to be damaging to verisimilitude.)

As an aside, I don't see how customizing magic items qualifies as illusionism just because you don't tell your players when you're doing it. In my experience "illusionism" usually describes making the players feel that their characters' decisions have a greater impact on the events in the game than they actually do. I don't see how the term applies to simply not sharing one's motivations for world-building decisions. So we may be using "illusionism" differently too.

[Tanarii]

As an aside, I don't see how customizing magic items qualifies as illusionism just because you don't tell your players when you're doing it.
IMO they (tailoring and illusuonism) just share a common trait, in which many DMs who do it regularly and intentionally 'on the sly' think their players won't notice.

[Xetheral]

IMO they (tailoring and illusuonism) just share a common trait, in which many DMs who do it regularly and intentionally 'on the sly' think their players won't notice.

To clarify, are you saying that DMs who tailor will not be able to conceal the fact of their tailoring from the players? Or are you saying that players in a game with a DM who tailors will consistently be able identify which elements are tailored?

[EggKookoo]

To clarify, are you saying that DMs who tailor will not be able to conceal the fact of their tailoring from the players? Or are you saying that players in a game with a DM who tailors will consistently be able identify which elements are tailored?

Yeah, I've been struggling to comprehend the argument being presented here. If I put an item into the game with the thought that player X will benefit from using it, does player X somehow always know I've done it?

[Benny89]

Yeah, I've been struggling to comprehend the argument being presented here. If I put an item into the game with the thought that player X will benefit from using it, does player X somehow always know I've done it?

To be honest I think both of you kind of overthink this. In my opinion most players simply would not care at all if it's was tailored for them or not. I don't think most of them would put it into some sort of analysis. They would simply accept it, be happy and use it. Honestly me as player I wouldn't even bother to try to think "does DM tailor items for us, does he use random generate, is this item in book, was it luck or was it chosen for me"?

I think most players will think like "yay, nice!" aaaaaaand... move on I guess :D

Maybe one munchkin per 10 players would put a lof of thought into that to later abuse it somehow, but most players sit at table to play, not to investigate DM way of thinking/tailoring events/items.

My opinion.

[EggKookoo]

To be honest I think both of you kind of overthink this. In my opinion most players simply would not care at all if it's was tailored for them or not. I don't think most of them would put it into some sort of analysis. They would simply accept it, be happy and use it. Honestly me as player I wouldn't even bother to try to think "does DM tailor items for us, does he use random generate, is this item in book, was it luck or was it chosen for me"?

I think most players will think like "yay, nice!" aaaaaaand... move on I guess :D

Maybe one munchkin per 10 players would put a lof of thought into that to later abuse it somehow, but most players sit at table to play, not to investigate DM way of thinking/tailoring events/items.

My opinion.

Well that's largely my position too. I know my players wouldn't spend too much time thinking about whether I handmade a magic item just for them, or pulled it randomly off a list, or something in between. They'd be too caught up thinking about the item itself. Besides that, none of my players thinks they're not getting an at least somewhat customized experience overall. I mean, my rogue player doesn't think "Oh, he put that locked door in there just for me, because he wants me to have something useful to do out of combat." He thinks "Oh, hey, locked door. I can do that." But if you sat him down and asked if he thought I put it there for him, he might consider it a possibility.

The idea that he's "aware" that I put the locked door there for his benefit really isn't the question. He's not aware of it in the sense that he's not thinking about it, just like right now there's a bunch of things you're not currently thinking about.

But it's also ludicrous to think players never fall for narrative sleight-of-hand. Honestly it's much harder, in my experience, to get players to pick up on implications than it is to prevent them from doing so. Not because they're idiots, but because their focus is typically elsewhere.

[The Jack]

I had a DM who did cater items too us. He perfectly catered items to us, it was cancer. We couldn't argue about loot, because the gods decreed that x was for y, and any attempt to keep it for myself, make a compelling argument or wrestle it out of her hand did not translate from my mouth into the game. Worst thing was I was playing LE, and my character couldn't fathom why the pacifist monk that didn't pull her weight could be rewarded equally; It was unjust.

Annoying thing was I was new to the game and kinda told my DM I wanted a cloak of the manta because my character feared drowning. The DM had magic shops in his game so of course we derailed everything and planned a heist. I found a cloak of the manta and was excited at the time, but looking back on it... I think it's a good thing we didn't continue that campaign.



But on the other end of things, if the DM was screwing me because of my perfectly-reasonable weapon choice...


Look, if I'm a polearm master, I wouldn't mind picking up a +1 magic sword. I'd use the polearm, and use the sword when the polearm wasn't working or wasn't appropriate. I'd prefer a versatile weapon and would probably silver the polearm at some point, but it's ok. If the DM started throwing flametongues and holy avengers at me while I was yet to have a +1 polearm, I'd be very peeved. I'd probably have a look into installing the magic blades from swords and daggers onto a very long stick.

[EggKookoo]

I had a DM who did cater items too us. He perfectly catered items to us, it was cancer. We couldn't argue about loot, because the gods decreed that x was for y, and any attempt to keep it for myself, make a compelling argument or wrestle it out of her hand did not translate from my mouth into the game.

Ok, that is messing with player agency for sure. OD&D rules like "magic users can't use swords, period" aside, the DM has no business telling you you must hand over an item to another player. Even if you couldn't wield it per the rules, it's still literally in your hands.


Look, if I'm a polearm master, I wouldn't mind picking up a +1 magic sword. I'd use the polearm, and use the sword when the polearm wasn't working or wasn't appropriate. I'd prefer a versatile weapon and would probably silver the polearm at some point, but it's ok. If the DM started throwing flametongues and holy avengers at me while I was yet to have a +1 polearm, I'd be very peeved. I'd probably have a look into installing the magic blades from swords and daggers onto a very long stick.

So the part of the debate I've been orbiting comes to a question like this. If you're a polearm master, and in the course of adventuring you find a magical polearm hidden away in a dungeon somewhere, would the notion that the DM purposely put it there for you bother you? Would it feel like you lost agency because the DM engaged in some degree of metagaming and put it there in the hopes that you'd find it? How hard would you have to think about it before you decided the DM did, in fact, put it there specifically so you could find it and that it wasn't just some impartial result of a random (or otherwise non-biased) magic item distribution mechanism? How much would you care to even think about it like that at all? If another non-polearm-master character found it and wanted to keep it, would you feel you were entitled to it as a player, because you'd deduced the DM put it there for you (despite the DM keeping silent about any of that)? I mean I could see your character feeling entitled to it in-game because it suits them so well, but your character is unaware of the existence of the DM or that they're in a game at all so that's kind of beside the point.

All in all, would it matter to you how the weapon got there enough that you would start wondering if the DM put it there, or would you just... use it?

[Pex]

To be honest I think both of you kind of overthink this. In my opinion most players simply would not care at all if it's was tailored for them or not. I don't think most of them would put it into some sort of analysis. They would simply accept it, be happy and use it. Honestly me as player I wouldn't even bother to try to think "does DM tailor items for us, does he use random generate, is this item in book, was it luck or was it chosen for me"?

I think most players will think like "yay, nice!" aaaaaaand... move on I guess :D

Maybe one munchkin per 10 players would put a lof of thought into that to later abuse it somehow, but most players sit at table to play, not to investigate DM way of thinking/tailoring events/items.

My opinion.

Agreed. Players see magic items. Yay cool. It's a magic item they like and want to use. Way cool. They're happy they have it and don't analyze.

Depending on the campaign sometimes we know straight away the items were made for us. That was never a problem. What was fun about it was the circumstances we acquired the magic items, mainly as a reward for accomplishing a task but sometimes as up front payment to do a task an NPC wants us to do for which the magic items would help.

On a related note, if the paladin player has been using a great sword since level 1, has great weapon style (whether it works on smites or not), has great weapon master feat, never took a magical long sword or shield when they came up but grabbed the magical great sword, by the time you as DM are ready and willing to give the paladin a holy avenger, make it a great sword, not a long sword. The player will be happy and not caring you arbitrarily decided on making it a great sword just for him. He's happy he finally has his greatest treasure. It is absolutely irrelevant you created the campaign 5 years ago and decided then it was a long sword. Change it to a great sword.

[EggKookoo]

great weapon style (whether it works on smites or not)

Tangent, but I looked this up. Apparently they clarified that you cannot reroll Divine Smite dice as part of Great Weapon Fighting. Their justification wasn't that it made GWF too powerful (they admitted the extra damage wasn't likely to be unbalancing) but that players wouldn't want to roll all those extra dice. Right. I got GWF so I could have fun rolling extra damage dice but whew! The rules are saving me from the tedium of rolling extra damage dice!

That's some impressive dev/player disconnect.

Anyway, back to arguing over player agency...

[Willie the Duck]

Personally I've always found treasure tables, regardless of edition, to be worthless. No magic item exists without the DM's permission, so it should be the DM who decides what magic item is in what treasure hoard. I can understand some randomization of things helps a DM so he doesn't have to think on something or prevent bias, but treasure is one thing I think the DM should make the effort to deal with and be biased. If running a module and want to use what it says, fine. No harm in tweaking but as written is fine. When creating your own be the DM and make decisions.

Despite that, I can see the appeal of letting randomization of treasure inspire.

I just want to applause this acknowledgement of the appeal of the opposing viewpoint. This is positive growth.



What is the difference between:
-Having a magic shop with a selection of magic items that you can purchase depending on what you want
-Finding loot around various adventures (that may or may not be applicable to your character's interests and prefered playstyle)
-'crafting' or tailor making magic items, either by the dm, or by players gathering resources and making one.
and also:
Out of players, which of the above is the most popular method of obtaining a magic item
I'd honestly like to know.

I think there are some divides based on which editions (and maybe CRPGs you've played). Overall, I think 3e shaped a lot of minds, and I think people either miss it or are of a mindset something like 'oh thank god we got rid of that!,' probably based on how much the 'Christmas Tree effect' and 'treadmill of acquisition just to stay into the same spot' issues 3e supposedly had actually affected ones' games.

.................................................. .

To be honest I think both of you kind of overthink this. In my opinion most players simply would not care at all if it's was tailored for them or not. I don't think most of them would put it into some sort of analysis. They would simply accept it, be happy and use it. Honestly me as player I wouldn't even bother to try to think "does DM tailor items for us, does he use random generate, is this item in book, was it luck or was it chosen for me"?


So the part of the debate I've been orbiting comes to a question like this. If you're a polearm master, and in the course of adventuring you find a magical polearm hidden away in a dungeon somewhere, would the notion that the DM purposely put it there for you bother you? Would it feel like you lost agency because the DM engaged in some degree of metagaming and put it there in the hopes that you'd find it? How hard would you have to think about it before you decided the DM did, in fact, put it there specifically so you could find it and that it wasn't just some impartial result of a random (or otherwise non-biased) magic item distribution mechanism? How much would you care to even think about it like that at all?

I think, hidden amongst discussions about whether the PAM fighter can find a magic halberd and whatnot, we're tripping over a genuinely huge preferred-playstyle issue. One where people have some pretty divergent ideas about what makes the game fun. Trying to be neutral, I will phrase them as pro/con on the subject of 'play it as it lies.' Would you, as a player of a game, prefer to spend a significant amount of time doing something less immediately fun*, if that entailed that you knew that the game you were playing was agnostic to your success (and thus if you beat it/excelled/prospered/etc., you inarguably earned it in some way)?
*taking several minutes in the sand trap to further the golf analogy, or whatever else the DM-not-sculpting-the game means to a given gaming scenario

If you are playing a tournament module, or using the game as a wargame-like-thing or the xcom emulator thing MW talks about, or anywhere else where two players are trying to compete against the other (directly, or in some kind of 'high-score'-like scenario), the answer is obvious. Any other time, there's not going to be a right answer. Just a question of what one finds fun.

[Benny89]

I think, hidden amongst discussions about whether the PAM fighter can find a magic halberd and whatnot, we're tripping over a genuinely huge preferred-playstyle issue. One where people have some pretty divergent ideas about what makes the game fun.

It's also something I wanted to mention. If I have one of my players take PAM and obviously he love to play with Glaives, he even printed himself a picture of his "basic" glaive, he silvered his Glaive. He wants to use Glaive. I thnk any semi-decent DM can figure out if some player love one kind of weapon or not and want to play with that and it gives him fun.

Now of course since there is no unique Magic Glaives in DMG, Holy Avenger can't be Glaive by DMG etc. and I can just give them some random magic weapons.

So I see after some time (after other players rock some magic weapons because either their builds are not tied to one type or they simple don't care what they use to have fun) I can see that this one player does not have that fun anymore. Sure, he uses that greatsword +2 because he needs, but he doesn't really like it, he doesn't have fun. I went against his desired playstyle and his definition of "fun" forcing him to fit my definition of DnD style and fun.

But as DM in the end I have to ask myself "what did I achieve this way?", "what I have proven to someone"? That I can FORCE a player to play my way? Yes I can. And what did I get from it? Ego-boost? All I did was take away fun from this guy, his preffered playstyle that honestly don't have any influence on me or my campaign and certainly doesn't not change anything in great scale of events. And then you ask a question: do those three magic glavies would changed something for me as DM and for the DnD as world? Well.... no.

All I did was "I do this cause I think you should play my way". And in the end what I have achieved? An unhappy player at my table and my reward is... I guess proving that I am the boss here?

I wouldn't call that a good outcome or good DMing. Again- my feelings and opinion.

[MaxWilson]

I'm not keen on magic shops. I suppose players need something to buy with their gold, but making magic items a commodity doesn't feel right. I don't object to them existing and have utilized them as a player, but it's tolerantly accepting. It's too meta.

I wonder if the objection here might not be to the idea of trading magic items for mere gold? Especially if you're playing in a campaign where gold can't buy you armies and poisons and other forms of real power, I can see how magic item "shops" would feel very meta.

In cases like that perhaps a solution would be to trade magic items for favors instead, including some of those things you can't buy with gold. That Instrument of the Bards you can't use? Trade it to the Erlkonig (Elf-King) and he owes you a favor, which means you can now borrow two of his household Summer Eladrin for up to two weeks (i.e. one adventure). Or if you want to go the other way around: the Dwarf Lord offers you his Hammer of Thunderbolts if you can save his heir from the Mind Flayers who captured her. He doesn't dare let his dwarves be involved with the rescue attempt but he prays for your success.

[Tanarii]

In my opinion most players simply would not care at all if it's was tailored for them or not.IMX there is a large minority of players that do not like things to be tailored for their characters. And are suspicious when they think the DM is making things easier for them.

Then there is a small large minority that want that.

Then there's everyone else, that thinks we're crazy for thinking about this kind of thing. And coming to an online forum at all. :smallbiggrin:

But I do know one large draw for my campaign is players knowing that nothing is planned with specific player characters in mind. That it's one of the few ways D&D players can have a persistent many player world (ie not AL since it doesn't persist), so they have to have their character interact with the world, instead of having the world interact with them.

[Willie the Duck]

...
But as DM in the end I have to ask myself "what did I achieve this way?", "what I have proven to someone"? That I can FORCE a player to play my way? Yes I can. And what did I get from it? Ego-boost? All I did was take away fun from this guy, his preffered playstyle that honestly don't have any influence on me or my campaign and certainly doesn't not change anything in great scale of events. And then you ask a question: do those three magic glavies would changed something for me as DM and for the DnD as world? Well.... no.

All I did was "I do this cause I think you should play my way". And in the end what I have achieved? An unhappy player at my table and my reward is... I guess proving that I am the boss here?

I wouldn't call that a good outcome or good DMing. Again- my feelings and opinion.

Okay, but I think that's a different issue. My point is that 'play it as it lies' is a preferred-playstyle choice, one whose preferability we can debate til the cows come home and it won't change anything, because preferences are opinions. What you're talking about is DMs forcing a playstyle upon players. That can go either (or any, since this isn't a either-or situation). You can absolutely FORCE a player in the other direction. I have it happen in one of my other campaigns -- the DM will not kill a PC. Something will always save them. And more than one of the players has actively, vocally complained about this, and nothing changes.

The simple matter is that playing RPGs, like any communal activity, requires active communication and negotiation, and that's going to be true regarding any issue. I mean, you're right that in your scenario you didn't really show anyone who was boss or accomplish any other end, but that would have been true about forcing your preferred playstyle regarding any aspect of play (including forcing player-build-modified magic item distribution on someone who wanted to play against a random distribution). All of these issues take clear communication and open, fruitful negotiation. There's one guy here who routinely describes their negotiating tactics as a DM as 'there's the door if you don't like my game' and I don't think anyone really believes it. That's not how real life works. But since it is a universal point, it really doesn't touch on the point of some people preferring the game not to change based on what they are playing.

[MaxWilson]

So the part of the debate I've been orbiting comes to a question like this. If you're a polearm master, and in the course of adventuring you find a magical polearm hidden away in a dungeon somewhere, would the notion that the DM purposely put it there for you bother you? Would it feel like you lost agency because the DM engaged in some degree of metagaming and put it there in the hopes that you'd find it?

For me, the knowledge that the DM has a finger on the scales makes me lose interest in the campaign from a challenge perspective, which means I also lose interest in things like whether or not I gain XP or what magic items I find or whether or not we beat the monsters instead of running away. If I kept playing in that campaign for other reasons (e.g. Fellowship, if I really like the people in it) I'd focus on playing a support character like a Bard, just in case other people did continue to care about the challenge, but for the most part at that point it ceases to matter whether the game is D&D (5E or otherwise) instead of freeform roleplaying or Union or whatever.

So it's not about this one specific decision. If I somehow knew that the DM would only ever intervene in magic item placement and nothing else, I could shrug it off. But I don't know that, so it damages the DM's credibility, and that damages my interest in the campaign overall. A DM who makes sure that I get a magical polearm is probably not going to let us TPK ourselves either, even if we deserve it, so if we do something hard and manage to NOT TPK the victory is meaningless. It's all just the story of the DM playing with themselves.

[EggKookoo]

I think, hidden amongst discussions about whether the PAM fighter can find a magic halberd and whatnot, we're tripping over a genuinely huge preferred-playstyle issue. One where people have some pretty divergent ideas about what makes the game fun. Trying to be neutral, I will phrase them as pro/con on the subject of 'play it as it lies.' Would you, as a player of a game, prefer to spend a significant amount of time doing something less immediately fun*, if that entailed that you knew that the game you were playing was agnostic to your success (and thus if you beat it/excelled/prospered/etc., you inarguably earned it in some way)?
*taking several minutes in the sand trap to further the golf analogy, or whatever else the DM-not-sculpting-the game means to a given gaming scenario

I have trouble visualizing what "agnostic to [my] success" means. Does that mean there's no reward? Does that mean the reward is not tailored for me? Does that mean the reward might exist but be actually useless for me?

Let's look at a typical published dungeon. In many rooms, there are piles of debris, crates, old clothes, etc., and underneath those there are often... nothing. No treasure, no adventure clues. They exist, I assume, to create that sense of verisimilitude we all love. It would be distractingly game-ish if every room had a goodie. We all understand that, I think. But once in a while, the game does need to provide some item of interest to the players. Some treasure of actual value, that enhances the fun of the game. So, one in every... What? Ten rooms? The game gives the players something to prompt them to keep exploring, and to provide that little boost of "oh, cool!"

This idea, that treasure is doled out at a certain pace meant to keep the players interested in searching for it, but not so frequent as to devalue the treasure itself, is fundamentally no different than making sure there's an item for a specific character tucked away somewhere in the adventure. It's just another form of keeping the players interested. They're equally contrived. I mean, why every ten rooms? Why not every five, or every twenty? That frequency -- whatever it actually is in a given scenario -- is aimed at the very metagame-thought of keeping the players (not the characters) happy.

This is why I'm having trouble with what your question means. I have trouble imagining any game scenario that is agnostic to my success. I guess such a scenario wouldn't even include satisfying gameplay?

[Unoriginal]

If the DM having fun by DMing the way they like prevent the player from having fun by playing the way they like, then obviously the fact is that those two people's playstyles don't fit and they shouldn't play with each other, since doing so only lead to frustration for either one of them.

The DM's responsibility to make the game fun for the players isn't bigger than the players' responsibility to make the game fun for the DM.

Now, sure, most DMs' fun won't be ruined by spending 5 mins homebrewing magic glaives, but what about AL games, for one example? And what about the few DMs whose fun would genuinely be diminished if they'd have to change the cornerstone item of their campaign from a sword to a glaive? You can't tell them "stop having fun, X want a glaive".


I'm DMing Dragon Heist, myself. I've decided to add an encounter where the PCs are going to be attacked by a small gang masquarading as street performer. The leader will have a wooden longsword which is magicked to be as sharp as a steel one, and will try to goad one of the PCs into a "play" duel with that obviously "harmless" weapon (the other goons will include a fire breather and a juggler whose juggling balls are filled with oil and alchemist's fire). It's likely none of the PCs will want to use that longsword if they loot it, being a Bard, a Cleric and a Rogue. I could make the magic item a rapier, or a shortsword, or an axe. But the thing is, the world does not exist to quater to the PCs . That gang leader has no reason to have a weapon that's more convenient for the PCs to use, and neither did the creator of the weapon. So if this sword isn't for them to use, it's not a problem. I'm sure they'll be able to do something with it, and there is enough people in town with the money and interest for such a weapon if they just want to sell it. It doesn't mean I'm a tyrant who will force my players to so keep finding magic weapons they won't use, it just means I don't have to change this one.

[EggKookoo]

So it's not about this one specific decision. If I somehow knew that the DM would only ever intervene in magic item placement and nothing else, I could shrug it off. But I don't know that, so it damages the DM's credibility, and that damages my interest in the campaign overall. A DM who makes sure that I get a magical polearm is probably not going to let us TPK ourselves either, even if we deserve it, so if we do something hard and manage to NOT TPK the victory is meaningless. It's all just the story of the DM playing with themselves.

"Ok, first-level party. Ready for our fist adventure? I'm going to introduce you to my friend Mr. Terrasque. Hey, why are you complaining? You want me to take away your agency by putting you up against CR 1 creatures!?"

The entire game is about the DM putting his finger on the scale.

I get what you're actually saying (or I think you're actually saying). You seem to be saying you don't want to be aware that the DM is adjusting things for you. And you would be painfully aware of it if the DM drops a magic item that is conveniently useful for you. I don't debate that or plan to argue it. We all have our preferences and we all have the little things that take us out of the game. But you also seem to be saying it's not possible for players to remain satisfied with the game if the DM tailors items for them, and that's just plain false. It may bug you, but it doesn't bug my players. It doesn't bug them to the point where they don't even bother to put much thought into my process for determining these items. Again, this isn't because they're stupid, it's because they don't have any illusions that I'm not crafting almost the entire experience to produce (what I hope is) a satisfying game.

[Max_Killjoy]

As a GM, part of my never-ending quest for a system I actually like, rather than one I have to make work, is wanting as few instances as possible when I simply have to choose between putting a finger on the scale, or letting a ridiculous result derail things.

For example, with the White Wolf oWoD systems, I found myself sorely tempted to put a lot of fingers on a lot of scales simply because the results were so often patently counter to the details of the situation to the point of total lunacy.

[Unoriginal]

to the point of total lunacy.

Well, at least it's appropriate for a werewolf game.

[Willie the Duck]

I have trouble visualizing what "agnostic to [my] success" means. Does that mean there's no reward? Does that mean the reward is not tailored for me? Does that mean the reward might exist but be actually useless for me?

To my knowledge, it is not a term with a specific meaning in context of gaming. I just grabbed to mean, for the most part, not tailored to the player. Predominantly I am using it to avoid terms like 'fair' or 'level playing field' as those have some serious connotations. But they are most likely one of the motivations for someone wanting that playstyle. "I earned that level because the DM didn't change the dice rolls when they saw that I was on the ropes," or, "I did do that dungeon better than my friend Joe because we were both run through the same module with no alterations based on what the DM knew about our character."


Let's look at a typical published dungeon. In many rooms, there are piles of debris, crates, old clothes, etc., and underneath those there are often... nothing. No treasure, no adventure clues. They exist, I assume, to create that sense of verisimilitude we all love. It would be distractingly game-ish if every room had a goodie. We all understand that, I think. But once in a while, the game does need to provide some item of interest to the players. Some treasure of actual value, that enhances the fun of the game. So, one in every... What? Ten rooms? The game gives the players something to prompt them to keep exploring, and to provide that little boost of "oh, cool!"

This idea, that treasure is doled out at a certain pace meant to keep the players interested in searching for it, but not so frequent as to devalue the treasure itself, is fundamentally no different than making sure there's an item for a specific character tucked away somewhere in the adventure. It's just another form of keeping the players interested. They're equally contrived. I mean, why every ten rooms? Why not every five, or every twenty? That frequency -- whatever it actually is in a given scenario -- is aimed at the very metagame-thought of keeping the players (not the characters) happy.

I... really have no idea how this is relevant. How often treasure is supposed to show up to establish verisimilitude? It's a valid issue worthy of discussion, but I don't understand how it relates.



This is why I'm having trouble with what your question means. I have trouble imagining any game scenario that is agnostic to my success. I guess such a scenario wouldn't even include satisfying gameplay?

I'm not even asking a question. I'm discussing preferred gameplay styles. We're having a serious communication disconnect. Can anyone else see what's going on here and pull it together for us?

[MaxWilson]

"Ok, first-level party. Ready for our fist adventure? I'm going to introduce you to my friend Mr. Terrasque. Hey, why are you complaining? You want me to take away your agency by putting you up against CR 1 creatures!?"

The entire game is about the DM putting his finger on the scale.

Response: you run a crummy sandbox if the only thing in it is Tarrasques. How was I even born if everyone on that planet gets eaten immediately by Tarrasques?

You need to learn more about telegraphing and why D&D historically has had dungeon levels and adventures with advertised level ranges--so that players can control the difficulty of what they engage with.


I get what you're actually saying (or I think you're actually saying).

Your response makes me doubt that you are conversant with the alternatives.


But you also seem to be saying it's not possible for players to remain satisfied with the game if the DM tailors items for them, and that's just plain false.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I answered your question, but I didn't make this broad claim you're making here. I didn't even say it was impossible for me, personally, to be satisfied with a game where the DM tailors items--I could theoretically love being around the other players and the DM, and be satisfied despite the lack of challenge. I could even theoretically know from experience that this DM will ruthlessly TPK us without mercy, but he just happens to like customized magic item drops. I made no broad claim about what is not possible--but I am telling you why this thing that you think is a positive is actually a negative, for people like me.


It may bug you, but it doesn't bug my players.

*shrug* Quelle surprise. They wouldn't still be playing with you if it did bug them.


Again, this isn't because they're stupid, it's because they don't have any illusions that I'm not crafting almost the entire experience to produce (what I hope is) a satisfying game.

Right. People like me don't play with DMs like you in the first place, so you can keep running your game the way you do and it won't hurt us any.

[EggKookoo]

But the thing is, the world does not exist to quater to the PCs . That gang leader has no reason to have a weapon that's more convenient for the PCs to use, and neither did the creator of the weapon.

Absolutely true.


So if this sword isn't for them to use, it's not a problem. I'm sure they'll be able to do something with it, and there is enough people in town with the money and interest for such a weapon if they just want to sell it. It doesn't mean I'm a tyrant who will force my players to so keep finding magic weapons they won't use, it just means I don't have to change this one.

Also true. But at the same time, it's not taking away anyone's agency if you create a weapon that you think a player will want. If I have a rogue in my party, and I give an NPC a dagger that, I dunno, provides some kind of small stealth bonus (not going to worry about the specific features here), I don't think I'm ruining the game for him. He's not going to say "Oh, well, see, now I know you created that dagger just for me. That just ruins the game for me. I'm out." Or in a less extreme response, he's not going to lose enthusiasm for playing his rogue with his new stealthblade. If it were me, I'd evaluate the weapon, decide if it's worth the drop in damage over my shortsword to get the stealth bonus, and proceed from there. I'd be happy that I got the opportunity to do that, actually, as it represents an actual choice, but even if the magic item was another shortsword I'd still "run the numbers" and make a choice. At no point would I feel like I had anything taken away from me in terms of decisions or choices or immersion. It'd be a much more interesting course of events than "Oh, cool, a magic greataxe. I guess I'll go... sell it? Somewhere?"

[MaxWilson]

But at the same time, it's not taking away anyone's agency if you create a weapon that you think a player will want.

This makes me think you're using the word "agency" in an idiosyncratic way.

[EggKookoo]

I... really have no idea how this is relevant. How often treasure is supposed to show up to establish verisimilitude? It's a valid issue worthy of discussion, but I don't understand how it relates.

Early on, someone said that providing custom-tailored treasure or magic items undermined verisimilitude. I was just responding to that general thought. I thought you were also arguing the same, so my apologies if I misread.


I'm not even asking a question. I'm discussing preferred gameplay styles. We're having a serious communication disconnect. Can anyone else see what's going on here and pull it together for us?

Sorry, what did you mean by this if it wasn't a question?

"Would you, as a player of a game, prefer to spend a significant amount of time doing something less immediately fun*, if that entailed that you knew that the game you were playing was agnostic to your success (and thus if you beat it/excelled/prospered/etc., you inarguably earned it in some way)?"


Response: you run a crummy sandbox if the only thing in it is Tarrasques. How was I even born if everyone on that planet gets eaten immediately by Tarrasques?

Exaggeration to make a point. Are you deliberately misunderstanding?


You need to learn more about telegraphing and why D&D historically has had dungeon levels and adventures with advertised level ranges--so that players can control the difficulty of what they engage with.

Duh, levels in dungeons tell you how far down the elevator goes. Everyone knows that!

Look, maybe like Willie says, we're miscommunicating. I'm just saying that a polearm master player isn't going to become magically aware that that +1 halberd was put in the dungeon specifically by the DM so that he could have it. He might suspect. He might not even think about it. He might actually be wrong and it was rolled up by the DM randomly.


Please don't put words in my mouth. I answered your question, but I didn't make this broad claim you're making here.


This makes me think you're using the word "agency" in an idiosyncratic way.

Ok, help me out. What did you mean by this?

"if you think you can fool your players with illusionism without it ever affecting your players' perceptions of in-game agency, you're either a champion liar and probably an amazing poker player, or you're wrong."

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a GM, part of my never-ending quest for a system I actually like, rather than one I have to make work, is wanting as few instances as possible when I simply have to choose between putting a finger on the scale, or letting a ridiculous result derail things.

For example, with the White Wolf oWoD systems, I found myself sorely tempted to put a lot of fingers on a lot of scales simply because the results were so often patently counter to the details of the situation to the point of total lunacy.

See, I see all games as having someone's finger on the scale. The only question is whose finger is it. Because nothing exists until it's put there by a real person. Those random tables didn't write themselves, and tweaking them is exactly putting your finger on the scale. Building a world is putting your finger on the scale. Neutrality is an illusion.

Personally, I prefer systems that recognize this fact and leave it to the individual DM to do much of the tweaking. Because I can select DMs who I trust to apply the inevitable adjustments for the good of the party, while I can't change the designers minds. Systems that try to make those decisions (about play style, loot distribution, encounter design, allowed responses, etc) never satisfy me because they're the system equivalent of railroading. You will play the exact way the designers believed was right or everything falls apart. Certainly, systems can have a limited range of play-styles they're designed to accomodate. But the more restrictive and prescriptive it gets, the less likely it is to fit my style (which varies by group and even by day). Systems that recognize this variability and create "neutral flavors" and give examples of ways to do things differently and point out the pitfalls of violating certain key assumptions are the ideal for me.

As an aside, "the dice made me do it" (the hardcore anti-fudging/anti-tailoring position) is the DM equivalent, in my mind, of "but that's what my character would do". It's trying to push the blame for a player-unfriendly decision off onto something else. Either the random table/module/system (in the case of the DM) or the imaginary character. It doesn't work--only real people can bear responsibility. You (speaking generally) did something unfriendly and un-fun? Suck it up and accept responsibility. Don't push it off onto something that, by its nature, can't be responsible. The rules are not the master, the dice aren't the master, the character isn't the master. The person is.

[Man_Over_Game]

Also true. But at the same time, it's not taking away anyone's agency if you create a weapon that you think a player will want. If I have a rogue in my party, and I give an NPC a dagger that, I dunno, provides some kind of small stealth bonus (not going to worry about the specific features here), I don't think I'm ruining the game for him. He's not going to say "Oh, well, see, now I know you created that dagger just for me. That just ruins the game for me. I'm out." Or in a less extreme response, he's not going to lose enthusiasm for playing his rogue with his new stealthblade. If it were me, I'd evaluate the weapon, decide if it's worth the drop in damage over my shortsword to get the stealth bonus, and proceed from there. I'd be happy that I got the opportunity to do that, actually, as it represents an actual choice, but even if the magic item was another shortsword I'd still "run the numbers" and make a choice. At no point would I feel like I had anything taken away from me in terms of decisions or choices or immersion. It'd be a much more interesting course of events than "Oh, cool, a magic greataxe. I guess I'll go... sell it? Somewhere?"

On the flip side, though, I've experienced the opposite.

I was an ancestral guardian Barbarian, around level 6. My party just received a powerful displacement cloak that caused the first attack against the wearer each turn to have disadvantage. Also in my team was our Champion, a bit of a jerk and a coward. Tactically, it would have made more sense for the person with the taunt ability (myself) to use the cloak, but he said that with it, he'd be more willing to dive into the front lines and play less cowardly.

This didn't happen, he continued to attack from afar (as a Strength Champion), and I regularly took heavy amounts of damage (because that's what an Ancestral Guardian does: takes damage for the team). I am not disappointed by the fact that my DM provided us this item, I'm disappointed by my decision regarding it. I was frustrated at myself and the Champion for how little the Cloak was being used for the team. It created conflict, until eventually my character got frustrated enough to steal it and several other magic items on his way out the door (I wasn't really upset, I just wasn't enjoying the character, so I rolled a new one).

For some, dilemma is part of the game, and for others, growth. I enjoyed the dilemma. I think that conflict between characters allows more surprises and puts less strain on the DM for plot/character developments, and it makes the game more than just a bunch of players running through a single person's narrative.

But some people don't like that. But I do. Is either side more right than the other?

[Pelle]

You need to learn more about telegraphing and why D&D historically has had dungeon levels and adventures with advertised level ranges--so that players can control the difficulty of what they engage with.


Isn't that the dungeon designer putting a finger on the scale? The world/dungeon is designed to allow fun gameplay, totally based on meta-concerns. It also can be made to make sense in the fiction, same as with other types of tailoring.

[EggKookoo]

Neutrality is an illusion.

So yeah, I should just let Phoenix do the arguing. Said much better than I could.

[MaxWilson]

Exaggeration to make a point. Are you deliberately misunderstanding?

Responding to the literal scenario by illustrating that the real objection (in this case) is about poor game design, not tailoring. If you pick a less absurd scenario that actually made sense I probably wouldn't have a problem with it as a player, even if you as a DM consider it way too difficult. Sometimes "run away!" is the best way to start a PC's life, and if they don't survive the first adventure, well, at least it was quick.


Look, maybe like Willie says, we're miscommunicating. I'm just saying that a polearm master player isn't going to become magically aware that that +1 halberd was put in the dungeon specifically by the DM so that he could have it. He might suspect. He might not even think about it. He might actually be wrong and it was rolled up by the DM randomly.

Right. Once the DM loses credibility, it's very difficult to ever regain the feeling of agency. See below.


Ok, help me out. What did you mean by this?

"if you think you can fool your players with illusionism without it ever affecting your players' perceptions of in-game agency, you're either a champion liar and probably an amazing poker player, or you're wrong."

Everything I have to say about game design, agency and illusionism has already been said better by others (e.g. Courtney Campbell/HackSlashMaster, the Alexandrian), e.g. here (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/10/on-theory-defined-player-agency.html) and here (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/03/on-illusionism.html), see also counterpoint here (https://muleabides.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/illusionism-and-wandering-monsters/) for an example of something that I think is just fine (and if the reason why it's fine is unclear after reading the hackslashmaster definition and discussion I'm happy to discuss in further detail).

But to answer your specific question, what I meant by that is that since agency (Player Agency (n.): “the feeling of empowerment that comes from being able to take actions in the [virtual] world whose effects relate to the player’s intention” -Mateas, 2001) is a feeling of empowerment, and notwithstanding that that feeling is a subjective perception ("Agency is an experiential pleasure. As such, it can fade in and out; it can fail altogether. Agency is not automatic, and so simulated environments should be cleverly constructed to help users/players get there." - Steven Dow (2009)), any covert actions you take to control the outcome of the game will, in aggregate, have the same impact on the game that they would if you did them overtly, and so you can't use illusionism to disempower players while still having them feel like their choices matter ("agency"). It doesn't work--they can tell when the DM is really in charge of the game outcomes.

We can talk at length about techniques for fostering agency and NOT making the DM in charge of outcomes, but I recommend Googling "Courtney Campbell illusionism" as a good starting point, and of course I also recommend everything the Alexandrian has ever written about game structures.

[Rafaelfras]

Look, maybe like Willie says, we're miscommunicating. I'm just saying that a polearm master player isn't going to become magically aware that that +1 halberd was put in the dungeon specifically by the DM so that he could have it. He might suspect. He might not even think about it. He might actually be wrong and it was rolled up by the DM randomly"

I agree with this.

You dont have to tailor every single weapon every time loot showns up, nor change important encounters to fit the party.

In the wood sword exemple, the fact that you wont change the encounter to fit any specific party configuration (it will be a long sword because you planned the encounter that way) does not impeed you from latter on to put a magic polearm in a hoard, for the PAM fighter, and the party will not know if you rolled for it from 0 (the fighter had luck) if you got a magic weapon in the loot tables and though "The fighter didnt got a weapon upgrade since the beguinning of the game so i will make this weapon drop for him" or if you decided to put a magic polearm withou rolling with everything else being rolled for.

I also think if all the loot is being generated random, the weapon type should be rolled aswell, or you risk giving too much for the sword users at your table and too little for someone who went a diferent route. With randon weapon everyone has a chance to that flame tougue or frost brand

[MaxWilson]

Isn't that the dungeon designer putting a finger on the scale? The world/dungeon is designed to allow fun gameplay, totally based on meta-concerns. It also can be made to make sense in the fiction, same as with other types of tailoring.

No, it isn't--the designer's job is finished long before the players enter the picture. It's possible for the designer to do a bad job (see: any WotC adventure, or ChrisBasken's hypothetical about a world full of Tarrasques), and it's even possible for the game designer to create a system which is biased in favor of the players (e.g. 5E death saves), but the overt bias I was criticizing in what you quote requires more knowledge of the players than the designer has, unless the designer is also the DM who's been running adventures for the PCs all along.

[Max_Killjoy]

See, I see all games as having someone's finger on the scale. The only question is whose finger is it. Because nothing exists until it's put there by a real person. Those random tables didn't write themselves, and tweaking them is exactly putting your finger on the scale. Building a world is putting your finger on the scale. Neutrality is an illusion.

Personally, I prefer systems that recognize this fact and leave it to the individual DM to do much of the tweaking. Because I can select DMs who I trust to apply the inevitable adjustments for the good of the party, while I can't change the designers minds. Systems that try to make those decisions (about play style, loot distribution, encounter design, allowed responses, etc) never satisfy me because they're the system equivalent of railroading. You will play the exact way the designers believed was right or everything falls apart. Certainly, systems can have a limited range of play-styles they're designed to accomodate. But the more restrictive and prescriptive it gets, the less likely it is to fit my style (which varies by group and even by day). Systems that recognize this variability and create "neutral flavors" and give examples of ways to do things differently and point out the pitfalls of violating certain key assumptions are the ideal for me.

As an aside, "the dice made me do it" (the hardcore anti-fudging/anti-tailoring position) is the DM equivalent, in my mind, of "but that's what my character would do". It's trying to push the blame for a player-unfriendly decision off onto something else. Either the random table/module/system (in the case of the DM) or the imaginary character. It doesn't work--only real people can bear responsibility. You (speaking generally) did something unfriendly and un-fun? Suck it up and accept responsibility. Don't push it off onto something that, by its nature, can't be responsible. The rules are not the master, the dice aren't the master, the character isn't the master. The person is.

IMO, there is something of a distinction between the "fingers" that are put on the scale during game design, and those put on the outcome of individual rolls.

I have a LOT of sympathy for the position that the more is decided by the GM's judgement, the more any success can feel cheapened. I've felt that as a GM, too -- the worry that if I'm just deciding what happens, the PCs haven't earned anything, rather the players have just managed to convince me to give it to them. It's why I strongly dislike a lot of the diceless systems such as Amber... I've seen it played by people who profess to love it, and it comes across more as a social exercise in what the GM can be convinced of, rather than as an RPG, and in the case of player-v-player conflict, the "winner" is the player who is more persuasive rather than the PC whose actions are more savvy, skilled, appropriate, or effective in any objective sense.

On other words, it's all getting into the territory where it hits the same buttons as "storygames", and not in a good way. It becomes an exercise in hierarchical collective storytelling.

[MaxWilson]

On other words, it's all getting into the territory where it hits the same buttons as "storygames", and not in a good way. It becomes an exercise in hierarchical collective storytelling.

Good point. There's a reason why most of the storygames I'd want to play have no DM at all, only players. Hierarchies and storygames don't mix.

[Pelle]

but the overt bias I was criticizing in what you quote requires more knowledge of the players than the designer has

Sure, but it just seems like an arbitrary place to draw the line. As good as any place, though. Even if you are designing a game element before any PCs are created, you probably have an eye towards fun experiences. So there are always some meta constraints applied to the world. Your position is understandable, but it feels like closing your eyes to how the sausage is made.

[Willie the Duck]

Sorry, what did you mean by this if it wasn't a question?

"Would you, as a player of a game, prefer to spend a significant amount of time doing something less immediately fun*, if that entailed that you knew that the game you were playing was agnostic to your success (and thus if you beat it/excelled/prospered/etc., you inarguably earned it in some way)?"


Ah, got it! I didn't think of it as a question because I wasn't asking a person, I'm saying the playstyle kind of asks this of a theoretical player. What would you, a player, find fun.

I'm honestly surprised at how much pushback it has gotten. Maybe it is specific to magic items. When you ask whether the DM should fudge dice rolls in combat, I suspect the reason why some people would prefer the answer of 'no' would be less of a controversial stance.



As an aside, "the dice made me do it" (the hardcore anti-fudging/anti-tailoring position) is the DM equivalent, in my mind, of "but that's what my character would do". It's trying to push the blame for a player-unfriendly decision off onto something else. Either the random table/module/system (in the case of the DM) or the imaginary character. It doesn't work--only real people can bear responsibility. You (speaking generally) did something unfriendly and un-fun? Suck it up and accept responsibility. Don't push it off onto something that, by its nature, can't be responsible. The rules are not the master, the dice aren't the master, the character isn't the master. The person is.

See, but we could go round and round on who the hypothetical person refusing to take responsibility is. Is it the DM who refused to modify the tables? The DM refusing to modify the roll? The player who made a martial character whose abilities only kick in with a very specific weapon? The player who won't go out specifically looking for a magic XYZ if the dice don't provide one? If we're doing dueling-responsibility-dodging accusations, it's almost inherently a net draw because any given situation can be cast as someone (and probably everyone) doing so.

I will say that I have much more sympathy for the argument that taking some responsibility should happen during setup. If someone wants to argue that the magic items in the DMG are woefully lacking in fun non-swords, honestly they are pretty much right. D&D has had a long history of magic swords going way back to when only Fighting Men were allowed to use swords, so the overabundance of them on the magic item list was a stealth class feature, and the game hasn't really populated out additional iconic magic-other-things despite that part of the game being long gone. But if you've already had that discussion, negotiated and set about how you were going to address that, and then taken that finalized houseruled magic item chart and rolled that complete random for the duration of the campaign, I don't call that the DM not taking responsibility, so much as in fact being very good at taking responsibility (in a 'here's what we agreed to do, and by golly, that's what I will do). To do otherwise, again for a specific play style, that would in fact be expected.

[MaxWilson]

Sure, but it just seems like an arbitrary place to draw the line. As good as any place, though. Even if you are designing a game element before any PCs are created, you probably have an eye towards fun experiences. So there are always some meta constraints applied to the world. Your position is understandable, but it feels like closing your eyes to how the sausage is made.

I disagree, because you can still have a 100% fun experience and lots of agency in a world which has been designed to be beatable, especially if you do things like venture into areas that are rated for PCs of twice your level. But if the DM is dynamically adjusting the world while you are playing it, to make it harder or easier for you, then you're not acting on the world at all--the DM is acting on you. Completely different experience.

[EggKookoo]

So here's a broader example. It's an actual event that happened in one of my games and it involved a horribly homebrewed mishmash of oWoD and 5e, so bear with that part.

The party -- mostly Garou from W:tA -- in a post-apocalyptic setting came across a Mage's stronghold. They were greeted and rebuffed by an animated suit of armor. I used an iron golem pretty much straight out of the MM. The party (APL 15, I think at the time) was powerful enough to not be really threatened by him but they also weren't quite sure what to do about him. One of the Garou PCs had an ability called Spirit Ward, which was kind of like a spell. It projects a 30' sphere centered on the caster that unnerves spirits. When converting the ability over to 5e, I tricked it out a bit to fit that ruleset, and to give it a tad more punch. It affected ethereal creatures in addition to "spiritual" ones, and they had to make a save or flee out of the ward's range. While fighting the golem (which, to be clear, I merely described as an "animated mechanical suit" and not specifically identified as a D&D iron golem), that player used that ability in the hope that there was some ethereal entity inside the metal.

I thought it was a cool interpretation of the concept. I hadn't thought about what was really going on inside the metal. I decided right then and there that there was, in fact, an ethereal creature inside the suit, and rolled its save. It failed, the suit was pushed back, and the party got past it.

The player who came up with the idea was ecstatic. Did I damage his sense of agency? I don't think so. He certainly didn't think so -- quite the opposite, in fact. He looked at the things his PC was capable of, put (an admittedly nonexistent) 2 and 2 together, and took a chance. So I rewarded him. No one knew I changed the rules on the fly. I mean, you can be skeptical and assume they must have and just didn't say anything, but I was there. No one spent any time contemplating it. They just racked up the victory and kept on playing. If it pinged on their awareness that I pulled something, it didn't seem to impact their enjoyment of or enthusiasm for the game.

[The Jack]

On 'gm gave me a polearm'

Honestly, my main problem was, as a noob player, I asked for the item and I got it. If a DM gave my polearm master a polearm... Honestly, I'd only be suspicious if it was the first magic weapon we came across.

I'd do it like this, human permitting.
40% are non-great swords. Type dependent on culture. I think you could split finesse and versatile down the middle here.
20% are polearms.
10% are daggers
10% are great weapons
10% are Versatile-martial anti-armour weapons. IE warhammers.
10% are misc weapons
You could roll a d10 for it.

This table is mostly pretty player friendly unless they really want magical flails or whips, or they're in love with axes. It's mechanically sound.

[Xetheral]

It seems to me that the views expressed in this thread so far can be categorized into three groups of playstyles. (These are only meant to categorize players' perspectives on DM tailoring, not any of the other facets of playstyles.)

Tailoring Playstyle A: For these players, suspecting (rightly or wrongly) that the DM is tailoring any elements of the game world to the players lessens their fun. DMs for groups preferring this playstyle should avoid tailoring, because they're unlikely to be able to do so without the players suspecting.

Tailoring Playstyle B: For these players, being confronted with a specific element of the game world that appears tailored to the players lessens their fun, but are fine with tailoring in the abstract. DMs for groups preferring this playstyle can tailor to the extent that they have the skill to make it hard for the players to notice which specific elements were tailored.

Tailoring Playstyle C: For these players, tailoring doesn't in any way lessen their fun. DMs for groups preferring this playstyle can tailor to their hearts' content, even if they're obvious about it.

Do these categories cover the opinions on tailoring expressed so far? Are they distinct enough to be useful? Am I ignoring any important nuances?

[Man_Over_Game]

On 'gm gave me a polearm'

Honestly, my main problem was, as a noob player, I asked for the item and I got it. If a DM gave my polearm master a polearm... Honestly, I'd only be suspicious if it was the first magic weapon we came across.


40% are non-great swords. Type dependent on culture. I think you could split finesse and versatile down the middle here.
20% are polearms.
10% are daggers
10% are great weapons
10% are Versatile-martial anti-armour weapons. IE warhammers.
10% are misc weapons
You could roll a d10 for it.

I'd probably make it start with more generic options and spread out from there.

Versatile first, followed by one-handed, Finesse, Light, Two-handed, Heavy. More emphasis on melee weapons over ranged, and very few thrown.

For armor, I'd probably go Medium-Light-Heavy, in that order.

Most magic items are made-to-order, and there's probably a lot of instances of mages making their own gear, so it'd make sense that most magical items are things that mages or general-purpose soldiers would use, rather than specialized heavy warriors that were expensive to train and equip. Plate-wearing knights were historically some the most rare form of troop on the battlefield, so unless the knight had stupid amounts of power and ego and ordered something for himself, I don't really see many magical items fitting that niche.

[Unoriginal]

You don't need to be a mage to make magic items.

[MaxWilson]

It seems to me that the views expressed in this thread so far can be categorized into three groups of playstyles. (These are only meant to categorize players' perspectives on DM tailoring, not any of the other facets of playstyles.)

Tailoring Playstyle A: For these players, suspecting (rightly or wrongly) that the DM is tailoring any elements of the game world to the players lessens their fun. DMs for groups preferring this playstyle should avoid tailoring, because they're unlikely to be able to do so without the players suspecting.

Tailoring Playstyle B: For these players, being confronted with a specific element of the game world that appears tailored to the players lessens their fun, but are fine with tailoring in the abstract. DMs for groups preferring this playstyle can tailor to the extent that they have the skill to make it hard for the players to notice which specific elements were tailored.

Tailoring Playstyle C: For these players, tailoring doesn't in any way lessen their fun. DMs for groups preferring this playstyle can tailor to their hearts' content, even if they're obvious about it.

Do these categories cover the opinions on tailoring expressed so far? Are they distinct enough to be useful? Am I ignoring any important nuances?

Looks reasonable to me. I suspect this ties into broader questions about the scope of gameplay. (Therefore I hypothesize that style A players are more likely than B or C to prefer Combat As War, because CAW style is also about an expansive view of game scope.)


Most magic items are made-to-order, and there's probably a lot of instances of mages making their own gear, so it'd make sense that most magical items are things that mages or general-purpose soldiers would use, rather than specialized heavy warriors that were expensive to train and equip. Plate-wearing knights were historically some the most rare form of troop on the battlefield, so unless the knight had stupid amounts of power and ego and ordered something for himself, I don't really see many magical items fitting that niche.

For gameplay reasons I'd probably try to think up logical reasons why mages in past ages didn't make gear primarily for mages, and make them true. I don't want wizards to be favored in terms of magical loot. If anything I want fighters to be favored. Could be as simple as cultural bias: e.g. if many magical weapons are githyanki artifacts, and githyanki scorn scholar-wizards in favor of gishes, then githyanki artifacts will look more like fighter items than mage items most of the time.

[Pex]

I wonder if the objection here might not be to the idea of trading magic items for mere gold? Especially if you're playing in a campaign where gold can't buy you armies and poisons and other forms of real power, I can see how magic item "shops" would feel very meta.

In cases like that perhaps a solution would be to trade magic items for favors instead, including some of those things you can't buy with gold. That Instrument of the Bards you can't use? Trade it to the Erlkonig (Elf-King) and he owes you a favor, which means you can now borrow two of his household Summer Eladrin for up to two weeks (i.e. one adventure). Or if you want to go the other way around: the Dwarf Lord offers you his Hammer of Thunderbolts if you can save his heir from the Mind Flayers who captured her. He doesn't dare let his dwarves be involved with the rescue attempt but he prays for your success.

By coincidence in my Sorcerer game I recently acquired an Instrument of the Bard which I'm holding for the idea of trading it. As a Noble it reinforces in my mind of playing one. In the general I don't object to using magic items you can't use or don't like for trade, but a player should still get magic items he likes and wants to use.

[EggKookoo]

It seems to me that the views expressed in this thread so far can be categorized into three groups of playstyles. (These are only meant to categorize players' perspectives on DM tailoring, not any of the other facets of playstyles.)

Tailoring Playstyle A: For these players, suspecting (rightly or wrongly) that the DM is tailoring any elements of the game world to the players lessens their fun. DMs for groups preferring this playstyle should avoid tailoring, because they're unlikely to be able to do so without the players suspecting.

Tailoring Playstyle B: For these players, being confronted with a specific element of the game world that appears tailored to the players lessens their fun, but are fine with tailoring in the abstract. DMs for groups preferring this playstyle can tailor to the extent that they have the skill to make it hard for the players to notice which specific elements were tailored.

Tailoring Playstyle C: For these players, tailoring doesn't in any way lessen their fun. DMs for groups preferring this playstyle can tailor to their hearts' content, even if they're obvious about it.

Do these categories cover the opinions on tailoring expressed so far? Are they distinct enough to be useful? Am I ignoring any important nuances?

I think there might be something in between B and C. Players who don't mind even obvious tailoring, but don't want it to dominate.

[Sception]

I'm DMing Dragon Heist, myself. I've decided to add an encounter where the PCs are going to be attacked by a small gang masquarading as street performer. The leader will have a wooden longsword which is magicked to be as sharp as a steel one.

Did the gang leader make that weapon themselves? Did they do research and go on a long epic quest to find that weapon? If the players need to deal with random loot drops to preserve the illusion of a world that exists apart from their adventures, well, that's not my personal preference, but so be it. I can see the logic behind it and enjoy playing in games that work that way. But if the players have to play by those rules, shouldn't npcs have to do so as well?

This question isn't directed exclusively at Unoriginal's example, and certainly isn't meant to be a negative criticism of that example, which, divorced from the overall conversation in this thread, sounds super cool and is the kind of thing I like to see as a player. Rather, I'm questioning in general the handful of DMs in this thread who have suggested similar to this example that they do tailor items, but only to the npcs players take those items from, never to the PCs themselves.

If the evil orc warlord can find an enchanted great axe suited exactly to his personality and statline, and the nefarious drow assassin can find a magically poisoned dagger suited exactly to hers, and even someone as esoteric and specific as the ring leader of a villainous acting troupe can get their hands on a magic prop sword tailor made for their theatrical gimmick (which, again, in and of itself is a fantastic concept that I adore and will absolutely steal some day), isn't it also reasonable for an adventurer in that world to expect to be able to find something as comparatively basic as a +1 halberd, rapier, or crossbow by the time they hit their early teens?

[PhoenixPhyre]

See, but we could go round and round on who the hypothetical person refusing to take responsibility is. Is it the DM who refused to modify the tables? The DM refusing to modify the roll? The player who made a martial character whose abilities only kick in with a very specific weapon? The player who won't go out specifically looking for a magic XYZ if the dice don't provide one? If we're doing dueling-responsibility-dodging accusations, it's almost inherently a net draw because any given situation can be cast as someone (and probably everyone) doing so.


My point was more general. Whoever is stating the excuse is dodging responsibility in that instance. If you TPK a 1st-level party because your random monster table (by accident or design) had 99 Terrasques and one Ancient Black Dracolich, you're at fault. Even if you didn't make the table. Choosing to accept the suggestion (because that's all dice and rules can ever do, suggest an outcome--nothing happens until the DM narrates it) is making an active choice to TPK the party. Choosing (as a player) to a) make and b) play an obnoxious character makes the character's actions the player's fault. You built the character, you're choosing how it acts. There are other options both in play and at setup. But having made a bad decision before doesn't absolve you of responsibility for future bad decisions.



I will say that I have much more sympathy for the argument that taking some responsibility should happen during setup. If someone wants to argue that the magic items in the DMG are woefully lacking in fun non-swords, honestly they are pretty much right. D&D has had a long history of magic swords going way back to when only Fighting Men were allowed to use swords, so the overabundance of them on the magic item list was a stealth class feature, and the game hasn't really populated out additional iconic magic-other-things despite that part of the game being long gone. But if you've already had that discussion, negotiated and set about how you were going to address that, and then taken that finalized houseruled magic item chart and rolled that complete random for the duration of the campaign, I don't call that the DM not taking responsibility, so much as in fact being very good at taking responsibility (in a 'here's what we agreed to do, and by golly, that's what I will do). To do otherwise, again for a specific play style, that would in fact be expected.

If there's an established expectation that (for example) all loot will be rolled on X table, no vetos or modifications, then that's different. But neither side can justifiably expect any particular behavior in the absence of an explicit agreement.

The lesson being use your words at Session 0. If you care that all loot is randomly distributed (I can't imagine why, but obviously some people like that), bring that up and get consensus at Session 0. If you don't do that, don't be surprised or upset that things don't go your way. You can't expect others to read your mind--that's a highly immature viewpoint. The game itself does not expect fully random (or fully custom!) treasure generation. That's left entirely up to the discretion of the DM. Any choice is an active choice--you can't choose not to choose. The DM has final responsibility for everything that shows up in the campaign (even if initiated by a player). That's the burden of the DM position. And it's inescapable, even if you play with pre-printed material. In return, the players have the responsibility to play along and to work out disagreements amicably (or leave if no agreement is possible on an important matter).

In the end, the people you play with should be more important than the game itself. The game is not the master, the people are. They're the thing that matters. You don't hurt the game's feelings by deciding that the suggested option isn't right for this situation. It doesn't have feelings.

[MaxWilson]

Did the gang leader make that weapon themselves? Did they do research and go on a long epic quest to find that weapon? If the players need to deal with random loot drops to preserve the illusion of a world that exists apart from their adventures, well, that's not my personal preference so be it. But if the players have to play by those rules, shouldn't npcs have to do so as well? This question isn't directed specifically at Unoriginal's example, and certainly isn't meant to be a criticism of that example, which imo sounds super cool and is the kind of thing I like to see as a player. Rather, I'm questioning in general the handful of DMs in this thread who have suggested that they do tailor items, but only to the npcs players take those items from, never to the PCs themselves.

If the evil orc warlord can find an enchanted great axe suited exactly to his personality and statline, and the nefarious drow assassin can find a magically poisoned dagger suited exactly to hers, and even someone as esoteric and specific as the ring leader of a villainous acting troupe can get their hands on a magic prop sword tailor made for their thematic gimmick, isn't it also reasonable for an adventurer in that world to expect to be able to find something as comparatively basic as a +1 halberd, rapier, or crossbow by the time they hit their early teens?

I'm not one of those handful of DMs whom you're presumably questioning because in general my answer is "random tables wherever possible, some spell research/item research where appropriate, no customization beyond what makes sense in in-world terms." But I did want to mention that one of my sources for magic items is giants: inspired by British folk tales, I say that each giant has the potential, sometime in their life, to craft a special item that makes their life better in some way, and this item is magic. For a very hungry Hill Giant it might be a bowl of Everfull Stew; for a Frost Giant shepherd it might be a Cloak of Invisibility, or Boots of Flying; for a Fire Giant warlord it might be a mirror which shows shadows of tomorrow's battles (i.e. grants Portent like a Diviner).

This is mostly just about providing a convenient source of diverse magic items for the game world, but it does imply that a giant with his own magic items is likely to have items that are customized for himself, just like a wizard would. (But not an orc chieftain.)

[Pex]

If the DM having fun by DMing the way they like prevent the player from having fun by playing the way they like, then obviously the fact is that those two people's playstyles don't fit and they shouldn't play with each other, since doing so only lead to frustration for either one of them.

The DM's responsibility to make the game fun for the players isn't bigger than the players' responsibility to make the game fun for the DM.

Now, sure, most DMs' fun won't be ruined by spending 5 mins homebrewing magic glaives, but what about AL games, for one example? And what about the few DMs whose fun would genuinely be diminished if they'd have to change the cornerstone item of their campaign from a sword to a glaive? You can't tell them "stop having fun, X want a glaive".

Part of the reason I don't play AL is its rigidity. If you play AL then you buy into it. I think they allow getting +1 weapons of a type a player wants enabling them to damage non-magic weapon resistant creatures normally. That could be enough for those players.

As for the cornerstone item it depends on the circumstance. If it absolutely positively must be an exact thing, so be it. It's a McGuffin to be used for a specific purpose. A player wouldn't mind using it at the appropriate one time. In the meanwhile why can't he have some other item he likes?



I'm DMing Dragon Heist, myself. I've decided to add an encounter where the PCs are going to be attacked by a small gang masquarading as street performer. The leader will have a wooden longsword which is magicked to be as sharp as a steel one, and will try to goad one of the PCs into a "play" duel with that obviously "harmless" weapon (the other goons will include a fire breather and a juggler whose juggling balls are filled with oil and alchemist's fire). It's likely none of the PCs will want to use that longsword if they loot it, being a Bard, a Cleric and a Rogue. I could make the magic item a rapier, or a shortsword, or an axe. But the thing is, the world does not exist to quater to the PCs . That gang leader has no reason to have a weapon that's more convenient for the PCs to use, and neither did the creator of the weapon. So if this sword isn't for them to use, it's not a problem. I'm sure they'll be able to do something with it, and there is enough people in town with the money and interest for such a weapon if they just want to sell it. It doesn't mean I'm a tyrant who will force my players to so keep finding magic weapons they won't use, it just means I don't have to change this one.

That's fine. You're opposing an idea that every magic item must cater to what the party wants. That's not what is being said. Let that leader have a magical wooden long sword. Enjoy that scenario. However, why can't a magical glaive appear elsewhere? Why deny the glaive user player from ever having a magical glaive?

[MaxWilson]

That's fine. You're opposing an idea that every magic item must cater to what the party wants. That's not what is being said. Let that leader have a magical wooden long sword. Enjoy that scenario. However, why can't a magical glaive appear elsewhere? Why deny the glaive user player from ever having a magical glaive?

Is there anyone here on this thread advocating that random magical weapons should never include polearms? Even those who want random generation are presumably just fine with "glaive guy should keep adventuring until he finds a magical glaive."

[Sception]

just like a wizard would.

I'm on board with your example, apart from this bit. If npc wizards in the game can be expected to craft assorted personalized magic items, why wouldn't a pc wizard be able to do the same, both for themselves and for their party members? I mean, both pc and npc casters could do that in both 3e and 4e, but that was pretty much directly the cause of the 'magic item store' problem some DMs complain about, where they (or their random tables) might drop weird and interesting magical loot, but players would just sell it or grind it up and either make or pay an npc wizard to make the most mechanically advantageous but thematically boring equipment tailored to their personal builds, to the point that DMs might as well just cut out the middle man and say "you found one level X item, just tell me what it is".

Otherwise, again in games I run I prefer a mix - some randomly rolled treasure (on personalized tables because the standard ones aren't the best), which npcs and pcs alike just have to adapt to creatively - and some tailored items, both in terms of items tailored to npcs to make for interesting encounters AND some items tailored to the players, whether so a player can find something I know they'll be excited for or to prop up a character that's falling behind a bit.

But I can play happily enough in games that are pure random treasure, or even no magical treasure at all, so long as the rules are clear up front and remain relatively consistent.

[Misterwhisper]

The issue may come up sometime down the line that if Player A uses a specific weapon, (hand crossbow, polearm, mainly but could be something else) and they go multiple games where there are multiple magic weapons that are not used laying around, but they can't be traded in toward the magic weapon wanted, because there is no magic item market of any kind, do not be surprised when an NPC shows up with a magical version of the weapon they have been wanting and that NPC gets robbed.

[MaxWilson]

I'm on board with your example, apart from this bit. If npc wizards in the game can be expected to craft assorted personalized magic items, why wouldn't a pc wizard be able to do the same, both for themselves and for their party members?

They can. Who said they couldn't? I'm very big on magical research as an element of play. It wouldn't strictly have to be a wizard doing the work of course, but in practice it often is.

Just because I don't want the DM customizing the game world around the PCs doesn't mean I don't want the PCs customizing the game world to the PCs. That's the whole point! The DM shouldn't play the game for you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Random tables" doesn't solve anything unless you use those for the NPCs' equipment. That means not using any pre-built stat blocks and having a lot of halflings with greatswords or longbows (even mundane ones) . Not tailoring is an illusion. The only question is who you're tailoring for.

Neutrality assumes that there are two opposed, equivalently-placed factions that must be balanced between. For a competitive game that makes total sense. The ref should be neutral between the two teams. But in a cooperative RPG, there is only one side. The players. The NPCs are arbitrary and under the total control of the DM, the PCs are arbitrary. There are only the players. So who is the DM supposed to be neutral between?

[The Jack]

For armor, I'd probably go Medium-Light-Heavy, in that order.

Most magic items are made-to-order, and there's probably a lot of instances of mages making their own gear, so it'd make sense that most magical items are things that mages or general-purpose soldiers would use, rather than specialized heavy warriors that were expensive to train and equip. Plate-wearing knights were historically some the most rare form of troop on the battlefield, so unless the knight had stupid amounts of power and ego and ordered something for himself, I don't really see many magical items fitting that niche.

The opposite. Heavy, Light, medium. Though if we're just using exotic materials you might be right.

1 Making an item magical isn't a modifier, it's an add on. If a hypothetical mage says magic full plate costs 11500, magic scale will cost 10050.

2- In reality the best armoured soldiers were the richest. Don't think a city guard or 'general purpose soldier' is more likely to have magical armour than the lord. Made-to-order requires wealth. In real life, there are many ranks of nobility and in europe they fought in the style knights, the lowest rank of nobility, did. Lords spent extravegant amounts on armour in real life, far more than lower nobility. In fact, they had ceremonial armours and lord and even kings actually had armours made for eachother as a political gift.
Also, Many wars were fought using mostly knights. Pitched battles were rare.

3- IRL you need no training for heavy armour, you just need to be fit and rich enough to afford it. Later on they had munition armour (mass produced), and I think most fantasy is set where munition armour is a big deal.

Most martial classes are heavy armour able, the ones who aren't are poor. Now, light armour is going to be nice because, assuming you're not being literal about the leather, you can wear it everywhere and it'll be fashionable and nobody will act like you're going to murder everyone. So light armour's going to be popular among the rich too. But medium is for poor people who can't afford magic armour, so no nice things for them.


another thing; Medium armour is just stripped down heavy armour if you're not overly literal. The rules for magic armour state you can replace a few parts for magic gauntlets and such. You likely could just omit a few pieces and have a Magic heavy armour be magic medium. Then again, if you added mundane additions to your magic armour to up it's class, do you get the bonus?

[Sception]

They can. Who said they couldn't? I'm very big on magical research as an element of play. It wouldn't strictly have to be a wizard doing the work of course, but in practice it often is.

No one, I guess I misinterpreted your position. That said, do you find the 'magic item mart' thing to be a problem in your games? Do your players sell off interesting loot for the resources to research and craft loot more generically tailored to their 'builds'? That sort of thing has never been a problem in my own games, but I imagine it's a pretty player-personally-dependent thing, and I've heard enough complaining about it to believe that it at least can be a real problem in some groups.

[Pex]

If the evil orc warlord can find an enchanted great axe suited exactly to his personality and statline, and the nefarious drow assassin can find a magically poisoned dagger suited exactly to hers, and even someone as esoteric and specific as the ring leader of a villainous acting troupe can get their hands on a magic prop sword tailor made for their theatrical gimmick (which, again, in and of itself is a fantastic concept that I adore and will absolutely steal some day), isn't it also reasonable for an adventurer in that world to expect to be able to find something as comparatively basic as a +1 halberd, rapier, or crossbow by the time they hit their early teens?

:smallcool:

[EggKookoo]

"Random tables" doesn't solve anything unless you use those for the NPCs' equipment. That means not using any pre-built stat blocks and having a lot of halflings with greatswords or longbows (even mundane ones).

And sending lv1 parties after terrasques!

I'm honestly not sure if I should blue text that line...

[MaxWilson]

No one, I guess I misinterpreted your position. That said, do you find the 'magic item mart' thing to be a problem in your games? Do your players sell off interesting loot for the resources to research and craft loot more generically tailored to their 'builds'? That sort of thing has never been a problem in my own games, but I imagine it's a pretty player-personally-dependent thing, and I've heard enough complaining about it to believe that it at least can be a real problem in some groups.

No, I haven't found it to be a problem. I tend to hand out a relatively small number of magic items (each with names, minor properties, and history), and players don't tend to sell them, nor to go looking for places to buy them (although they are sometimes willing to steal them if the opportunity presents itself). If anything I wish players would take more advantage of my magical research rules, just like I wish they would get better at conducting recon. But they do enough to satisfy themselves and that's all that really matters.

[MaxWilson]

And sending lv1 parties after terrasques!

I'm honestly not sure if I should blue text that line...

And yet when someone substantively engages with your "level 1 Tarrasque" idea, you retreat behind the claim that you were only exaggerating and didn't mean it seriously. Make up your mind. Either defend your idea or drop it.

[Misterwhisper]

The opposite. Heavy, Light, medium. Though if we're just using exotic materials you might be right.

1 Making an item magical isn't a modifier, it's an add on. If a hypothetical mage says magic full plate costs 11500, magic scale will cost 10050.

2- In reality the best armoured soldiers were the richest. Don't think a city guard or 'general purpose soldier' is more likely to have magical armour than the lord. Made-to-order requires wealth. In real life, there are many ranks of nobility and in europe they fought in the style knights, the lowest rank of nobility, did. Lords spent extravegant amounts on armour in real life, far more than lower nobility. In fact, they had ceremonial armours and lord and even kings actually had armours made for eachother as a political gift.
Also, Many wars were fought using mostly knights. Pitched battles were rare.

3- IRL you need no training for heavy armour, you just need to be fit and rich. Later on they had munition armour (mass produced), and I think most fantasy is set where munition armour is a big deal.


another thing; Medium armour is just stripped down heavy armour if you're not overly literal. The rules for magic armour state you can replace a few parts for magic gauntlets and such. You likely could just omit a few pieces and have a Magic heavy armour be magic medium. Then again, if you added mundane additions to your magic armour to up it's class, do you get the bonus?

The issue in 5e is that most brands of armor are pointless, not even talking magic, when people have any kind of money.

Nobody will use padded if they can get studded leather
Nobody will use Scale Mail if they can afford half plate
Heavy armor is a little iffy depending on the persons stats, or if they are a dwarf.

You know what happens when the group finds a set of +1 padded or leather armor?

The group knows that whoever made it is a moron, or the DM just rolled randomly to see what was there and did not care if it made sense.

Nobody would ever craft +1 padded or leather armor, in a world where people can spend so much gold to make magical armor.
Not a single class, race, or anything is proficient with padded or leather armor that is not also proficient in studded leather.
No class is forbidden to wear studded leather, unlike druids with metal armors.

You can make an argument for their being all kinds of magic weapons, but there is no excuse for their to be +1/2/3 crap magic armor.

Crafting a magic item takes a very long time, and costs a significant amount of gold.

If you are going to be using realism in a game to justify why certain NPCs do or do not have certain kinds of magic gear, then you also have to point out that there are some items that would never exist other than the fact the DM rolled it randomly.

[Pex]

Is there anyone here on this thread advocating that random magical weapons should never include polearms? Even those who want random generation are presumably just fine with "glaive guy should keep adventuring until he finds a magical glaive."

While as previously stated I'm not a fan of randomization it's not relevant to the point. Unoriginal wanted his NPC to have a magical wooden long sword and arguing against it should be of a weapon a player likes that's not a long sword. I'm saying it's perfectly fine for that scenario the weapon is a long sword and not a weapon a player likes that's not a long sword. My point is at somewhen during the campaign the player acquires a magic weapon he likes that is not a long sword. Randomization is not involved.

[Max_Killjoy]

Armor aside:

"Munition" plate armor also tended to be of lower quality and effectiveness. Modern tests have shown that the same period gunshot that punches nicely through a typical "munition" breatplate will be stopped or deflected by high-quality armor from the same period and region -- and this disparity has been at the heart of a lot of debates regarding the role of the gun in the disappearance of armor.

Likewise, cheap large ring butted chain will sometimes spread like butter against the same arrow that will be stopped dead by high-quality small ring riveted chain. Again, leading to much of the debate about how effective chain is against "piercing" weapons.

The quality of the armor in terms of material and construction is a grossly overlooked distinction in most RPG systems.

[MaxWilson]

You know what happens when the group finds a set of +1 padded or leather armor?

The group knows that whoever made it is a moron, or the DM just rolled randomly to see what was there and did not care if it made sense.

So much this. Either drop padded armor +1 from your game entirely, or invent an alternate enchantment process (like Enchantment Through Great Deeds) which can occasionally result in magical padded armor... but for the most part it's better to just drop it, including dropping it from your random tables.


While as previously stated I'm not a fan of randomization it's not relevant to the point. Unoriginal wanted his NPC to have a magical wooden long sword and arguing against it should be of a weapon a player likes that's not a long sword. I'm saying it's perfectly fine for that scenario the weapon is a long sword and not a weapon a player likes that's not a long sword. My point is at somewhen during the campaign the player acquires a magic weapon he likes that is not a long sword. Randomization is not involved.

I was responding to your question about why there can't "ever" be a magical glaive, not to the wooden longsword bit. I don't think there is anyone here who is saying that there can't ever be a magical polearm--the divide is more between those who think there could be (or could not be, depending on the dice, and/or the logic of the gameworld) and those who think there must eventually be one because the player wants one. There isn't anyone who says the player can't keep adventuring until he finds one though--roll enough dice and you're bound to get lucky eventually, even if you don't proactively take steps like consulting sages for legends of lost polearms or conducting magical research to make your own.

[Misterwhisper]

So much this. Either drop padded armor +1 from your game entirely, or invent an alternate enchantment process (like Enchantment Through Great Deeds) which can occasionally result in magical padded armor... but for the most part it's better to just drop it, including dropping it from your random tables.

I am perfectly ok with random magic weapons being rolled, and given out based on a fair chart.

Spears and Daggers are very common, it would stand to reason they you would find more of them than you would be to finding a magical Lance for example.

However, if in the sense of realism, there are many adventurers in the world, and if things are all random, then there are going to be quite a few magic weapons that are not going to get used because they are rather uncommon to be specialized in.

In major cities at least, there should be a market to have these items traded, sure those prices might be rather high, but they should exist.

If I am willing to trade a +1 longsword and 300 gold for a +1 spear in Waterdeep, it should not be all that hard to find.

[MaxWilson]

I am perfectly ok with random magic weapons being rolled, and given out based on a fair chart.

Spears and Daggers are very common, it would stand to reason they you would find more of them than you would be to finding a magical Lance for example.

However, if in the sense of realism, there are many adventurers in the world, and if things are all random, then there are going to be quite a few magic weapons that are not going to get used because they are rather uncommon to be specialized in.

In major cities at least, there should be a market to have these items traded, sure those prices might be rather high, but they should exist.

If I am willing to trade a +1 longsword and 300 gold for a +1 spear in Waterdeep, it should not be all that hard to find.

Sure. The part in bold is a key assumption and I want to call it out: whether or not PC-like adventurers are common has a huge impact on playstyle and the game world, not least because of the potential Elminster Problem ("why hasn't Elminster already taken care of this?").

Because I am a huge advocate of player agency, and making player decisions matter, I am also a fan of campaigns that start in dynamically unstable equilibria, like a huge military disaster which kills off most of the good guys (including the Royal Wizard and all of the best warriors), or a never-ending winter which has starved most of the kingdom to death over the past 7 years. I think campaigns about a Forgotten-Realms-style stable equilibrium with lots of adventurers just... hanging around, being mid-level... lead to boring play. This may be one reason why magic item marts have not been a problem for me.

YMMV.

[EggKookoo]

And yet when someone substantively engages with your "level 1 Tarrasque" idea, you retreat behind the claim that you were only exaggerating and didn't mean it seriously. Make up your mind. Either defend your idea or drop it.

I'm not retreating. I intended it as an exaggeration.

In most campaigns, the PCs are put up against threats they can mostly handle. Sometimes they're put up against stuff that's really deadly to them. Sometimes they get a break and go up against stuff that's really easy. But the bulk of what they happen to encounter is just at a certain level of challenge that is most likely not going to end their lives, put permit a long(-ish) adventuring career where they can grow their skills and gain expertise in their fields at a measured pace. This degree of challenge -- purely by coincidence I'm sure -- just also happens to be exactly what will make the game the most fun for most players.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not retreating. I intended it as an exaggeration.

In most campaigns, the PCs are put up against threats they can mostly handle. Sometimes they're put up against stuff that's really deadly to them. Sometimes they get a break and go up against stuff that's really easy. But the bulk of what they happen to encounter is just at a certain level of challenge that is most likely not going to end their lives, put permit a long(-ish) adventuring career where they can grow their skills and gain expertise in their fields at a measured pace. This degree of challenge -- purely by coincidence I'm sure -- just also happens to be exactly what will make the game the most fun for most players.

And even in "sandbox hexcrawls" the distribution of monster CRs is not truly random. It's selected--there are "safer" and "less safe" zones. The starting area isn't in the middle of the "land of deadly monsters".

Random, for me, breaks verisimilitude hard, at least when it's applied strictly. The world isn't random. True randomness, in fact, is rare for actual biological or social systems. Even stochastic randomness (ie quantum effects) are mostly washed out at the classical limit (which is what we observe). People don't make a random selection of items--they carefully select what they make and use. So for me, random is worse as far as breaking immersion than hand-picked. Now those items may be hand-picked for the NPCs, but they're still hand-picked for someone.

[MaxWilson]

I'm not retreating. I intended it as an exaggeration.

In most campaigns, the PCs are put up against threats they can mostly handle. Sometimes they're put up against stuff that's really deadly to them. Sometimes they get a break and go up against stuff that's really easy. But the bulk of what they happen to encounter is just at a certain level of challenge that is most likely not going to end their lives, put permit a long(-ish) adventuring career where they can grow their skills and gain expertise in their fields at a measured pace. This degree of challenge -- purely by coincidence I'm sure -- just also happens to be exactly what will make the game the most fun for most players.

That's one way to play, but it's not the only way to play, and not how I play. An alternate method is to just build a game world, put in sufficient signs of the danger level (could be anything from dungeon levels to graded difficulty in a sandbox to naturally-constructed ecologies based around varying mana dependencies, with stronger monsters requiring more mana and generally crowding out lesser monsters in the mana hot spots, and letting Detect Magic detect the ambient mana level), and let the players go where they feel like it, which can result in players going up against a whole lot of stuff that's really deadly to them if the players are into that, and can equally result in players going up against a whole lot of stuff that's really easy if the players are into that.

There's a cybernetic feedback loop built into D&D by the way: if players go up against a lot of really deadly stuff, they quickly grow to the point where it's no longer as deadly. This is one of the things that makes sandbox-style play work. When 3rd level PCs survive a level 20 Medium encounter... they don't stay 3rd level.

[Benny89]

I might be speaking from different perspective, as I have quite different approach than some other people who I have met as DMs. Through my years of DMing various of system I have learnt that: DM is not a boss, nor a leader, nor a CEO and he is not someone who doesn't need to compromise or negotiate.

There are usually 5 people at table. 1 DM and 4 players. All of those people came here for fun. DM can't play without players, players can't play without DM. DM might try to be "boss" around but most adult players simple walk out after some time- DM achieved not playing RPG. Players can be jerks, trying to force DM to tailor everything for them and questioning his decisions/designes - DM walks away. Players achieved not playing RPG.

In my opinion good DM and good players are people who can sit and talk about what they want. As DM I would highly prefer one of my players to walk to me and say "listen, I really love crossbows. I want to make that crossbow sniper and I woud love to find some magic crossbows during my adventures". I am in that case more than eager to help, becasue one: he said clearly what he would prefer and like and gave me sort of message who I am playing with. Now if I see a player making an PAM build and I would be one of those DMs that does not like to tailor magic items to players I would be fair and say "Listen Tom, just so you know- there are not a lot of magic polearms and they are rare to get. You kind of might have to deal with that". At least I am making things clear.

I think DM is more of a final arbitrer, not a boss. I need my players to play game, and they need me to play game. Both sides are required and need to find a middle-ground, compromises.

I think in the end it's all about dialogue between players and DM. Players are not required to know DMG, they don't know if there are unique magic glaives there or not. However if one player clearly wants to focus his character on specific playstyle- PAM, X-bow master, DEX duelist etc. it's important for DM to approach player if he thinks that it might limit player options in his version of game. It's only fair.

Everytime I start to play with new group I do one session where I ask simple questions:

1. What do you expect from me as DM
2. What do you expect from adventures
3. How do you like to play RPGs
4. Do you have any questions etc. about my playstyle or about rules etc.

Instead of "I play like this, and if you don't like it- here are doors", as I find this kind of behaviour in most new, young DMs.

Same as you need two people for tango, you need both players and DM to play RPG. Both groups can't function without each other. So they should treat themselfs as equal and find best middle ground where everyone can have most out of their expectations of "fun".

[EggKookoo]

That's one way to play, but it's not the only way to play. An alternate method is to just build a game world, put in sufficient signs of the danger level (could be anything from dungeon levels to graded difficulty in a sandbox to naturally-constructed ecologies based around varying mana dependencies, with stronger monsters requiring more mana and generally crowding out lesser monsters in the mana hot spots), and let the players go where they feel like it, which can result in players going up against a whole lot of stuff that's really deadly to them if the players are into that, and can equally result in players going up against a whole lot of stuff that's really easy if the players are into that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you're willing to engage in at least some level of massaging for the benefit of the players, you're going to have trouble justifying why the PCs risk their lives for adventure at all. Especially spellcasters. Man, those guys should be able to get cushy jobs fairly early on in adult life.

I think all I'm saying is we both agree that there's some string-pulling behind the scenes. We just disagree on how much is palatable. Nothing controversial about that -- it's just preference speaking.

[MaxWilson]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you're willing to engage in at least some level of massaging for the benefit of the players, you're going to have trouble justifying why the PCs risk their lives for adventure at all. Especially spellcasters. Man, those guys should be able to get cushy jobs fairly early on in adult life.

I think all I'm saying is we both agree that there's some string-pulling behind the scenes. We just disagree on how much is palatable. Nothing controversial about that -- it's just preference speaking.

The key disagreement here is about who is responsible for the PC-specific (as opposed to situation-specific) string-pulling: the players or the DM.

If a player creates a PC with no motivation to do anything but stay home in a cushy job, he's going to have a pretty boring game while everyone else has fun. That being said, the DM can create problems ("bang!s") for the players too as part of the campaign premise--as I mentioned upthread, when everyone is starving to death in a 7-year neverending winter, or the space orcs have just smashed your kingdom's army and all the good guys and are in the process of consolidating their power, it is a little bit less difficult to be motivated to leave your cushy job. But after the campaign starts, I prefer for players to opt into bang!s instead of the DM imposing them on the players. I'm a huge fan of player agency and putting player decisions instead of DM decisions at the center of gameplay.

Definitely a preference thing.

[EggKookoo]

The key disagreement here is about who is responsible for the PC-specific (as opposed to situation-specific) string-pulling: the players or the DM.

The DM isn't forcing the PC to take the tailored item. Just like the DM isn't forcing the PC to get out of bed in the morning.

[Unoriginal]

Did the gang leader make that weapon themselves? Did they do research and go on a long epic quest to find that weapon? If the players need to deal with random loot drops to preserve the illusion of a world that exists apart from their adventures, well, that's not my personal preference, but so be it. I can see the logic behind it and enjoy playing in games that work that way. But if the players have to play by those rules, shouldn't npcs have to do so as well?

The gang leader didn't have to go on an epic quest to find that weapon, but he did find (or at least meet) and kill the previous wielder.

PCs can do that, too. Magic items don't *need* to be random loot, you can go and search for what you want specifically. But if you're just waiting for people to attack you with them, of course it'll be random, or rather dependent on who's attacking you.



If the evil orc warlord can find an enchanted great axe suited exactly to his personality and statline, and the nefarious drow assassin can find a magically poisoned dagger suited exactly to hers, and even someone as esoteric and specific as the ring leader of a villainous acting troupe can get their hands on a magic prop sword tailor made for their theatrical gimmick

Well, there are a few things to consider here:

1) Did the NPC become who they are and then found the item, or first found the item and then become who they are? The Orc Warlord may have gotten that enchanted great axe because as the strongest orc, he gets first pick in the loot and he just happened to kill someone who had it, or find a place where it was kept, OR he found the axe, then build himself around it until he was tough enough to take over as warlord. Same for the drow assassin: did she set out to acquire a special dagger then used it to rise through the ranks, or did she get the weapon as a specially tailored gift from her High Priestess lover as reward for completing a difficult task?

For my gang leader, as I've thought about it, I'd say that him getting the sword happened before he decided to use the gimmick. The sword's only real power is that it's magic, so in a city like Waterdeep it's useful to beat up cocky wererat gang members who think they're invulnerable. He robbed the sword off a young adventurer mostly because it was valuable, then used it to get some crime cred, then thought about how he could capitalize on its appearance.

2) Why should the magic items be perfectly suited for the NPCs' statblocks and personalities? They, too, often don't decide what they get. In Tales of the Yawning Portal, there is an Ogre who keeps a magic rapier in his lair. He doesn't use it because a) he finds the image of him using it ridiculous b) even if it's magical, it isn't powerful enough to compensate the loss of damage a Large creature using a Medium weapon would experience. He still keeps it because it's a treasure, though. It's good when that kind of things happen. Give me a boisterous knight in plate armor with a Frost Brand shortsword, or a mage dandy with Gauntlets of Ogre Power, or a goblin boss with a Robe of Many Eyes, or a noble with an Eversmoking Bottle.

3) The more power someone has, the more they can trade with or impose on others. Which means that NPCs who have more power than the PCs, be it martial, magical, political or economical, will have an easier time having access to magic items than the PCs. It doesn't mean that the PCs on their own can't do it, but simply that when a lvl 7 PC says "I'd like a magic poison dagger", they generally have significantly less means than when a CR 10 assassin with a network of support and favors they can call upon says "I want a magic poison dagger". Regardless of the fact that the lvl 7 PC group could probably kill the CR 10 assassin when said assassin target someone the PCs are protecting while using their new poison dagger.




isn't it also reasonable for an adventurer in that world to expect to be able to find something as comparatively basic as a +1 halberd, rapier, or crossbow by the time they hit their early teens?

Well, the Xanathar's has a table about the results of going on an adventure before lvl 1. The results are mostly "you are maimed in X way", with only the luckiest getting riches or a common magic item.

Now, again, I reiterate, I have no issue with people finding the magic items they want if they search of them. If a PAM fighter wants a magic polearm, it's gladly that they can try to find the Glaive of the Vouivre, or find someone ready to sell a +1 halberd, or to pay Gordon the arcane smith for a thunder spear. But if they just went along the group to raid the cavern of Rickordan the Minotaur Fistfighter as a NPC hired them to do, don't ask me to transmute some of the loot into a magic glaive just because they haven't found one yet. Now I might have decided that there was a reason why a magic glaive would be here (ex: Sir Dustan the Tall was killed by Rickordan, and she used a magic glaive), but that's my prerogative as a DM and not dictated because of the inventory of any player. Same reason why I wouldn't make health potions spawn in the middle of the dungeon just because the healer has ran out of spell slots and the PCs can't rest.



and certainly isn't meant to be a negative criticism of that example, which, divorced from the overall conversation in this thread, sounds super cool and is the kind of thing I like to see as a player.

[...]

(which, again, in and of itself is a fantastic concept that I adore and will absolutely steal some day),


Thank you.

[Willie the Duck]

"Random tables" doesn't solve anything unless you use those for the NPCs' equipment. That means not using any pre-built stat blocks and having a lot of halflings with greatswords or longbows (even mundane ones) . Not tailoring is an illusion. The only question is who you're tailoring for.


Random, for me, breaks verisimilitude hard, at least when it's applied strictly. The world isn't random. True randomness, in fact, is rare for actual biological or social systems. Even stochastic randomness (ie quantum effects) are mostly washed out at the classical limit (which is what we observe). People don't make a random selection of items--they carefully select what they make and use. So for me, random is worse as far as breaking immersion than hand-picked. Now those items may be hand-picked for the NPCs, but they're still hand-picked for someone.

I think both of these are assuming that people who use random magic item tables are somehow required to be LOLrandom wahoos who literally would equip NPC halflings with greatswords (or that if they aren't they are somehow being inconsistent in their game theory or something). That, I feel, is an overly proscriptive definition upon the random advocate I don't think anyone else is using. It'd be the same ridiculousness as if the contrary position was described as insisting that every magic weapon they get should automatically become the weapon their character uses. No one is suggesting that anyone seriously thinks that, so doing so for the opposing side is... unrealistic to their actual views, at best. There are shades of grey in all of this and no one approaches purity on any of it. We are not robots and we don't play pure games, but that also does not invalidate our gameplay preferences.


Neutrality assumes that there are two opposed, equivalently-placed factions that must be balanced between. For a competitive game that makes total sense. The ref should be neutral between the two teams. But in a cooperative RPG, there is only one side. The players. The NPCs are arbitrary and under the total control of the DM, the PCs are arbitrary. There are only the players. So who is the DM supposed to be neutral between?

Neutrality doesn't have to assume that. There does not need to be sides, only a level of impartiality. This is an additional burden being imposed on the situation that makes it meaningless in context (well, unless you were playing PVP or the like, or a tournament module.

[MaxWilson]

The DM isn't forcing the PC to take the tailored item. Just like the DM isn't forcing the PC to get out of bed in the morning.

At this point we were discussing sandboxes and Tarrasques, not items. Specifically, is it the DM or the player who is responsible for making sure the PC has a motivation to go on an adventure. You hypothesized that that would require (DM?) "massaging," and requested me to correct you if you were wrong. Well, if you meant DM massaging, yes, you were wrong. Players can supply their own backstory and motivation. You're welcome.

RE: items, if you want to let the player choose the PC-customized item instead of the DM, let the player take the initiative to consult sages/do magical research, or if it's your style you could even (as mentioned upthread) just say, "Bob, on the corpse of the Death Knight, you find a Very Rare magic item. What is it?" All of those methods put the player decisions front and center instead of DM decisions.

If you prefer to keep the power in the DM's hands, that is definitely a preference difference. I obsess about achieving the opposite.

[MaxWilson]

I think both of these are assuming that people who use random magic item tables are somehow required to be LOLrandom wahoos who literally would equip NPC halflings with greatswords (or that if they aren't they are somehow being inconsistent in their game theory or something).

Even that assumption isn't enough to prove PhoenixPhyre's point. The claim that giving halflings weapons which they'd actually be willing to use means the halflings are custom-tailored to the PCs is bizarre, and makes one suspect PhoenixPhyre hasn't actually thought their argument through.