Xmas tree magic items was never the problem and attunement hurts the game [Archive]

Schwann145

2024-02-18, 09:21 PM

Being decked out in magic items was never problematic.
The problem was that 3.X design purposely included "system mastery" as a design point, so specific magic items always won out in importance.
Wearing two rings, bracers, a cloak, armor, a headband, a belt, gloves, etc and so on, by itself, is fine. The fact that you were "doing it wrong" if that cloak wasn't a Cloak of Resistance, that ring wasn't a Ring of Protection, that headband wasn't a "Headband of *Stat*," that amulet wasn't "Amulet of Nat Armor," etc etc was the real problem.

Interesting magic items always had to take a back seat to stat boosts in order to keep up with the silliness of the math as the game progressed. Magic items didn't feel like fun rewards, but like requirements.
But, also, magic items *are* requirements - required to bridge that martial/caster disparity.

And that's where attunement's failure comes in.
By introducing attunement to fix the "christmas tree problem" (when the actual problem was never the tree, but the required ornaments for the tree), we are stuck in a design space where, even with heavy nerfs to magic, the disparity between magic and mundane is still a chasm.

You need look no further than BG3 and it's lack of attunement limitation to see that access to many magic items does not hurt the game, nor does it hurt the fun.
If Game Design is smart about how it designs magic items (ie: making them interesting rather than simply mathematically superior), then they could go a long way towards making sure all those Fighters and Rogues and Barbarians and what not don't feel totally outclassed by the Clerics and Sorcerers and Wizards.

And... I'm about 99% certain 5.5 will not be learning this lesson.
RIP.

JNAProductions

2024-02-18, 09:43 PM

Wouldn’t the solution to “Martials drool, casters rule!” Be to make martials better?
Like, not just with items. Just make them better in the classes themselves.

Schwann145

2024-02-18, 09:52 PM

Wouldn’t the solution to “Martials drool, casters rule!” Be to make martials better?
Like, not just with items. Just make them better in the classes themselves.

Depends on how you define, "better."

Magic is a tool that a regular dude uses to effect. Without using that magic, there is nothing special about a Wizard; still just a person with all the ups/downs/expectations of being a person.
If "making martials better" means making them into something approaching demigods or anime characters, you suddenly have this weird disconnect where some regular dudes become superhuman while other regular dudes stay regular, despite having a toolbox full of powerful magic to wield. Why aren't the Wizards becoming demigods/anime characters on top of being wizards?

The cleanest default is that everyone starts and paths along the same playing field, their only differences being the tools they use. Or, in other words, it's the same reason you don't let one player be a human Mage and then, to make up for it, let another player be a full grown adult Red Dragon.

But, since a grenade is more powerful than a pokey stick (ie: magic vs non-magic), then you have to balance everything by giving magic to everyone. If the class can't cast spells, then they have to get it elsewhere.
If the argument is "pokey sticks should be equal to grenades," I don't know how to have that discussion.

clash

2024-02-18, 10:49 PM

Schwann145

2024-02-18, 11:20 PM

This question doesn't really make sense to me. People specialize in different things. If I spend all my time studying to become a surgeon and someone else spends there's training to be a world class boxer why should I also be a world class boxer just cause he was able to accomplish it?

One person trains to be a wizard another to be an anime character. Either character could have accomplished the other feat but they were busy accomplishing the thing they chose.

To attempt to answer/clarify this: if one can get all the benefits of "the magic" without actually needing the magic, then why would anyone ever use the magic? The magic can be taken away, but being "as good as the magic" can't.

JNAProductions

2024-02-18, 11:31 PM

To attempt to answer/clarify this: if one can get all the benefits of "the magic" without actually needing the magic, then why would anyone ever use the magic? The magic can be taken away, but being "as good as the magic" can't.

How do you "take away" the magic?

You can lose spell components or casting foci.
You can also lose weapons or armor.
The ability to cast is gonna be there, just like the ability to swing a sword is there whether or not you actually have a sword.

The main issue I see with your suggestion is that, under the assumption that casters are fine and martials need support, you should not have to rely on the DM dropping the right items to make a PC competent. It's why I have a distaste for PCs that rely on Strength as an ability score and a Belt of Giant Strength-it's effective, letting you dump your main stat while still benefiting from a high stat-but I dislike it.
Which relates to why the Christmas Tree is an issue for me-if Groshnak The Fierce, 20th level Barbarian, needs more than basic gear to be awesome, then Groshnak isn't awesome. It's his gear that makes him awesome. (By basic gear here, I would mean... Well, basically just a two-handed weapon. Maybe a shield and armor, but mundane gear.)

To relate back to 3.5, a 5th level PC with 20th level wealth can be made significantly stronger than a 20th level Fighter with 5th level wealth. It's not even especially hard. And that? That's a problem to me.

akma

2024-02-19, 03:05 AM

A different approach could be to change magic itself, so it will have more counter-play without resorting to magical items.

Chaos Jackal

2024-02-19, 03:08 AM

Attunement in and of itself is not that bad as an idea. The point of attunement is essentially twofold - one, to curb the issues of a character having a metric ton of magic items, which can be related to either power or a long list of things to track, and to fix the issue of required magic gear, like the Big 6 of 3.5, by making items few, optional and not necessary to play. Both points are valid and in theory, attunement could solve them.

The problem is that the implementation is far from ideal and the combination with certain other perks of 5e, primarily bounded accuracy, makes it worse. See, magic items are, or at least are supposed to be, fun and cool. They're something to look forward to, to shake things up, to give you new things to do in and possibly out of combat. Yet the ways the rules suggest to hand them out range from bad to terrible and attunement proves to be both a massive downer and an absolute pain in the rear. If you play a magic item-rich game using official items, for example, there's a good chance that sooner rather than later you'll start, more or less regrettably, to pass over stuff and ignore numerous options, because you can only attune three items and a boatload of the (interesting) options are attunement-only. Weapon with unique but situational effect? Would be interesting, I'd love to, except I have a Flame Tongue and it just doesn't make sense to drop it.

Or, you know, look at shields. A generic +3 shield is among the best shields in the game, if not the very best one, because a flat +3 to AC all the time is massive and it requires no attunement, while many magical shields with cool effects don't have an AC bonus and require attunement to boot. The issue is similar with a lot of weapons, because a bog-standard +X weapon is actually very powerful for its "intended" level of rarity, owing to how bounded accuracy works, but is not attunement. And having a magical weapon happens to be a requirement for the majority of martial-oriented characters, so hooray, you have a full-blown failure of attunement's purposes in your hands - there is an item requirement where one shouldn't be and the character potentially has more power than they're supposed to.

Attunement would be better if it was more prevalent when it comes to actually strong magic items or if it was limited to some specific item types, while for the rest you'd be presented with nice, but situational effects that would spice up your sessions without posing an existential threat to planned boss fights.

It's not about attunement as an idea. Magic items in 5e are just a mess if you try to use the systems and options in the way they are presented.

Akal Saris

2024-02-19, 03:37 AM

I agree with everything Chaos Jackal just said. And in addition, 3 attunement slots, in my experience, is more limiting for martial characters than spellcasters, especially if you're dual wielding. Meanwhile, the list of useful non-attunement items is actually quite small for rare/very rare items, which is really frustrating if all of your attunement slots are 'spoken for' already.

JayDomK

2024-02-19, 04:43 AM

This question doesn't really make sense to me. People specialize in different things. If I spend all my time studying to become a surgeon and someone else spends there's training to be a world class mifinity specialist why should I also be a world class mifinity specialist just cause he was able to accomplish it?

One person trains to be a wizard another to be an anime character. Either character could have accomplished the other feat but they were busy accomplishing the things they chose.
Really, why complicate things? Let each character do what he wants and can do. And it will eliminate the need to do what he don't want to do.
If I'm a surgeon and I hate boxing, why should I study boxing? I don't like that idea.

JayDomK

2024-02-19, 04:47 AM

But, since a grenade is more powerful than a pokey stick (ie: magic vs non-magic), then you have to balance everything by giving magic to everyone. If the class can't cast spells, then they have to get it elsewhere.
If the argument is "pokey sticks should be equal to grenades," I don't know how to have that discussion.

If there is no equality of classes, then one class becomes more powerful and advantageous. Do you want more inequality?
And if everyone has the need to learn magic even if they don't want to do it, then it would create discomfort in the game, wouldn't it?

Amnestic

2024-02-19, 05:12 AM

Stat stick magic items (eg. Ring of Protection) are 'easy' to Christmas tree because it's a fire-and-forget note on your character sheet until you look to change rings. Christmas treeing 'interesting' magic items will inevitably lead to half of them getting forgotten, whether they're active or passive.

BG3 is more easily able to have all these interesting magic items because the computer does all the offloading of remembering them for you, and it doesn't need to go "oh actually, I just remembered this" thirteen times a round as players remember that their ring lets them do an additional 1d4 psychic damage when Mercury is in retrograde.

3 slots might be overly limiting in tier 3-4 (and I've changed attunement slots=PB in my games, so characters max out at 6, or 12 in the case of an Artificer (their capstone still caps at +6 to saves)) but removing attunement entirely is, I think, a mistake.

If you want to argue the removal of any +1s/2s/3s on magic items in favour of only interesting effects though I could certainly get behind it. Someone might actually cast Magic Weapon then.

InvisibleBison

2024-02-19, 09:35 AM

To attempt to answer/clarify this: if one can get all the benefits of "the magic" without actually needing the magic, then why would anyone ever use the magic? The magic can be taken away, but being "as good as the magic" can't.

Magic and spellcasting aren't the same thing. Well-designed high level martials who can keep up with spellcasters may in fact be using magic, just to augment their physical prowess rather than to cast spells.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-19, 10:09 AM

I generally agree with the OP.

5E has made magic items a scary bad thing that you have to be cautious about. And attunement makes magic items unfun as soon as you have to start turning down new magic items or picking and choosing which ones to keep.

Just keep the "necessary" power gamer +stat items as requiring attunement, and leave all the interesting stuff without it.

5E does this to some extent; there's a lot of items that can be used without attunement. But in my experience, modules don't hand out nearly enough magic items, and neither do my in-person DMs.

And in my current game, I have a sword that does +1d6 cold damage against any enemy, and another sword that does +2d6 vs giants. I have to attune to both, even though I will only ever use one at at time. And my cursed armor requires attunement as well. So I'm tapped out. Yay, much fun.

Segev

2024-02-19, 10:31 AM

On the one hand, I see the value of limiting some of what any one PC can have to force more interesting choices as one player's full attunement count might hand a new magic item that normally would go into his golf bag to a different player who actually can attune a new item.

And, if you want to make the 'set to 19' stat items a choice rather than a 'gimme', making them eat a precious attunement slot is a good way to do it.

That said, I think 5e could have done more with it, and maybe over-applied it. Imagine if fighters had a bonus attunement slot or two for armor and weapons. Or the Thief Rogue's Use Magic Device let him shift attunement as a use of cunning action. Give different classes different limits.

Lately, I have been brainstorming the notion that magic item sets are sets less due to combo powers (though those could still be a thing) and more due to all of them in a set occupying only one attunement slot. Mordenkainen's Archmagus Regalia might be a Staff of the Magi, a Robe of the Archmage, and a Pointy Hat or Power, all of which can be attuned together as if they were only one magic item.

I also still think Ioun Stones should not require attunement.

Mindflayer_Inc

2024-02-19, 10:33 AM

Wouldn’t the solution to “Martials drool, casters rule!” Be to make martials better?
Like, not just with items. Just make them better in the classes themselves.

Yup.

The problem is that 3.x made items mandatory for non-casters to try and keep up.

Tome of Battle fixed that problem (mostly)

Blatant Beast

2024-02-19, 11:34 AM

Attunement would be better if it was more prevalent when it comes to actually strong magic items or if it was limited to some specific item types, while for the rest you'd be presented with nice, but situational effects that would spice up your sessions without posing an existential threat to planned boss fights.

It's not about attunement as an idea. Magic items in 5e are just a mess if you try to use the systems and options in the way they are presented.

I completely agree with your entire post. The idea of Attunement is fine, the problem lies in too many items requiring Attunement.

A Ring of Protection is a basic item, and should not require Attunement.

I do think tweaking Attunement ‘slots’ so the number of attunment slots advance with one’s Proficiency Bonus, would be a nice change. (I use this as a Houserule)

Segev

2024-02-19, 11:45 AM

I completely agree with your entire post. The idea of Attunement is fine, the problem lies in too many items requiring Attunement.

A Ring of Protection is a basic item, and should not require Attunement.

I do think tweaking Attunement ‘slots’ so the number of attunment slots advance with one’s Proficiency Bonus, would be a nice change. (I use this as a Houserule)

Ironically, the reason the Ring of Protection has an attunement requirement is the lack of anti-stacking rules in 5e. If you attuned three Rings of Protection, their bonuses would all stack.

stoutstien

2024-02-19, 12:02 PM

Ironically, the reason the Ring of Protection has an attunement requirement is the lack of anti-stacking rules in 5e. If you attuned three Rings of Protection, their bonuses would all stack.

Not true.
DMG
Combining Game Effects (p.252). When two or more game features have the same name, only the effects of one of them applies.
See Combining Magical Effects” section of chapter 10 in the Player’s Handbook.

You can combine the ring and cloak but not two rings.

KorvinStarmast

2024-02-19, 12:02 PM

Being decked out in magic items was never problematic. In AD&D and previous eras, finding magic items was a significant part of the reason one went adventuring. (IIRC, staves and wands had finite charges and could not be recharged, but my memory of how that works in AD&D 2e is gone).

And that's where attunement's failure comes in. Not a failure, a good feature.
I like attunement. It requires players to make a choice. It also emulates the idea (which I find appealing) that magic items can interfere with each other (kind of like radio frequency interference)

That said, what needs attunement and what doesn't need attunement might need a tweak here and there.

You need look no further than BG3 and it's lack of attunement limitation to see that access to many magic items does not hurt the game, nor does it hurt the fun.
It's a computer game.

Suggested Attunement rule tweak: martial characters can attune as many items as their proficiency bonus. (Rogue, fighter, monk, Barbarian, Ranger Paladin).

Casters can attune up to three.

This would IMO bring back some of the high level Fighting Men over time have accumulated a bunch of magical items and through that key aspect of adventuring, close the perceived balance problem in Tiers 3 and 4.

Attunement in and of itself is not that bad as an idea. The point of attunement is essentially twofold - one, to curb the issues of a character having a metric ton of magic items, which can be related to either power or a long list of things to track, and to fix the issue of required magic gear, like the Big 6 of 3.5, by making items few, optional and not necessary to play. Both points are valid and in theory, attunement could solve them. Implementation was uneven.

See, magic items are, or at least are supposed to be, fun and cool.
This, right here.

They're something to look forward to,
They are, or once were, part of the whole point of going adventuring.

I agree with everything Chaos Jackal just said. And in addition, 3 attunement slots, in my experience, is more limiting for martial characters than spellcasters, especially if you're dual wielding. Meanwhile, the list of useful non-attunement items is actually quite small for rare/very rare items, which is really frustrating if all of your attunement slots are 'spoken for' already. See my suggestion above on martials getting more attunement slots.

Someone might actually cast Magic Weapon then.
It's a very good spell in a game where there are almost no magic items/weapons. I have played in two of those.

And, if you want to make the 'set to 19' stat items a choice rather than a 'gimme', making them eat a precious attunement slot is a good way to do it. Good point. I have an orc battle master who has the headband of intellect. Smartest Orc in the Flanaess, as far as we can tell.
Rogue/Thief's UMD ability needs to come on line before lvl 13. (I think 9 might be a better time for that).

Supreme Sneak
Starting at 9th level, you have advantage on a Dexterity (Stealth) check if you move no more than half your speed on the same turn.

Use Magic Device
By 13th level, you have learned enough about the workings of magic that you can improvise the use of items even when they are not intended for you. You ignore all class, race, and level requirements on the use of magic items.
Not sure how good that level 9 feature is, as I've not played a level 10+ rogue/thief. Depends on the game, I guess.

I also still think Ioun Stones should not require attunement. I think it would be cool for Ioun stones, no matter how many you have, to take up one slot. (They don't get found very often anyway, in my experience).

Ironically, the reason the Ring of Protection has an attunement requirement is the lack of anti-stacking rules in 5e. If you attuned three Rings of Protection, their bonuses would all stack. Fortunately, there is a rule in the DMG explicitly against that kind of stacking.

Pex

2024-02-19, 12:51 PM

Mindflayer_Inc

2024-02-19, 12:53 PM

In AD&D and previous eras, finding magic items was a significant part of the reason one went adventuring. (IIRC, staves and wands had finite charges and could not be recharged, but my memory of how that works in AD&D 2e is gone).

Not a failure, a good feature.
I like attunement. It requires players to make a choice. It also emulates the idea (which I find appealing) that magic items can interfere with each other (kind of like radio frequency interference)

That said, what needs attunement and what doesn't need attunement might need a tweak here and there.

It's a computer game.

Suggested Attunement rule tweak: martial characters can attune as many items as their proficiency bonus. (Rogue, fighter, monk, Barbarian, Ranger Paladin).

Casters can attune up to three.

This would IMO bring back some of the high level Fighting Men over time have accumulated a bunch of magical items and through that key aspect of adventuring, close the perceived balance problem in Tiers 3 and 4.
Implementation was uneven.

This, right here.

They are, or once were, part of the whole point of going adventuring.
See my suggestion above on martials getting more attunement slots.

It's a very good spell in a game where there are almost no magic items/weapons. I have played in two of those.
Good point. I have an orc battle master who has the headband of intellect. Smartest Orc in the Flanaess, as far as we can tell.
Rogue/Thief's UMD ability needs to come on line before lvl 13. (I think 9 might be a better time for that).

Not sure how good that level 9 feature is, as I've not played a level 10+ rogue/thief. Depends on the game, I guess.
I think it would be cool for Ioun stones, no matter how many you have, to take up one slot. (They don't get found very often anyway, in my experience).
Fortunately, there is a rule in the DMG explicitly against that kind of stacking.

Supreme Sneak is such a scam, rogues should get a friend to take Tricker Cleric 2 for a (mostly) better version.

LudicSavant

2024-02-19, 02:50 PM

Regarding Supreme Sneak:

Not sure how good that level 9 feature is, as I've not played a level 10+ rogue/thief.

Not very, especially since Reliable Talent comes right next level and doesn't stack well with Advantage (the average effective bonus from Reliable Talent to an Advantage roll is +0.7).

The best stealth features generally let you boost the stealth of allies or hide from things that auto-detect (like allow you to hide with less cover, or evade special senses or divination spells). Thief's kit offers neither, and even slows your movement speed while it's in use.

Also, as Mindflayer_Inc mentions above, the level 1 Trickster Cleric has a better stealth feature than this. Soulknife Rogues do, too. It's alright, but it doesn't live up to the moniker of "supreme."

Attunement in and of itself is not that bad as an idea. The point of attunement is essentially twofold - one, to curb the issues of a character having a metric ton of magic items, which can be related to either power or a long list of things to track, and to fix the issue of required magic gear, like the Big 6 of 3.5, by making items few, optional and not necessary to play. Both points are valid and in theory, attunement could solve them.

The problem is that the implementation is far from ideal and the combination with certain other perks of 5e, primarily bounded accuracy, makes it worse. See, magic items are, or at least are supposed to be, fun and cool. They're something to look forward to, to shake things up, to give you new things to do in and possibly out of combat. Yet the ways the rules suggest to hand them out range from bad to terrible and attunement proves to be both a massive downer and an absolute pain in the rear. If you play a magic item-rich game using official items, for example, there's a good chance that sooner rather than later you'll start, more or less regrettably, to pass over stuff and ignore numerous options, because you can only attune three items and a boatload of the (interesting) options are attunement-only. Weapon with unique but situational effect? Would be interesting, I'd love to, except I have a Flame Tongue and it just doesn't make sense to drop it.

Or, you know, look at shields. A generic +3 shield is among the best shields in the game, if not the very best one, because a flat +3 to AC all the time is massive and it requires no attunement, while many magical shields with cool effects don't have an AC bonus and require attunement to boot. The issue is similar with a lot of weapons, because a bog-standard +X weapon is actually very powerful for its "intended" level of rarity, owing to how bounded accuracy works, but is not attunement. And having a magical weapon happens to be a requirement for the majority of martial-oriented characters, so hooray, you have a full-blown failure of attunement's purposes in your hands - there is an item requirement where one shouldn't be and the character potentially has more power than they're supposed to.

Attunement would be better if it was more prevalent when it comes to actually strong magic items or if it was limited to some specific item types, while for the rest you'd be presented with nice, but situational effects that would spice up your sessions without posing an existential threat to planned boss fights.

It's not about attunement as an idea. Magic items in 5e are just a mess if you try to use the systems and options in the way they are presented.

Agree with pretty much all of this. Attunement has potential, but the fact that something like a +3 shield doesn't take attunement really undermines its value as a mechanic.

Inquisitor

2024-02-19, 03:25 PM

My 11th level game, the party just acquired gauntlets of ogre power. No one wants it. The fighter already has 18 ST. The wizard considered carrying capacity, but it's not that important a necessity at this time. The cleric doesn't do melee. The warlock fights with Charisma. Some 5E magic items look cool on paper, but in reality they are useless. The Amulet of Health is the only set to 19 magic item that's worth anything because anyone can use hit points even you only have adventurer tax 14. Not even the saving throw bonus is appealing for the others. Maybe the 10 Stat character will take it but only because of might as well no one else is, not Oh Gimme!

Part of this is the attunement limit, but part of this is another issue with 5e, that some ability scores are (almost) meaningless for almost all characters. Further, besides getting a moderate Con that you allude to, a lot of characters don't get a lot of benefit out of anything other than their prime attribute. In older editions, at least encumbrance was a real part of the game and intelligence provided more skills and/or languages.

Given the way the game is going, most people don't agree, but I'd consider the 5e Paly to be the model for class design as it relates to ability scores. You can focus on Cha, attack stat, or feats (or in some combination) and make an effective character. Those Gauntlets would be amazing provided you didn't already have an 18; for a Str based fighter they might be OK for a while, but eventually you're going to want a 20 anyway.

Mindflayer_Inc

2024-02-19, 04:06 PM

Part of this is the attunement limit, but part of this is another issue with 5e, that some ability scores are (almost) meaningless for almost all characters. Further, besides getting a moderate Con that you allude to, a lot of characters don't get a lot of benefit out of anything other than their prime attribute. In older editions, at least encumbrance was a real part of the game and intelligence provided more skills and/or languages.

Given the way the game is going, most people don't agree, but I'd consider the 5e Paly to be the model for class design as it relates to ability scores. You can focus on Cha, attack stat, or feats (or in some combination) and make an effective character. Those Gauntlets would be amazing provided you didn't already have an 18; for a Str based fighter they might be OK for a while, but eventually you're going to want a 20 anyway.

Started fiddling with some homebrew where classes are designed around Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Charisma. Wisdom gets lumped in with Constitution where abilities aren't connected to it, but it does play a role. Constitution is mostly HP and Wisdom is mostly "6th sense / oh crap meter" via perception.

Probably will call them something else eventually, might pull from Cipher System (Might, Speed, Intellect, etc...).

So, Cleric casting is now Intelligence (knowledge of divine doctrine makes the god appeased) but can also be charisma (how cool the deity thinks you are).

This still gives you dump stats, but because everything is mostly focused to Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Charisma you aren't stretched as thin.

Dork_Forge

2024-02-19, 04:15 PM

Blatant Beast

2024-02-20, 01:50 AM

I think attunement is a good thing for the game and actually presents interesting choice for players to make. Shuffling items and choosing what's best is a part of my high level table's prep phase, it works well.

I do have to disagree with pointing to BG3 as evidence of anything, though. I haven't played it (yet) but I have many players that have and have been part of the discussions:

- Multiple found magic items to be an immense source of power, with one explicitly saying having a bunch of broken items made end game super easy.
- The game may be based around 5e, but it is so drastically different you can't really compare them like you're intending to. Bonus action jumping, the way potions and positioning work etc. martials are in a very different place in BG3 than they are in 5e. To then look at items in isolation of that misses too much context.

One, ideally, is not looking at BG3 in isolation, one is directly comparing the two experiences. Ludic Savant boiled down the difference in one moderately lengthy post in the BG3 Martial thread that was floating around the board.

What BG3 makes apparent is:
easily accessible mobility enhancements for Strength based characters is something that makes those characters fun, and seems to be a broadly popular change.

People like Magic items, even bunch’s of small powered items that mainly serve as flavor and world building…(The Forgotten Realms has a lot of history and a lot of enchanted items).

This is not solely a BG3 Revelation, but Many items from the DMG Suck, even some Legendary ones.

Is Efreeti Chainmail ‘better’ than Plate Mail +3?

Psyren

2024-02-20, 02:08 AM

You need look no further than BG3 and it's lack of attunement limitation to see that access to many magic items does not hurt the game, nor does it hurt the fun.
If Game Design is smart about how it designs magic items (ie: making them interesting rather than simply mathematically superior), then they could go a long way towards making sure all those Fighters and Rogues and Barbarians and what not don't feel totally outclassed by the Clerics and Sorcerers and Wizards.

And... I'm about 99% certain 5.5 will not be learning this lesson.
RIP.

You can't really look at BG3 as a paragon of martial/caster equality though. Martials feel amazing in that game because 99% of the serious challenges boil down to which side can pour out the most damage in the least amount of time, and tabletop caster staples are either vastly more unreliable (e.g. control effects, see the "Unstoppable" buff in most boss fights, the lack of walls etc) or functionally/wholly nonexistent (e.g. divinations, illusions.) And that's assuming you ignore the Larian-specific things that don't apply to 5e at all like barrelmancy, chasmancy and surfacemancy, all of which also favor martials. I agree with you that it's all fun, don't get me wrong, but it wouldn't really translate to tabletop D&D that well either.

Which is not to say I entirely disagree with you on attunement - I wouldn't mind if martials got more slots than casters. Keep in mind though that most basic magic items (e.g. +X weapons/armor/shields) don't require attunement and don't benefit casters as much either.

Chaos Jackal

2024-02-20, 04:02 AM

This is not solely a BG3 Revelation, but Many items from the DMG Suck, even some Legendary ones.

Is Efreeti Chainmail ‘better’ than Plate Mail +3?

I already mentioned that in my own post, but I'd like to double down on this, because it's a big problem - it both takes away from the actual point of attunement (if you want to curb power concentration on magic items and/or prevalence of magic items, why are the best magic items non-attunement?) and the fun of getting new items.

Like, I'm not an absolute enemy of stat sticks myself. When playing 3.X, I didn't bemoan spending years wearing the same cloak with different numbers attached to it, because to me it felt good to "nope" BBEGs and their big save-or-die effects with ever increasing save bonuses. I didn't mind having huge stats because of headbands and belts, I liked looking at my sheet and seeing 30 Str and 24 Int on my magus. But those things were also not the only ones I owned - I had armors that could make me fly, boots that could haste me, gloves that let me use two-handed weapons with one hand, trinkets that allowed me to use anime-style "cutting wind" attacks and maneuvers, ioun stones granting me extra numbers and tricks... It didn't feel as if all I had was some extra numbers, or that the extra numbers were the most important thing I had.

Now, let's take a look at that +3 plate, or the +3 shield I mentioned on my own post. Compared to a lot of "interesting" options, those flat numbers are just way superior, because said options don't really offer much, or what they offer is severely limited. The Efreeti Chain Blatant Beast mentions is nice and all if you expect to see a lot of fire in your future, but otherwise, being forced to wear chain instead of plate will not be particularly desirable to a lot of people, especially since a +3 version of the latter doesn't take attunement. The Shield of the Blazing Dreadnought or Euryale's Aegis, legendary shields from more recent splatbooks, have cool effects, but said effects aren't that powerful and/or are only usable once per day, while neither has an AC bonus. Is it cool to have a version of Athena's Aegis, petrifying people with its Medusa head? It most certainly is, but if you can only use that effect on a single creature per long rest and it's not likely to stick (takes two Con saves, good luck hitting most high level enemies at their Con) and it costs an attunement slot to boot, why not just get an always +3 to AC without attunement and call it a day?

Stat sticks aren't the enemy of fun, big numbers make you feel cooler. But if, in a supposedly bounded accuracy system that wants to avoid over-reliance and overabundance of magic items, stat sticks end up being king... then something's gone wrong. Not with the idea, but with the execution.

stoutstien

2024-02-20, 07:32 AM

The solution I came up with for my WIP is that any magical items that is more powerful than minor charms takes away from the pool that represents the ability to withstand major stress on the connection of soul/body. Hearty heros tend to have a larger pool and hearty heros also tend to lean towards dealing with problems with physical force.

So a PC could potentially Xmas tree themselves but it would severely limit their ability to magical healing, diseases, going without rest or other hardships, and pushing themselves beyond their mental limits.

It's a little bit more complex due to having some classes having the ability to reduce the cost of wearing or wielding magical objects while others get significant bonuses for every point of this pool that isn't used so there is a lot of give and take on the logistical side of deciding what one wears.

For example the fateless can decide to automatically succeed at any check prior to rolling but doing so takes one of these points until it can be recovered (One per good night rest typically). It's probably not a too tougher decision to decide to give up one of these for a magical item they want but it doesn't take long before it's a meaningful choice.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 10:48 AM

Mindflayer_Inc

2024-02-20, 11:12 AM

I generally agree that attunement can be executed well, depending on what magic items do and which ones require attunement. I don't think we got the best execution in 5e.

With regards to Supreme Sneak... I don't see the issue. It's in the PHB, so before the power escalation splats came out. You have to move at slow speed to Stealth anyways, and this gives you the option to move a bit slower to gain Advantage. Seems pretty good if you see a light up ahead or hear chattering, you can start creeping even slower to get closer and see what's up without alerting your enemies.

In combat, on the other hand, if you have the ability to hide, this grants Advantage, which may cancel whatever Disadvantage the DM may impose for trying to hide in the middle of a melee while you're stabbing people.

It's not the best thing ever, but it has its uses.

The problem with Supreme Sneak is that it gets invalidates by...

* Expertise
* Reliable Talent
* Trickery Cleric 1 (or 2? I forget)

Two are rogue class features that every rogue gets and the third just requires someone else to either be Naruto or multiclass one or two levels into a class that gets some very, very, good domain spells.

Edit: Note: Trickery is in the PHB, so it's not like a splat book power creep. Also note, Trickery Cleric is not a stealth class so much as a misdirection class so it pairs up with the Rogue so damn well.

Supreme Sneak is a low level feature that is placed at level 9. This is indictive of a larger issue of balance.

But yeah, attunement could be done correctly but I'm not sure that was ever a design goal of WotC, at least, not one worth spending their way too limited time on.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 11:16 AM

JonBeowulf

2024-02-20, 11:25 AM

In AD&D and previous eras, finding magic items was a significant part of the reason one went adventuring. (IIRC, staves and wands had finite charges and could not be recharged, but my memory of how that works in AD&D 2e is gone).
It was also a whole lot easier for PCs to die in the early editions, so magic items were pretty much a necessity. I'm fairly certain that very few things in 2e were rechargeable. Ring of Spell Storing (duh) and Ring of Shooting Stars come to mind, but nothing for wands, staves, and rods.

Suggested Attunement rule tweak: martial characters can attune as many items as their proficiency bonus. (Rogue, fighter, monk, Barbarian, Ranger Paladin).

Casters can attune up to three.
Ninja'd by Korvin yet again!

Segev

2024-02-20, 11:47 AM

I stand corrected on stacking the same item. Still, 5e is very concerned about allowing number inflationanything lot of items doing it requiring attunement. (They are less hinky about it on attack because the paradigm they are going for involves hp being the main defense at high level; more interesting to hit and damage than to miss, goes the theory.)

No idea why +1 shields don't require attunement.

If there were no attunement, though, practically every character would have a 19 constitution from a magic item if they didn't have a 20 from actual stats. And many would settle for it and dump Con to bolster another one instead.

Not to mention many having gauntlets of ogre power and headbands of intellect, too, while they were at it. They become "why not?" items when they can just be worn. Sure, there's cost, but 5e has a lot less to spend gold on.

And, for 'all share one attunement slot,' I would go with tattoos, not Ioun Stones. Ioun Stones are rare enough and have enough caveats for loss that they really don't need attunement on top of it all.

Psyren

2024-02-20, 11:54 AM

The OneD&D version of Supreme Sneak is much better imo - you can give up 1d6 of your sneak attack to become essentially an untouchable sniper as you remain hidden even after attacking as long as you begin and end your turn in 3/4 cover or more. Getting advantage on stealth without a speed penalty is pretty easy (any rogue will be able to grab a familiar scouting buddy and get the Help action for instance) so I'd rather have a feature like this.

Hal

2024-02-20, 12:28 PM

In my game, all non-book items have an optional attunement. That is, an item will be generally usable if you don't attune to it (a +1 sword is still a +1 sword, after all). But you get access to more features of the item if you do attune, such as being able to cast spells from the item or access to powers the item grants.

I've also included more magic items that work kind of like WoW Shaman Totems; activate and place to get an effect, but vulnerable to attack and thus could be removed from the field. I keep thinking my players forgot about these items at all, but they keep showing up to very great effect.

Pex

2024-02-20, 12:45 PM

Suggested Attunement rule tweak: martial characters can attune as many items as their proficiency bonus. (Rogue, fighter, monk, Barbarian, Ranger Paladin).

Casters can attune up to three.

This would IMO bring back some of the high level Fighting Men over time have accumulated a bunch of magical items and through that key aspect of adventuring, close the perceived balance problem in Tiers 3 and 4.

I disapprove of discrimination against a class for the audacity of existing even if the intent is benign. The better solution is don't have magic weapons, armor, and shields require attunement. They're necessities of warriors, so don't 'discriminate' against them either with attunement. No magic item exists without DM's permission so he control how many PCs have. Warriors are only wearing and using one armor and shield anyway. As for weapons, 5E warriors don't need swiss army knives of weapons. Let two-weapon users enjoy their rare perk. The wizard is not charging into battle wielding a greatsword fiendbane & giantbane wearing adamantine full plate and an animated shield. My old paladin, yes, but not the wizard.

Dork_Forge

2024-02-20, 12:55 PM

One, ideally, is not looking at BG3 in isolation, one is directly comparing the two experiences. Ludic Savant boiled down the difference in one moderately lengthy post in the BG3 Martial thread that was floating around the board.

Comparing them in a meaningful way was my point. The OP seemed to basically be saying 'BG3 doesn't have attunement and everyone loves BG3!' BG3 being so drastically different to 5e makes it an entirely different comparison, nevermind that it's a videogame vs a TTRPG, which was my point.

Is Efreeti Chainmail ‘better’ than Plate Mail +3?

It provides immunity to a common damage type for 2 less AC, whilst resistance is easy to get, immunity is not even in this late stage of splat creep. However, something folks often miss is:

Rarity does not equal power. They are correlated, but rarity was never meant to indicate power alone. Like how in real life, some rare things are expensive because of their rarity, whilst others are just obscure trash.

A Ring of Protection is higher rarity than a Cloak of Protection, but they do exactly the same thing. You can infer one is harder to make than the other, or that cloaks are more in demand because they more readily show you have a protective item. But the main thing is this clearly illustrates that rarity and mechanical power are not 1:1.

This might also be a hot take: not all items have to be great or unequivocally good in general. It's okay for stuff to just be conceptually cool, fit a PC RP better, or just be sale fodder. Heck, the reality is that having an item is just better than not having it regardless of it it could be better (of course excepting cursed items).

Mindflayer_Inc

2024-02-20, 01:52 PM

Expertise and Reliable Talent work in tandem with Advantage, not against it.

Trickery Cleric is not relevant unless there is a trickery cleric in your party. And they should probably be using that ability on someone wearing heavy armor.

I agree something like Supreme Sneak should be lower level, but this was the original printing of the edition, where a bonus action attack imposes Exhaustion, and Paladin features required an Action to activate.

But at-will Advantage on Stealth is not bad.

That's like saying the Fighter is fine because it's meant to work in tandem with the Wizard.

Working with something doesn't stop that thing itself from having issues.

I don't know what printing you're talking about but my PHB doesn't have that other stuff you're talking about. (Edit: Neither does the SRD)

Also, again, Trickery Cleric gets at-will stealth gift at level 1 (or 2). Which is, like, 7 to 8 levels earlier.

I guess there's no problem if you're going to handwave wotc's decisions?

Ok.

KorvinStarmast

2024-02-20, 01:55 PM

Supreme Sneak is a low level feature that is placed at level 9. This is indictive of a larger issue of balance. Made a better point than I did. +1. :smallsmile:

It was also a whole lot easier for PCs to die in the early editions, Yes. 2e had the "if you take 50 HP or more from 1 hit / attack/dragon's breath/ you are dead" rule.

No idea why +1 shields don't require attunement. Because it is pointlessly punitive to martial characters. That's why.

And, for 'all share one attunement slot,' I would go with tattoos, not Ioun Stones. Ioun Stones are rare enough and have enough caveats for loss that they really don't need attunement on top of it all. Not with you on that one. The tattoos in Tasha's that have attunement requirements certainly each need an attunement slot. I had one on my lore bard (Shadowfell brand tattoo) that was far more valuable than any of the magic items I had besides the Cubic Gate (legendary).

The OneD&D version of Supreme Sneak is much better imo - you can give up 1d6 of your sneak attack to become essentially an untouchable sniper as you remain hidden even after attacking as long as you begin and end your turn in 3/4 cover or more. Getting advantage on stealth without a speed penalty is pretty easy (any rogue will be able to grab a familiar scouting buddy and get the Help action for instance) so I'd rather have a feature like this. I don't disagree that it's neat feature, it is, but it's also a bit fiddly.

The better solution is don't have magic weapons, armor, and shields require attunement. You'll not get disagreement from me on that one. (Though maybe sentient weapons ought to require attunement? Seems thematically appropriate). Artifacts and legendaries might also be a good case for attunement.

Psyren

2024-02-20, 02:11 PM

I don't know what printing you're talking about but my PHB doesn't have that other stuff you're talking about. (Edit: Neither does the SRD)

I think what he meant was that "advantage on a skill check if you sacrifice half your movement" was considered bonkers powerful enough in 2014 to be worth a 9th-level subclass feature. Compare that to a Soulknife who can simply teleport 4x the distance or more at that level without any components, likely foregoing the need to even make a check in the first place.

Comparing them in a meaningful way was my point. The OP seemed to basically be saying 'BG3 doesn't have attunement and everyone loves BG3!' BG3 being so drastically different to 5e makes it an entirely different comparison, nevermind that it's a videogame vs a TTRPG, which was my point.

This is a much more succinct version of my stance as well.

Segev

2024-02-20, 03:09 PM

Because it is pointlessly punitive to martial characters. That's why.

I'm not sure that argument can't be made for just about any attunement item. "It's pointlessly punitive to X characters." A +1 shield goes a long way towards breaking bounded accuracy, which is a concern in a lot of the design of the game.

That said, I'm not complaining that they don't require attunement. It's just a point of interest.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 03:10 PM

That's like saying the Fighter is fine because it's meant to work in tandem with the Wizard.

Working with something doesn't stop that thing itself from having issues.
You said it invalidates Expertise and Reliable Talent, which doesn't make sense. I corrected you by saying it works in tandem with them, which it does. Expertise gives you the higher bonus, Reliable Talent gives you a minimum roll, and Advantage gives you twice the chances of rolling high, or cancels out Disadvantage if you have it for any reason.

I don't know what printing you're talking about but my PHB doesn't have that other stuff you're talking about. (Edit: Neither does the SRD)
The berserker gets a bonus action attack at the cost of Exhaustion, whereas now virtually everything can weaponize their bonus action without the onerous penalty. The paladin thing is actually more a mixed bag so not as useful to my point as I thought.

Also, again, Trickery Cleric gets at-will stealth gift at level 1 (or 2). Which is, like, 7 to 8 levels earlier.
Yes, there's a long tradition of giving casters lots of goodies that other classes deserve more. If you're coming to that protest with a cardboard sign, get in line because you're behind me.

You said the feature is a scam. I don't know what that means but the existence of better features doesn't make another feature a "scam". You are putting forth what you perceive to be an idealized scenario, where a level 12 multiclassed rogue can Stealth better than a single classed level 9 rogue, or a level 11 rogue with a cleric ally can stealth better than a lone level 9 rogue. I mean... you're not wrong that these other higher level rogues that multiclass or make use of a specific type of cleric party member can do it better than the lower level rogue without those other things.

I guess there's no problem if you're going to handwave wotc's decisions?
There is a problem. I agreed with you that it's a low level feature that comes online too late. I explained that the early edition of the game was much more conservative, just as an explanation, not even as a point of disagreement.

I just disagree with the normie online vitriol of "this is garbage, casters do it better". "Oh, if you have this specific party member, or multiclass into this specific thing, and also if you're level 11 and have this feature, then obviously this other thing sucks". Yeah, sure. Not very compelling to me but I know this type of talk has swayed countless others.

KorvinStarmast

2024-02-20, 03:12 PM

I'm not sure that argument can't be made for just about any attunement item. "It's pointlessly punitive to X characters." A +1 shield goes a long way towards breaking bounded accuracy, which is a concern in a lot of the design of the game. Hardly. How much Tier 3 play have you experienced as a martial character?

Higher CR critters have substantial to hit bonuses.
You can, for example, have armor class of 21 (Full plate, shield +1) and the thrown boulders of giants, or the 6d6 damage of the Fire Giant's great sword hit with some frequency. Trust me, I have been there and done that.

That said, I'm not complaining that they don't require attunement. It's just a point of interest. Got it.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 03:22 PM

I agree with Korvin. Monsters just land hits like crazy. Though I've seen some argue the point that this is intended.

In fact, despite that being the case, my DM just confided in me that he feels these levels (we're level 14) are a bit unwieldy and he is struggling to challenge us and may wrap the game up soon.

Segev

2024-02-20, 03:25 PM

Hardly. How much Tier 3 play have you experienced as a martial character?

Higher CR critters have substantial to hit bonuses.
You can, for example, have armor class of 21 (Full plate, shield +1) and the thrown boulders of giants, or the 6d6 damage of the Fire Giant's great sword hit with some frequency. Trust me, I have been there and done that.
Got it.

Oh, certainly. At high-tier play, having an AC that can get you more than a 25% being-missed rate seems to be nigh impossible by design. Again, by that point, your mountain of hp is your defense against attacks, not your AC.

By tier 3, you'd probably need a +2 or +3 shield to really risk breaking that curve, but by the same token, the curve's purpose is to keep the low-end stuff relevant at high level. That is, it doesn't matter that your 25 AC is hit on a 9+ by the high-end monsters; it's breaking bounded accuracy because the goblins now basically can't hit you. But goblins were always supposed to have a better-than-5% chance of hitting almost everybody in 5e; again, it's their low damage numbers that make them a non-issue (except in large numbers).

All of it is more art than science, but I do stand by the assertion that a +1 shield is one of several starting points for breaking bounded accuracy's assumptions. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does go into my question about the choice whether or not to require attunement. And why that doesn't, but a Ring of Protection does, for instance.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 03:32 PM

I think the fact that the items exist in the first place indicates that this will always be an issue, Bounded Accuracy or not.

It would be simple enough to not include stat boosting items, and typing in giant font "DON'T INCLUDE THESE ITEMS IN YOUR GAME".

Instead, these items are printed, they don't require attunement, and they're included in random treasure charts. Seems counter-productive.

With regards to goblins... does Bounded Accuracy work in this regard equally between goblins and high level fighters/barbarians, and goblins and high level casters?

Segev

2024-02-20, 03:47 PM

With regards to goblins... does Bounded Accuracy work in this regard equally between goblins and high level fighters/barbarians, and goblins and high level casters?

If anything, high-level casters are more vulnerable to them, due to lower hp pools and less likelyhood of breaking bounded accuracy. In terms of "you just can't get to them" defenses, mages and non-mages have roughly the same options wrt goblins.

Part of bounded accuracy, too, is the DC of spells and the like; casters having theirs held low is part of why sometimes even a goblin will make a saving through vs. dominate person.

Amnestic

2024-02-20, 03:51 PM

casters having theirs held low is part of why sometimes even a goblin will make a saving through vs. dominate person.

Though with the +save DC items (which existed in core through Rod of the Pact Keeper, but got expanded in Tasha's) it is now reasonably possible for tier 3-4 characters to have 'unsaveable' spells for some enemies.

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 03:53 PM

Segev

2024-02-20, 03:56 PM

Yeah it seems to me that a high level fighter will have more trouble with a horde of goblins thanks to Bounded Accuracy than a high level wizard lobbing normal fireballs, which kill the goblins even if the wizard rolls below average damage and the goblins make their saving throws.

Where is the bounded accuracy? :smallconfused:

Fair question, but the same fighter will generally have an easier time with the high-end single monster than the same wizard will, because wizards have always been better with hordes than with single threats.

Neither is helpless against either threat, but the wizard will have to work at it with the single monster. Especially if it hits him in the immunity zone (e.g. too stupid to fall for Tasha's hideous laughter if that's a go-to, or immune to Charm, or the like).

JackPhoenix

2024-02-20, 04:51 PM

Is Efreeti Chainmail ‘better’ than Plate Mail +3?

While not everyone uses them, I'd like to point out that by the DMG random treasure tables, plate armor +3 together with half plate +3 share the privilege of being THE rarest magic items in the game (obviously ignoring artifacts, as those won't show up randomly), with Efreeti Chainmail being 12 times as likely to show up as a random treasure (and that's still just 1% chance in the highest treasure table).

elyktsorb

2024-02-20, 04:59 PM

Not sure how good that level 9 feature is, as I've not played a level 10+ rogue/thief. Depends on the game, I guess.

Just here to echo that Supreme Sneak does in fact suck. 2 levels later Reliable Talent makes it very worthless, and the chances of you not having some way of getting advantage on stealth checks by level 9 is very very small.

Getting access to Pass Without Trace on a Rogue is far more a goal to me than getting Supreme Sneak.

LudicSavant

2024-02-20, 05:12 PM

With regards to Supreme Sneak... I don't see the issue. It's in the PHB, so before the power escalation splats came out.

*snip*

It's not the best thing ever, but it has its uses.

It's better than nothing, but it is worse than many other abilities in the same niche, including in the PHB.

Those who are best at stealth are generally good at evading auto-detection circumstances (hiding while observed, foiling divinations, foiling special senses, etc), or at bringing their party with them on stealth escapades (Pass Without Trace being one of the biggest examples of this), in addition to having rock solid Stealth bonuses (like Advantage/etc).

In combat, on the other hand, if you have the ability to hide, this grants Advantage, which may cancel whatever Disadvantage the DM may impose for trying to hide in the middle of a melee while you're stabbing people.

Trying to hide while observed just results in an automatic failure, unless you have one of the features that specifically lets you do so. Supreme Sneak is not one of those abilities.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/445485023299108875/1209625541129535488/image.png?ex=65e79a92&is=65d52592&hm=bb154d332d29d15558ca1cd5a6ff7c031e11d5df03633a5 f03bab9b491ac87d1&

Goobahfish

2024-02-20, 05:41 PM

So, I generally agree.

There are two 'kinds' of magic items. There are buffing items, and there are flexibility items. The iconic '+1 mace' which is mainstay of D&D... is pretty bad design. It is easy to understand (+1 to two rolls... like having +2 Strength), but all it does is fiddle with the balance of the game. Now, certain challenges are easier or harder whether you do or don't have this +1 bonus. The bonus depends on your DM handing out said item of the correct type. Having a +1 weapon also locks characters in to certain weapon types (for optimisation), inevitably narrowing play.

A much more 'interesting' item is a sword that can 'burst into flames 1/day for 1 minute'. Instead of just shifting the power curve, now there is some strategic depth. Fire might be more useful in some contexts than others. Do I use it now or save it for later?

Of course, this benefits the 'thinker' player rather than the 'human fighter what do I roll again' player.

Attunement pressures against the flexible items (items which have interesting powers that have limited uses) in favour of the reliable 'always useful' item. It also biases towards 'biggest brightest item'. For example, if different items had different attunement costs, you could choose to have two smaller items or one bigger item. Instead we have the simplistic 3 and no more system.

So yeah, I think Schwann is right. I think getting rid of the 'static bonus items' (like they coincidentally seemed to have done with feats) would solve 95% of the problem of magic items allowing for far more utility items that aren't scrolls and potions.

Ozreth

2024-02-20, 05:44 PM

Being decked out in magic items was never problematic.
The problem was that 3.X design purposely included "system mastery" as a design point, so specific magic items always won out in importance.
Wearing two rings, bracers, a cloak, armor, a headband, a belt, gloves, etc and so on, by itself, is fine. The fact that you were "doing it wrong" if that cloak wasn't a Cloak of Resistance, that ring wasn't a Ring of Protection, that headband wasn't a "Headband of *Stat*," that amulet wasn't "Amulet of Nat Armor," etc etc was the real problem.

Interesting magic items always had to take a back seat to stat boosts in order to keep up with the silliness of the math as the game progressed. Magic items didn't feel like fun rewards, but like requirements.

I would also say that this feels true of 3.5 due to the edition having been prevalent and popular for so long that it had time to be dissected like no other system has. Over time conversations like this became the focus of the game. Yeah there is some system mastery built into the game, but I would say a quote from Monte Cook about this design philosophy was taken and largely exaggerated over the years. The game works just fine when you choose interesting magic items and don't follow the "must-have" lists. These arguments really only play out in reality when you're playing with min-maxers who know what they are doing. The sheer amount of items and options in 3.5 were bound to result in some being better than the others. Combine that with so many people playing, discussing and abusing this edition, you're bound to end up with obvious "better" choices, if numbers are your group and DM's focus.

But, I also don't relate to the increasing focus on balance in a game that is inherently un-balanced by the nature of being a role playing game. Its a wash in the end, and the games that are uber focused on balance end up feeling stale and samey to me (4e and PF2e come to mind).

Dr.Samurai

2024-02-20, 06:23 PM

It's better than nothing, but it is worse than many other abilities in the same niche, including in the PHB.
Yes but at some point this is irrelevant. Whether there are better ways to do something doesn't mean this way doesn't do anything.

Those who are best at stealth are generally good at evading auto-detection circumstances (hiding while observed, foiling divinations, foiling special senses, etc), or at bringing their party with them on stealth escapades (Pass Without Trace being one of the biggest examples of this), in addition to having rock solid Stealth bonuses (like Advantage/etc).
I am, of course, not suggesting that Supreme Sneak makes you the "best" at Stealth, so I don't have to defend this idea. I'll note though that you consider Advantage a "rock solid Stealth bonus", and Supreme Sneak does provide that.

Trying to hide while observed just results in an automatic failure, unless you have one of the features that specifically lets you do so.
Yes, hence the qualifier in that very same post you quoted "In combat... assuming you have the ability to hide...". Invisible characters, heavy obscurement from a fog or Darkness, the wild elf feature in the right terrain, Skulker and dim lighting, etc. all of these could allow you to hide while in combat.

Supreme Sneak is not one of those abilities.
And I never said it was.

KorvinStarmast

2024-02-20, 08:56 PM

Dear colleagues:

If, as I had suggested, the UMD arrived at level 9 what should be fit into the Thief archetype of rogue such that it is a good level 13 ability.
(Fighter gets a second Indomitable, for example,

Indomitable
you can reroll a saving throw that you fail. If you do so, you must use the new roll, and you can’t use this feature again until you finish a long rest.
Monk gets Tongue of the Sun and Moon)...keeping in mind that this thread isn't really about the Thief/Rogue, but about magical items.

Tongue of the Sun and Moon
Starting at 13th level, you learn to touch the ki of other minds so that you understand all spoken languages. Moreover, any creature that can understand a language can understand what you say.
Barbarian Gets Brutal Critical.

What 13th level ability would be good for a Thief/Rogue such that is removed the need for some magic or magical item?
(Tongue of the sun and moon is more or less an At Will Tongues spell at third level)
Tongues

3rd-level divination | Casting Time: 1 action | Range: Touch | Components: V, M (a small clay model of a ziggurat)
Duration: 1 hour
This spell grants the creature you touch the ability to understand any spoken language it hears. Moreover, when the target speaks, any creature that knows at least one language and can hear the target understands what it says.

Ranger and Paladin get a 4th level spell slot.

Dork_Forge

2024-02-20, 09:10 PM

Dear colleagues:
If, as I had suggested, the UMD arrived at level 9

YEAH, bring back UMD, they were so cute. Wait we aren't talking about the PSP. >.>

...what should be fit into the Thief archetype of rogue such that it is a good level 13 ability. (Fighter gets a second Indomitable, for example, Monk gets Tongue of the Sun and Moon)...keeping in mind that this thread isn't really about the Thief/Rogue, but about magical items.

What 13th level ability would be good for a Thief/Rogue such that is removed the need for some magic or magical item?
(Tongue of the sun and moon is more or less an At Will Tongues spell at third level)

Honestly I'd want to see more support for the Batmanesque playstyle the Thief so much embodies at heart with Second Story Work and Fast Hands. An ability that raises the DC of items like ball bearings and caltrops, whilst officially codifying new options like the pocket sand, tangle foot bag, bolo etc.

Amechra

2024-02-20, 10:28 PM

If i remember the kinds of conversations that coined "magical Christmas tree" correctly... they actually had very little to do with mechanical balance (though the fact that you had to use magic items to keep up with the system math in 3e and 4e definitely contributed). It was really about the aesthetic. Quite a few people were frustrated with how high level characters ended up looking like tacky magpies who positively dripped with gaudy trinkets and shone like the dang sun for anyone who could see magic.

You don't attune to boring +number items because those are things you pre-calculate on your sheet and then forget about. You attune to cool items because having too many of them at once makes them feel less special. Making players choose between +3 plate and Efreeti Chain is operator error on the part of the DM.

(It feels a little wrong saying "cool" items because D&D's magic items are traditionally weirdly boring. Like, D&D somehow makes flaming swords boring. What are you doing, D&D?)

Bohandas

2024-02-20, 11:09 PM

LudicSavant

2024-02-21, 01:07 AM

Dear colleagues:

If, as I had suggested, the UMD arrived at level 9 what should be fit into the Thief archetype of rogue such that it is a good level 13 ability.
(Fighter gets a second Indomitable, for example,

Monk gets Tongue of the Sun and Moon)...keeping in mind that this thread isn't really about the Thief/Rogue, but about magical items.

Barbarian Gets Brutal Critical.

What 13th level ability would be good for a Thief/Rogue such that is removed the need for some magic or magical item?
(Tongue of the sun and moon is more or less an At Will Tongues spell at third level)
Tongues

Ranger and Paladin get a 4th level spell slot.

If you ask me, Thief UMD shouldn't be taking up a full feature slot as is. Why not? Well, one of the reasons is because Arcane Trickster gets most (not all, but most) of the benefits just by virtue of being a spellcaster and thus being able to use all the "must be a spellcaster" items. Another is because the locked items aren't so much better than if you just, well, found different items.

You can give it to them earlier, and also give them something else too, at the same level.

Psyren

2024-02-21, 11:35 AM

OneD&D Thief's UMD is changing too. You get an extra attunement slot, a chance to use charged items without expending the charges, and the ability to use spell scrolls with an Arcana check (or automatically if they are 1st-level or lower.)

You lose access to other class-restricted items but as stated, outside of scrolls that list tends to be more situational anyway, e.g. I doubt many thieves will be hankering for a Rod of the Pact Keeper.

Inquisitor

2024-02-21, 11:41 AM

Pex

2024-02-21, 12:58 PM

You'll not get disagreement from me on that one. (Though maybe sentient weapons ought to require attunement? Seems thematically appropriate). Artifacts and legendaries might also be a good case for attunement.

Nods. To put a label on it, even for warriors, legendary weapons and armor could be appropriate for attunement. It is relevant as to what weapons & armor are valid to be called legendary. For example, while I agree +3 plate mail is significantly powerful, subjectively it doesn't scream legendary to me to require attunement. Since in this hypothetical we're redesigning might as well go all in redesigning rarity status. I agree with the point above that's there's no significant difference between a cloak of protection and ring of protection despite their difference in rarity.

It is also important to acknowledge that while warriors could use some love in buffing it's important not to go overboard and give them everything all the POWR! Similar to how nerfing spellcasters a little isn't outrageous, but don't make them The Suck now no one wants to play one.

I'm not sure that argument can't be made for just about any attunement item. "It's pointlessly punitive to X characters." A +1 shield goes a long way towards breaking bounded accuracy, which is a concern in a lot of the design of the game.

That said, I'm not complaining that they don't require attunement. It's just a point of interest.

This can be addressed by no magic item exists without DM approval. Meaning, this is where the DMG should offer helpful advice that even though a +1 shield doesn't need attuning the DM should not be handing them out like candy. Rarity and bounded accuracy still matter. It is a boon to warriors, but the DMG should instruct on the impact the magic item will have on the game anyway. It is a nice gift for the warrior. Here is how it affects the game.

Psyren

2024-02-21, 01:12 PM

This thread brings up a houserule we've been using that's relevant:
'Concentration' is effectively a 4th attunement slot. So, if you have no intention of casting a concentration spell you can attune to 4 items. It tends to help (non-casting) martials late game.

I've seen this houserule before and I actually find it interesting. Have you been allowing that concentration to be breakable?

Dalinar

2024-02-21, 06:16 PM

As mentioned by others, there are a few problems posed by having a billion magic items. Game balance is one (you can't reasonably catch every outlier before it's printed), cognitive load is another, and aesthetics are a third ("why yes I do have a holy avenger and this weird bone plate I stole from a necromancer why do you ask").

On the other hand, having only three attunement slots is rough from an "I can't use this reward" standpoint.

IMO a good middle ground is upgradable magic items. Fizban's introduced a handful, though the upgrade method was really niche ("steeped in a dragon hoard for X amount of time"), and there are plenty of "rarity varies" items scattered through the books to which a similar system could also be applied. WoW solved this problem with disenchanting--destroy an unwanted magic item, get materials that can be used to improve the stats on another--but that's only one idea. One might have a spell that does it, or a location in your game with unique properties (hidden lake in the forest that can upgrade Feywild-themed items, for example), or you can use crafting rules similar to what's in Xanathar's. Maybe you even have a branching upgrade path for some, who knows. Lots of game design room here.

ZRN

2024-02-21, 07:17 PM

Depends on how you define, "better."

Magic is a tool that a regular dude uses to effect. Without using that magic, there is nothing special about a Wizard; still just a person with all the ups/downs/expectations of being a person.
If "making martials better" means making them into something approaching demigods or anime characters, you suddenly have this weird disconnect where some regular dudes become superhuman while other regular dudes stay regular, despite having a toolbox full of powerful magic to wield. Why aren't the Wizards becoming demigods/anime characters on top of being wizards?

The cleanest default is that everyone starts and paths along the same playing field, their only differences being the tools they use. Or, in other words, it's the same reason you don't let one player be a human Mage and then, to make up for it, let another player be a full grown adult Red Dragon.

But, since a grenade is more powerful than a pokey stick (ie: magic vs non-magic), then you have to balance everything by giving magic to everyone. If the class can't cast spells, then they have to get it elsewhere.
If the argument is "pokey sticks should be equal to grenades," I don't know how to have that discussion.

Dude... what?

1. How is the "cleanest default" that one guy is a Regular Dude with a Stick and the other guy is a Regular Dude with a Grenade? If you're giving one guy a stick and another guy a grenade, surely the stick guy should have some other advantages, or how is he the same level as grenade guy?. And it sounds like your solution is to, uh, give the stick guy mini-grenades?

3. Since "grenades" are entirely imaginary it's perfectly valid to say "pokey sticks should be equal to grenades." Heck, that's kind of how the game is actually balanced? Like a level 15 fighter does more single-target damage than a level 15 wizard most of the time.

Inquisitor

2024-02-21, 11:57 PM

I've seen this houserule before and I actually find it interesting. Have you been allowing that concentration to be breakable?

I haven't, but you raise a good point; it certainly could be breakable.

Schwann145

2024-02-22, 02:27 AM

Dude... what?

1. How is the "cleanest default" that one guy is a Regular Dude with a Stick and the other guy is a Regular Dude with a Grenade? If you're giving one guy a stick and another guy a grenade, surely the stick guy should have some other advantages, or how is he the same level as grenade guy?. And it sounds like your solution is to, uh, give the stick guy mini-grenades?

(2). Since "grenades" are entirely imaginary it's perfectly valid to say "pokey sticks should be equal to grenades." Heck, that's kind of how the game is actually balanced? Like a level 15 fighter does more single-target damage than a level 15 wizard most of the time.

1) Because the expectation is that you are a regular person living in this (usually fantasy-themed) world. You don't have to follow that expectation if you don't want, but it's what the game assumes, and there are games much better tailored to deviating into extreme fantasy alternatives if that's your preference.
Additionally, because it's a team-based roleplaying game first and foremost. Not everything is meant to be balanced against one another. Sticks have their appropriate time and place, and grenades have their appropriate time and place, and the user of each will appreciate the presence of the other.

2) Again, if you want to play that game, go for it. It's not the expectation for 5e D&D, but you do you. If all character options need to be balanced and/or equal, and you're unwilling to step away from D&D, I'd recommend 4th Edition.

Dork_Forge

2024-02-22, 06:54 PM

1) Because the expectation is that you are a regular person living in this (usually fantasy-themed) world. You don't have to follow that expectation if you don't want, but it's what the game assumes, and there are games much better tailored to deviating into extreme fantasy alternatives if that's your preference.
Additionally, because it's a team-based roleplaying game first and foremost. Not everything is meant to be balanced against one another. Sticks have their appropriate time and place, and grenades have their appropriate time and place, and the user of each will appreciate the presence of the other.

Err, what part of the game gave you the impression that PCs are regular people?

Schwann145

2024-02-23, 04:08 AM

Err, what part of the game gave you the impression that PCs are regular people?

Reading the PHB did. For example, the description of what Ability Scores represent and, further, how you generate them.
Also, an understanding that the default assumed setting (Forgotten Realms) is a setting designed with the idea, "there is *always* a bigger fish than you, regardless of how powerful you become," firmly entrenched in it's writing and lore.

KorvinStarmast

2024-02-23, 12:38 PM

Reading the PHB did.
Nope. The Commoner from the MM has 4 HP and average stats. (all 10's, or, all 11's if you add racials to all commoners depending on race). PCs are already (even with that crap sack that is standard array) above average and possessing unique skills.

Schwann145

2024-02-23, 03:50 PM

Nope. The Commoner from the MM has 4 HP and average stats. (all 10's, or, all 11's if you add racials to all commoners depending on race). PCs are already (even with that crap sack that is standard array) above average and possessing unique skills.

I'm not sure what your point is? Are your typical adventurers better than your typical nobodies? Yes. That's true in real life too.

Theodoxus

2024-02-23, 04:13 PM

Sigreid

2024-02-23, 04:16 PM

Darth Credence

2024-02-23, 04:36 PM

I think a lot of people's gripes would be fixed by taking a page from BG3. Let everyone use scrolls and make the ones the DM is willing to be available for purchase. Bonus, you now have plenty to do with your money. I'd say that even a low magic campaign could benefit from this and an occasional potion and scroll shop.

One would think this. One would be wrong when it comes to my group.

I don't think they've ever used a potion. They have hundreds. The only use they have ever gotten out of a scroll is to put it in a spell book. I'm willing to let them create scrolls, and pretty much have unending access to spells. Not sure why they don't, other than I have never sat them all down and said, "Hey, everybody! You do know that you can use a scroll as an action and cast a spell from it, right? Without using a spell slot?" They certainly have the money to make them.

Theodoxus

2024-02-23, 05:34 PM

One would think this. One would be wrong when it comes to my group.

I don't think they've ever used a potion. They have hundreds. The only use they have ever gotten out of a scroll is to put it in a spell book. I'm willing to let them create scrolls, and pretty much have unending access to spells. Not sure why they don't, other than I have never sat them all down and said, "Hey, everybody! You do know that you can use a scroll as an action and cast a spell from it, right? Without using a spell slot?" They certainly have the money to make them.

if your players are at all like mine, they're hording - paralyzed by the thought they might need that potion or scroll more in a scenario down the line.

I'm not against the idea of using consumables, but if they're readily available, it begs the question who is creating them. Factory farmed Artificers in Thay? (Or similar in a homebrew world.)

If your game has a ready answer that works, great. Making it universal across the board... less so.

Schwann145

2024-02-23, 08:41 PM

Your comments don't follow, Shwann... unless you read Dork_Forge's comment to say "PC's aren't regular people".

He asked 'what part of the game gave you the impression that PCs are regular people.'

You replied, the PHB, and went on to explain why they're nothing like regular people.

Korvin basically said 'wtf', commoners are nothing like PCs

You said exactly!

Someone is definitely confused... and it's either you, or the reader. :smallconfused:

On the contrary, actually. "Commoner NPC" is not the be-all, end-all of what constitutes a "regular person."
•The Bandit is just a Commoner that took up a life of crime, yet has better stats and almost triple the HP. They're also "regular people."
•The Gladiator is just a Commoner that fights in the pits/arena/whatever for money/because they're a slave/etc, yet has better stats and over 25x the HP. They're still "regular people."
•The Noble is just a Commoner with a ton of money, yet they have more than double the HP. Still a "regular person."
•The Guard, the Veteran, the Archmage... and yes, the PC too; on and on, all still regular people.

None of them break the expectation for what a "person" is, despite being of varying ability and capability. None are superhuman, none are deities, etc. They all fall when gravity calls. They all have to poop when nature calls.
Regular people.

JNAProductions

2024-02-23, 10:38 PM

On the contrary, actually. "Commoner NPC" is not the be-all, end-all of what constitutes a "regular person."
•The Bandit is just a Commoner that took up a life of crime, yet has better stats and almost triple the HP. They're also "regular people."
•The Gladiator is just a Commoner that fights in the pits/arena/whatever for money/because they're a slave/etc, yet has better stats and over 25x the HP. They're still "regular people."
•The Noble is just a Commoner with a ton of money, yet they have more than double the HP. Still a "regular person."
•The Guard, the Veteran, the Archmage... and yes, the PC too; on and on, all still regular people.

None of them break the expectation for what a "person" is, despite being of varying ability and capability. None are superhuman, none are deities, etc. They all fall when gravity calls. They all have to poop when nature calls.
Regular people.

Yes, people who can survive a fall from orbit, then kill a black bear in about six seconds is perfectly normal.
That's the CR 5 Gladiator. Enough HP to survive a fall from any height more than 99.9% of the time, and with a simple spear, enough damage to kill a bear in one action. With an attack to spare, oftentimes.

Schwann145

2024-02-23, 11:54 PM

Yes, people who can survive a fall from orbit, then kill a black bear in about six seconds is perfectly normal.
That's the CR 5 Gladiator. Enough HP to survive a fall from any height more than 99.9% of the time, and with a simple spear, enough damage to kill a bear in one action. With an attack to spare, oftentimes.

Quirks of the mechanical side of the game notwithstanding, my assertion stands that the PC is still assumed to be a person, and not something greater.

Crusher

2024-02-24, 01:23 AM

So yeah, I think Schwann is right. I think getting rid of the 'static bonus items' (like they coincidentally seemed to have done with feats) would solve 95% of the problem of magic items allowing for far more utility items that aren't scrolls and potions.

In theory, yes, but in practice I'm not so sure. A lot of the items in the DMG suck for various reasons, the single most common issue (besides a total lack of structure in how magic items should be viewed/created/valued, making them a bunch of idiosyncratic one-offs when we should be way, way past that) is that they do something of significant value, but only once/long rest and its only sporadically useful at that. Things like the Circlet of Blasting, which seems like it'd be cool, but is basically an extra 2nd level spell slot per long rest, and if you're above level 4 or 5 isn't super likely to be valuable (unless you give it to the Rogue).

Something BG3 does really well (setting aside caster vs martial balance) is make magic items *interesting*. Sure, sometimes that results in items (or combinations of items) that are wildly OP (in part because you know exactly what's available and where it all is, so you can plan stuff out meticulously). But there are a ton of non-OP *FUN* magic items in BG3. Sure, the ring that blesses everyone you heal for 2 rounds is wildly OP, but the helm that heals the caster for 1d6 every time they heal someone else, or the ring that gives you a +1 AC when you shove someone, definitely aren't OP but are more interesting than 80% of the items you'll find in the DMG.

The biggest issue with using them is that the game isn't there to track all the fiddly effects for you, and its easy for for those random small effects to slip through the cracks, especially if you have like 5 of them all doing different things.

Anyway, my point is that if you gave the characters a bunch of magic items like *that* instead of +1 weapons and armor, it'd be more fun (once everyone got used to tracking everything). But giving everyone Daggers of Venom and Tridents of Fish Command instead might not achieve that result.

Sigreid

2024-02-24, 01:35 PM

if your players are at all like mine, they're hording - paralyzed by the thought they might need that potion or scroll more in a scenario down the line.

I'm not against the idea of using consumables, but if they're readily available, it begs the question who is creating them. Factory farmed Artificers in Thay? (Or similar in a homebrew world.)

If your game has a ready answer that works, great. Making it universal across the board... less so.

I am that guy that in computer games dies with roughly 500 health and mana potions in my inventory because "I might need them more later", while fully aware it's dumb. lol

Blatant Beast

2024-02-24, 03:46 PM

Yes, people who can survive a fall from orbit, then kill a black bear in about six seconds is perfectly normal..

A Serbian Air Steward, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87), survived a fall of 33,000 feet, after the plane she was on exploded.

Uncapped Falling Damage, is a very, very common house rule, in my personal experience, (across multiple editions). Conflating capped failing damage, more importantly, as being analogous to a fall from orbit, is overlooking all the other great rules a DM has at their disposal to represent something a bit more accurate to reality. :)

A PC with a 20 Constitution score can hold their breath for 6 minutes. Passing through the Atmosphere, takes around 5 to 10 minutes, (I believe). Conceptually, the hardiest PC, if ejected straight into the atmosphere, might be able to hold their breath through re-entry. That is cool.

Now a PC in space, based off the Improvising Damage table from page 249 of the Dungeon Master's Guide, could be taking as much as 18d10 cold damage per round (around 106 average damage), from being in the vacuum of space.

This number was arrived at, by taking the same damage dice recommended for being submerged in lava on that aforementioned page, and converting the damage to Cold damage.

Now, once the PC enters the Atmosphere, it seems reasonable to rule that atmospheric entry burn is similar enough to lava immersion, to convert the per round damage to 18d10 Fire Damage.

The cold vacuum of space, or the intense heat of atmospheric entry, both seem like extreme hazards, so calls to make Exhaustion saving throws seem reasonable: for the sake of the example, the Exhaustion Save DC is 18. I am curious if someone would work out the following calculation:

How Likely is it that a 20 level PC, with 20 Constitution, and thus a +11 bonus to the Exhaustion Saving Throw Roll with a DC of 18, would achieve 6 Saving Throw Roll Failures in a sample of 30 rolls.

This would simulate the PC needing to make 3 minutes of Exhaustion Saving Throws for being either in the vacuum of space or in the atmosphere.

JNAProductions

2024-02-24, 03:49 PM

Schwann145

2024-02-24, 05:25 PM

A DM can also say “Your character has a heart attack and dies.”

The point is that a Gladiator can survive a fall of any height without meaningful impact on their combat ability, which is sufficient to kill a bear in six seconds with a simple spear.

Relative to the real world, they’re superhuman.

Or, relative to the real world, the bear is vastly subpar.
And I'd absolutely love to hear the devs' take on orbital falls being *intentional* or not. I'd bet all the tea in China that it's an unintended quirk of mechanics and not RAI.

Blatant Beast

2024-02-24, 07:14 PM

A DM can also say “Your character has a heart attack and dies.”.

Which is nothing at all like the scenario I described above. Falling in D&D, is, and has always been odd at the extremes.

Anything with over 80 Hit Points, can technically fall from any height and have no impact to their combat ability. In 5e D&D…many CR 2 creatures are ‘superhuman’ by real world standards.

A Werewolf is a CR 3 creature. The Gladiator at CR 5, is a literal bad ass.

Hit Points, as originally designed in prior versions, only represented a small part of a character’s resilience. Extreme damage, like falling into lava, lethal poison, and so forth had a their own Saving Throw catergories that bypassed Hit Points.

The 5e Exhaustion and Suffocation rules are the sort of the last vestige of Hit Points not being the sole determinant of resilience.

KorvinStarmast

2024-02-25, 09:02 PM

Goobahfish

2024-02-25, 09:51 PM

In theory, yes, but in practice I'm not so sure. A lot of the items in the DMG suck for various reasons, the single most common issue (besides a total lack of structure in how magic items should be viewed/created/valued, making them a bunch of idiosyncratic one-offs when we should be way, way past that) is that they do something of significant value, but only once/long rest and its only sporadically useful at that. Things like the Circlet of Blasting, which seems like it'd be cool, but is basically an extra 2nd level spell slot per long rest, and if you're above level 4 or 5 isn't super likely to be valuable (unless you give it to the Rogue).

Something BG3 does really well (setting aside caster vs martial balance) is make magic items *interesting*. Sure, sometimes that results in items (or combinations of items) that are wildly OP (in part because you know exactly what's available and where it all is, so you can plan stuff out meticulously). But there are a ton of non-OP *FUN* magic items in BG3. Sure, the ring that blesses everyone you heal for 2 rounds is wildly OP, but the helm that heals the caster for 1d6 every time they heal someone else, or the ring that gives you a +1 AC when you shove someone, definitely aren't OP but are more interesting than 80% of the items you'll find in the DMG.

The biggest issue with using them is that the game isn't there to track all the fiddly effects for you, and its easy for for those random small effects to slip through the cracks, especially if you have like 5 of them all doing different things.

Anyway, my point is that if you gave the characters a bunch of magic items like *that* instead of +1 weapons and armor, it'd be more fun (once everyone got used to tracking everything). But giving everyone Daggers of Venom and Tridents of Fish Command instead might not achieve that result.

Yeah, I did find the DMG magic items largely underwhelming. The best items I have found are either the ones that have a cool iconic use (Hat of Vermin is a hilariously not that useful in combat but ok in exploration item, Professor Orb etc.) or have a 'I want to build a character around this' kind of utility. The latter are pretty lacking.

JackPhoenix

2024-02-25, 10:31 PM

They are NPCs with a CR. They are monsters.

So is the commoner, it's just that in their case, the CR is 0.

Schwann145

2024-02-25, 10:47 PM

If having a CR makes you a "monster" then there is no such thing as a "person" in D&D; even PCs have a CR.

I find that to be an utterly ridiculous notion, however.

Psyren

2024-02-26, 01:09 AM

I think we're losing the plot a bit with this side argument.

Putting aside the BG3 comparison (as noted, BG3 and TTRPG 5e aren't really comparable in that way), the original exchange that started this tangent was:

Interesting magic items always had to take a back seat to stat boosts in order to keep up with the silliness of the math as the game progressed. Magic items didn't feel like fun rewards, but like requirements.
But, also, magic items *are* requirements - required to bridge that martial/caster disparity.

And that's where attunement's failure comes in.
By introducing attunement to fix the "christmas tree problem" (when the actual problem was never the tree, but the required ornaments for the tree), we are stuck in a design space where, even with heavy nerfs to magic, the disparity between magic and mundane is still a chasm.

Wouldn’t the solution to “Martials drool, casters rule!” Be to make martials better?
Like, not just with items. Just make them better in the classes themselves.

This of course has led us down the well-trod path of "how much better can you make the martials without turning them into anime characters, or muscle wizards, or casters by another name," or whatever other vision for 'better' D&D martials that remains polarizing to this day.

While I'm not saying we can't discuss that subtopic to death yet again, I think the more direct question being asked by this thread is, assuming the persistence of some kind of inherent gap between spellcaster classes and non-spellcasters, (a) should magic items play a role in narrowing that gap, and if so, (b) does the current itemization system in 5e, including attunement, do enough to help fulfill that role? And if the answer to (b) is no, what could we tweak to help with that?

I don't think a full-on return to BG3/3.5e style magic item slots /paper doll is the solution, but I also don't think every class getting the exact same 3 attunement slots is ideal either. I think in 5.5e, either fewer magic items that are clearly earmarked for martials should require attunement (much in the way that +X weapons and armor don't today), or martials should gain extra attunement slots, or both.

JackPhoenix

2024-02-26, 06:14 AM

If having a CR makes you a "monster" then there is no such thing as a "person" in D&D; even PCs have a CR.

I find that to be an utterly ridiculous notion, however.
Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, because "monster" is defined by the game (funnily enough, unlike creature, despite only the later being a mechanical term and the former not being used anywhere else):

What is a Monster?
A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed. Even something as harmless as a frog or as benevolent as a unicorn is a monster by this definition. The term also applies to humans, elves, dwarves, and other civilized folk who might be friends or rivals to the player characters.

Theodoxus

2024-02-26, 10:39 AM

I think we're losing the plot a bit with this side argument.

Putting aside the BG3 comparison (as noted, BG3 and TTRPG 5e aren't really comparable in that way), the original exchange that started this tangent was:

This of course has led us down the well-trod path of "how much better can you make the martials without turning them into anime characters, or muscle wizards, or casters by another name," or whatever other vision for 'better' D&D martials that remains polarizing to this day.

While I'm not saying we can't discuss that subtopic to death yet again, I think the more direct question being asked by this thread is, assuming the persistence of some kind of inherent gap between spellcaster classes and non-spellcasters, (a) should magic items play a role in narrowing that gap, and if so, (b) does the current itemization system in 5e, including attunement, do enough to help fulfill that role? And if the answer to (b) is no, what could we tweak to help with that?

I don't think a full-on return to BG3/3.5e style magic item slots /paper doll is the solution, but I also don't think every class getting the exact same 3 attunement slots is ideal either. I think in 5.5e, either fewer magic items that are clearly earmarked for martials should require attunement (much in the way that +X weapons and armor don't today), or martials should gain extra attunement slots, or both.

A number of OSR systems grant martials an increased number of weapon dice as they level - kind of a call back to 4th Ed. So, even if they're getting extra attacks, they're also gaining additional dice. I think it's a decent compromise between doing more damage without going full wuxia that so many dislike. (It would help IMO, if 5E had an actual wuxia class or at least a couple subclasses, for people who do like that sort of playstyle - which the DM could then embrace or nix on a campaign basis).

If building such an idea from the ground up, I would probably allow the martial to sacrifice a die for a +1 to hit. If additional dice maxed out at PB bonus, you'd essentially get 'expertise' on your attacks (on a graduated scale, since it's not all or nothing). Likewise, I'd allow for magical weapons with +X to hit to translate up to the X to additional dice, becoming less accurate, but more impactful. Obviously, with such a ground up rebuild, things like the Power Attack portion of GWM and SS would need to be revisited too, though I'd probably just nix them completely and turn both into half feats, for the bonus action attack on GWM and the precision of SS.

KorvinStarmast

2024-02-26, 10:52 AM

If having a CR makes you a "monster" then there is no such thing as a "person" in D&D; even PCs have a CR. Every creature that is not a player character is a monster/NPC; something to be encountered. (Not necessarily in combat).
Also, what Jack said.

Blatant Beast

2024-02-26, 11:38 AM

Item slots /paper doll is the solution, but I also don't think every class getting the exact same 3 attunement slots is ideal either. I think in 5.5e, either fewer magic items that are clearly earmarked for martials should require attunement (much in the way that +X weapons and armor don't today), or martials should gain extra attunement slots, or both.

There also might be an issue regarding rebalancing the power level of Magic Items that will likely be used by a martial character.

Magic Items for casters tend to either enhance one’s spell casting by enhancing spell DCs or allowing access to powerful spells.

Spells in 5e, already tend to have a reputation for ‘just working’, versus the heavily Random Number Generator focused existence that a martial PC likely inhabits.

Even vaunted items, such as a Vorpal Blade, that many would consider pinnacle martial Magic items, can go many sessions without a beheading. More importantly, the ease of acquiring Weapon Proficiencies, also means that a Vorpal Blade is not an item that is restricted by class.

I have seen an Elven Artillerist, armed with an active Haste spell and a Vorpal Longsword go snicker-snack and kill Demogorgon in one round with two back to back critical hits.

Meanwhile, the Adventuring Group’s Fighter, also equipped with a Vorpal Blade like effect, with an enhanced proc (instantly kills a foe on a D20 die roll of 18,19, or 20 on the die face), and a constant source Advantage, rolled poorly.

Perhaps items for Martials need to do more than enhance attack rolls and defenses, with the odd randomly determined kill shot.

AD&D Sentient Swords often included a Purpose Power, (such as a sword that hates dragons having extra powers against dragons), coupled with normal numerical enhancements, as well as allowing the wielder to cast a limited number of spells.

Perhaps, martial intended items would benefit from also broadening a martial PC’s ability scope and by offering non RNG abilities that would complement the RNG heavy focus of martial classes.

stoutstien

2024-02-26, 01:03 PM

Every creature that is not a player character is a monster/NPC; something to be encountered. (Not necessarily in combat).
Also, what Jack said.

They messed up when they tried to call relative sapient NPCs... NPCs. It's just causes confusion.

Schwann145

2024-02-26, 01:35 PM

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant, because "monster" is defined by the game (funnily enough, unlike creature, despite only the later being a mechanical term and the former not being used anywhere else):

My point is that this position is throwing away the "role-playing" part entirely, in favor of the "game" part.
Treating D&D like it's a hard coded machine goes directly counter to the spirit (and, ironically, the rules) of the game itself.

KorvinStarmast

2024-02-26, 01:40 PM

They messed up when they tried to call relative sapient NPCs... NPCs. It's just causes confusion. Since the DM/referee/judge plays the roles of all other characters - those which are not the roles played by characters - Non Player Character fits by the reason of accuracy. :smallcool:

Schwann145

2024-02-26, 01:54 PM

stoutstien

2024-02-26, 01:55 PM

Since the DM/referee/judge plays the roles of all other characters - those which are not the roles played by characters - Non Player Character fits by the reason of accuracy. :smallcool:

Yes but then they have monsters that are...also NPCs so it frames them into being used only for stabbing time because they aren't meant to be NPCs. Which is sad.

KorvinStarmast

2024-02-26, 01:57 PM

Yes but then they have monsters that are...also NPCs so it frames them into being used only for stabbing time because they aren't meant to be NPCs. Which is sad. Not every monster needs to be fought. That was true going back to the original game. Parley, reaction rolls, making a deal ...

stoutstien

2024-02-26, 02:13 PM

Not every monster needs to be fought. That was true going back to the original game. Parley, reaction rolls, making a deal ...

Which makes the distinction redundant and serves only to keep calling the DMG the DMG

Psyren

2024-02-26, 04:27 PM

Getting back to the point about attunement:

The largest (and justifiable) complaint that martials have against casters is not a lack of "power," but a lack of diversity of options. Magic grants this diversity of options through spells for casters and through magical abilities and magic items for non-casters.
Attunement then steps in and puts a hard limit on the potential diversity of options granted through items for everyone, but the non-spellcasters are disproportionately affected as non-spell class abilities are never going to offer as many options as spells will.

Adjusting the number of "slots on the paper doll" of attunement access does nothing meaningful to address this imbalance, even if it's a tiny step in the right direction.

Well, there's a broader philosophical question hidden in here. Given that when it comes to diversity of options, casters != martials... is the goal that {martials + items} should have an equal diversity of options to {casters + items?} If not, which capabilities should martials lack even with items?

As a side-argument, the argument that Baldur's Gate and D&D are "too fundamentally different to be compared" is, frankly, silly on it's face.
Tetris and D&D are fundamentally different. Baldur's Gate and D&D are fundamentally the same, with some differences to adjust for the difference in their respective mediums.
It is entirely fair to compare the two for the purposes of this topic, IMO.

You can certainly compare them, but the conclusion that one handled itemization X way and was successful means that the other should also handle itemization X way does not necessarily follow.

There also might be an issue regarding rebalancing the power level of Magic Items that will likely be used by a martial character.

Magic Items for casters tend to either enhance one’s spell casting by enhancing spell DCs or allowing access to powerful spells.

Spells in 5e, already tend to have a reputation for ‘just working’, versus the heavily Random Number Generator focused existence that a martial PC likely inhabits.

Even vaunted items, such as a Vorpal Blade, that many would consider pinnacle martial Magic items, can go many sessions without a beheading. More importantly, the ease of acquiring Weapon Proficiencies, also means that a Vorpal Blade is not an item that is restricted by class.

I have seen an Elven Artillerist, armed with an active Haste spell and a Vorpal Longsword go snicker-snack and kill Demogorgon in one round with two back to back critical hits.

Meanwhile, the Adventuring Group’s Fighter, also equipped with a Vorpal Blade like effect, with an enhanced proc (instantly kills a foe on a D20 die roll of 18,19, or 20 on the die face), and a constant source Advantage, rolled poorly.

Perhaps items for Martials need to do more than enhance attack rolls and defenses, with the odd randomly determined kill shot.

AD&D Sentient Swords often included a Purpose Power, (such as a sword that hates dragons having extra powers against dragons), coupled with normal numerical enhancements, as well as allowing the wielder to cast a limited number of spells.

Perhaps, martial intended items would benefit from also broadening a martial PC’s ability scope and by offering non RNG abilities that would complement the RNG heavy focus of martial classes.

I agree martial gear should do more than +X to attack/defense, add Y% effect on hit.

Sentience aside, "Purpose" sounds like a shift back towards 3.5e's Legacy Weapons - which I'm in favor of, but those are the kinds of items whole campaigns can be built around (see for example Roy Greenhilt's sword). By all means reintroduce those, but I think there's more lightweight ways we can improve martial itemization without going to that extreme too.

Theodoxus

2024-02-26, 05:56 PM

Well, there's a broader philosophical question hidden in here. Given that when it comes to diversity of options, casters != martials... is the goal that {martials + items} should have an equal diversity of options to {casters + items?} If not, which capabilities should martials lack even with items?

Just curious about the general consensus. I know around these parts, The Book of Nine Swords is either loved or loathed with not a lot of 'meh' to be seen. Would it generally be considered better if the more 'magical' effects of the various forms came from magic items instead of base class abilities? Would a sword that spit out little fire bolts because it was magic, not because the practitioner weaved it around quickly, be tolerated? [IIRC, it was the desert/sun powers that bugged people a lot.]

If Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon were explained in such a way that it was the swords that were granting them their wuxia abilities to run up air, jump high, run across tree tops, etc. instead of supreme martial arts... would that be ok?

Just trying to suss out where the breaking point is. Man in the Gym floating on a cloud, not ok. Man in the Gym using a sword to float on a cloud is? (As long as the sword is sufficiently suffused with magic, of course.)

Still essentially means casters rule, martials drool, since said martials are now dependent (probably even more so) on casters making them nice things... And woe betide anyone who realizes that if you can make a thing, you can unmake it, so casters can never really be threatened by martials who use the casters weapons against them... they'll suddenly find their +3 vorpal holy avengers just wet noodles if they use them to strike their maker down...

Personally, not a fan of this route... But I guess there are a lot of folks who want their fighting man to just fight good, but never wield any magic natively.

Schwann145

2024-02-26, 06:09 PM

Just curious about the general consensus. I know around these parts, The Book of Nine Swords is either loved or loathed with not a lot of 'meh' to be seen. Would it generally be considered better if the more 'magical' effects of the various forms came from magic items instead of base class abilities? Would a sword that spit out little fire bolts because it was magic, not because the practitioner weaved it around quickly, be tolerated? [IIRC, it was the desert/sun powers that bugged people a lot.]
I imagine it would go as you'd expect it to: people who prefer "salt of the earth" characters would favor magic items, while people who prefer "superhero" characters would favor magic abilities.

Still essentially means casters rule, martials drool, since said martials are now dependent (probably even more so) on casters making them nice things... And woe betide anyone who realizes that if you can make a thing, you can unmake it, so casters can never really be threatened by martials who use the casters weapons against them... they'll suddenly find their +3 vorpal holy avengers just wet noodles if they use them to strike their maker down...
Nothing says magic item creation (not that it exists anymore anyway... :smallmad: ) must be done by casters.
If Bruenor Battlehammer, a 1e/2e Dwarf (ie: highly magic resistant) Fighter can craft Aegis-fang (a very magical warhammer), then there's no reason it can't be more about the "crafting" and not about the "crafter."

Theodoxus

2024-02-26, 06:33 PM

While true, that's a pretty hefty homebrew option for 5E. Not saying you couldn't borrow the concept from earlier editions, certainly, but then one wonders why all these non-magical crafter types aren't popping out the suits of magical plate that started this thread...

Does remind me of one playthrough of CoS, where the Life Cleric took some battered animated armors and repurposed them for himself. IIRC, they were adamantine, so it took a bit to do, but the group had some downtime while they contemplated how they were going to deal with Strahd.

As long as the crafting system isn't too overbearing, I don't see why it wouldn't work... tracking down materials and unique properties from defeated foes and such... plenty of third party splats in that direction too... just isn't native to the game is all.

Schwann145

2024-02-26, 06:44 PM

Not saying you couldn't borrow the concept from earlier editions, certainly, but then one wonders why all these non-magical crafter types aren't popping out the suits of magical plate that started this thread...
Well, in the settings, they are. It's in the player-facing rules that they're missing. :smallfrown:

Sigreid

2024-02-26, 07:33 PM

IMO, the balance risk isn't that much. I mean, regardless how much you can attune the DM is still the one deciding what you have access to, and doesn't have to give anything they can't handle. So the risk is basically less experienced DMs giving access to too much, which is always the risk, attunement slots or no.

JackPhoenix

2024-02-26, 08:54 PM

There also might be an issue regarding rebalancing the power level of Magic Items that will likely be used by a martial character.

*Snip*

The way I see it, WotC did the attunement the other way than they should've: Make items with pure numeric bonuses require attunement (perhaps even based on the bonus they provide, so +3 armor takes 3 attunement slots, or the caster DC items require double their bonus value in attunement, because they apply to both DCs and attack rolls), because that's the stuff that's both boring and breaks the vaunted bounded accuracy, and let anyone use all the other stuff they can find.

Which makes the distinction redundant and serves only to keep calling the DMG the DMG

What distinction?

Nothing says magic item creation (not that it exists anymore anyway... :smallmad: ) must be done by casters.

DMG does (the Potions of Healing are the only exception, as those are in the PHB), but XGtE crafting rules have no such requirements (except for scrolls). As long as you have the formula and whatever materials are needed, all you need is a proficiency in Arcana OR in appropriate tools.

While true, that's a pretty hefty homebrew option for 5E. Not saying you couldn't borrow the concept from earlier editions, certainly, but then one wonders why all these non-magical crafter types aren't popping out the suits of magical plate that started this thread...

Because even basic +1 armor requires ten weeks and 5000 GP to make (using the XGtE rules that allow non-magical crafter types), not to mention having the formula and getting the special materials that require SOMEONE to deal with something in the 9-12 CR range for an item very few people can afford. So even if they DO have the skill, it's not simple.

Sulicius

2024-02-26, 09:22 PM

Ah, another thread where people just want their PC’s to be more powerful. In other news…

In my experience martials do great at the higher levels with solid magic gear, and they don’t struggle to keep up with spellcasters. If anything, spellcasters get stingy with spell slots, while martials tend to bring it every fight, being far more effective in the long run.

Blatant Beast

2024-02-26, 09:38 PM

Define “solid magical gear”.

Goobahfish

2024-02-26, 10:58 PM

If Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon were explained in such a way that it was the swords that were granting them their wuxia abilities to run up air, jump high, run across tree tops, etc. instead of supreme martial arts... would that be ok?

Just trying to suss out where the breaking point is. Man in the Gym floating on a cloud, not ok. Man in the Gym using a sword to float on a cloud is? (As long as the sword is sufficiently suffused with magic, of course.)

This is a very insightful example.

So my take is:

"Reality" is subjective (between DMs). This is intended (not to rehash an old topic but this is what makes exploration so problematic and thus Martials feel underbaked). "Magic" is allowed to explicitly subvert reality (casters feel interesting in exploration). Some characters are coded as "NOT magical".

This seems to create a baseline where the 'lowest common denominator' (i.e., grounded reality) forces Martials into a kind of 'boring' place rules-wise.

So yeah... I think you are right on the money. Man at the gym with magic item can do... anything. That is fine. Man at the gym without magic item can do nothing (even slightly) 'magical'.

---

The problem then of course comes down to player expectations of what 'magical' means and how inherently magical D&D is. I.e., robin-hooding an arrow (which is basically magic) is fine (because fiction is "not fantasy"). Running across water is not fine (because wuxia is "fantasy").

Sindeloke

2024-02-27, 01:17 AM

Perhaps items for Martials need to do more than enhance attack rolls and defenses, with the odd randomly determined kill shot.

Not to BG3 again, but many of its magic items are cool explicitly because they enable certain builds that would not otherwise be incredibly viable, or let you replace one attack with a cooler attack. One of the best rings just adds 1d4 damage to thrown weapon attacks. There are swords that give you 1/short rest AoEs and tridents that enable lightning bullrushes. A singing sword gives bless or thunder damage on every hit to your whole party, but only in a limited paladin-like aura around itself. A hat does an AoE fear when you enter rage. This lends itself to a lot of small circumstantial bonuses, of course, which are far more manageable in a video game than a tabletop, but the idea is translatable. There are a lot of things you can make a magic item do that would be of immense benefit to someone who wants to be on the front line hitting things with a big hunk of metal but would be much less interesting to someone who wants to be in back throwing spells. Either by directly interacting with martial class features (rage, maneuver dice, beast pets, w/e) or simply by making the effect or activating conditions interact with the consistent parts of the martial gameplay loop (being in range, having certain weapon stats) rather than the random parts (rolling in a certain range on the d20).