Magical Items and Specialness (5e)

[Jzadek]

I have only recently switched from 1e/2e to 3.5, and I found that mostly the edition was a vast improvement, and while I do get all nostalgic already when I remember the ridiculously counter-intuitive rules of way back when, there is very little that I actually would like back.

Except their stance on magical items.

In AD&D, magical items were special. You wouldn't see them sold in shops, or carried by any random orcs. They were there to be found in the tomb of an ancient king, or to be wrested from the cold dead hands of a deadly assassin from another plane. You felt that you had something truly worth something. And I miss that feeling most in 3.5, but to try and homebrew it's restoration would be a monumental task - most martial classes rely completely on them.

So in 5e, I hope that magical items are special again. Maybe they are in 4e, I've never played it, but it doesn't sound like my cup of tea, and I don't think I've heard anything about them being like that.

Who's with me? Or am I alone in this?

[Tengu_temp]

I want magical items to be rare and have special, unique and interesting abilities. The generic bonuses to attack, AC et cetera should be a part of characters levelling, not the magic items they use.

[tensai_oni]

Legend is exactly what you are looking for.

[Manateee]

If the game's not designed without the expectation of magical loot, I probably won't ever use it.

[Jzadek]

Legend is exactly what you are looking for.

I'm not convinced it is. I'm looking for D&D, but with more special magical items, and without the three page rules for unarmed combat. Hopefully, 5e will be able to supply that.

[tensai_oni]

Legend is "DnD, but with X". Where X is a list of changes, generally for the better.

If you checked it out and found not to your liking this is fine. But if you didn't I suggest you do.

[Jzadek]

Ah, so it's not an entirely different system then? I certainly will, thank you.

[Doorhandle]

I agree, but I still think you should be able to spend money on getting an extra choppy sword.

I think it would not be a bad idea to have 1+, 3+, maybe even 4+ swords which are almost entirely nonmagical and just well crafted with ancient techniques and special materials.

Or maybe go the W.o.W rote (yes, I know, bear with me), and have all the best, most powerful artefacts and magic items being relics of bygone eras, and only able to be found by prying them from the cold, dead hands of legenadry foes.

[Greenish]

Ah, so it's not an entirely different system then? I certainly will, thank you.

Well, Legend is a different system, just not entirely different. It's probably closer to D&D 3.5 than D&D 4e is.

[KillianHawkeye]

So in 5e, I hope that magical items are special again. Maybe they are in 4e, I've never played it, but it doesn't sound like my cup of tea, and I don't think I've heard anything about them being like that.

Magic items in 4E were even more common and necessary than in 3rd. I don't really expect it to change for 5E, either. Not when WotC can sell an entire book filled with magic swords and people will actually buy it.

[Tengu_temp]

It's easy to make magic items unnecessary in 4e, though. Even before the inherent bonuses variant came out, people made very homebrew systems such as this one. Plug!

[erikun]

Maybe they are in 4e, I've never played it, but it doesn't sound like my cup of tea, and I don't think I've heard anything about them being like that.

4e is heavily reliant on magical items. If 3.5e made reliance on equipment by accident, then 4e made it by design. It probably isn't what you are looking for.

Legend is exactly what you are looking for.

It has been awhile since I looked over Legend (last time was actually pre-release) but from what I saw, equipment was just a static +1, regardless of what it did, and magical items irrelevant.

The fact that it uses 4e's basic design may not sit well with others, either.

Who's with me? Or am I alone in this?

I'd like to see the AD&D method of magical items providing an effective ability score, rather than a bonus to one. This was a big problem with 3e: by providing +6 stat boosters, it strongly encouraged players to pick high ability scores to stack with the equipment. By contrast, similar equipment in AD&D would provide, say, 19 in a stat, both making high ability scores less necessary (because you could always find equipment to boost it) and by curtailing the absurdly high ability scores at higher levels.

I'd also like to see magical equipment, but with interesting abilities rather than big plusses. Yes, I realize that a +5 sword is more valuable than a +1 flaming orc-slaying one, but the flaming orc-slayer is definitely more interesting. And if I could keep said sword throughout my adventuring career, rather than needing to exchange it out for another with bigger bonuses, it would become a more important weapon for the character.

[Warlawk]

Ah, so it's not an entirely different system then? I certainly will, thank you.

Legend uses the d20 core rules from D&D 3.5 and then has a number of changes stacked into it. Personally I think they've done a great job and you really should consider at least looking into the game. It exactly fits the bill of what you're asking for, magic items are rare and special instead of just being static bonuses. The class system and other changes are just as well done.

http://www.ruleofcool.com/
check it out.

[Dimers]

Who's with me? Or am I alone in this?

I enjoy 4e considerably more than 3.5, as laden with magic items as it is. But I'm totally with you. I'd enjoy it even more if the equipment you could acquire had a dramatic significance or purpose, rather than being a requisite for continuing the adventure.

Killian's point about selling books is largely a conversation-closer; the shot strikes true, and it's hard to envision WotC trying any other business approach to 5e. I'll add the point that since they love spellcasters so much (and find that their buyers do as well), it's highly unlikely that magic would be rare in any material they publish.

[Greenish]

It has been awhile since I looked over Legend (last time was actually pre-release) but from what I saw, equipment was just a static +1, regardless of what it did, and magical items irrelevant.

Well, there're the +2 stat items and a +2 save item, but most everything else does things other than plain numbers.

If you want low magic item game in Legend, requiring everyone to use full guild-buy in works pretty well. Even without, you'll only get a handful of magic items.

The fact that it uses 4e's basic design may not sit well with others, either.

Hmm?

Well, be that as may, 4e is D&D too.

[Ziegander]

Well, WotC could easily sell an entire book filled with pages and pages of new magic swords without writing 5e to require the use of those magic swords. Especially given their modular design goals. "If you use Magic Items, then this is the book for you!" But, if you don't, well, then, it won't hurt your game if you don't buy it.

[DonDuckie]

I'm not a fan of rare magic items. I like the 3e way(not 4e, but that's for different reasons).

In mythology magical items are special and rare, but they are also permanent, close to eternal. Sure they can break and be repaired, but thay last for ages. And that is just how old fantasy worlds are, ages aand ages of people making magic items. And from a financial view, there's more money in making +1 weapons than ibn making +5 weaons; production cost(crafting) is the same compared to saleprice(50%), and the market is bigger, with new adventurers having just looted their first tomb.

So after a few centuries of boom and bust empires, you are bound to have a world littered with magical items.

This is not the same as powerful items, which are of course only crafted to order, which are rarer, but still available.

A +1 short sword doesn't really make your character more powerful, a +5 does.

And replacing magic items with houserules to compensate the missing items will never work for me... It's the same, but instead magical property, you have magical people.

And rare magical items are notorious for being stolen... and would(in some minds) be an eternal McGuffin. Get it, Protect it, Get it back, Destroy it, Repair it, Protect it...

I may have drifted a bit from my main point

About Legend - I haven't looked at it too closely, but it looks much too balanced for my taste.

[erikun]

Hmm?

Well, be that as may, 4e is D&D too.

True, but it may not be the version of D&D that some people want to play.

Just as the magic item christmas-tree effect is not the way some people want to play, despite it being D&D too.

[Prime32]

I want magical items to be rare and have special, unique and interesting abilities. The generic bonuses to attack, AC et cetera should be a part of characters levelling, not the magic items they use.

Seconded.

Plus the 3e way leads to too many DMs trying to run a "low-magic" game by removing half or more of the PCs' abilities without touching the monsters'. (which leads to epic-level PCs getting killed by allips, or just plain overpowered by equal-CR enemies)

[Doorhandle]

About Legend - I haven't looked at it too closely, but it looks much too balanced for my taste.

Uhhh? Too balanced?

...makes sense in hindsight but I wasn't aware that could be a problem.

[Tengu_temp]

Plus the 3e way leads to too many DMs trying to run a "low-magic" game by removing half or more of the PCs' abilities without touching the monsters'. (which leads to epic-level PCs getting killed by allips, or just plain overpowered by equal-CR enemies)

Not to mention that this only increases the gap between spellcasters and the others further, since casters are less dependant on magic items.

[navar100]

What makes a magic item special I think is subjective. I like magic items that just give pluses. I wouldn't want every magic item to give pluses and once a day allows an extra few d6 of damage, 4E, but the existence of magic items giving pluses does not offend me. Rather, monsters should be designed with the idea that the PC won't have specific items. It's still ok to have DR, but it would help a lot if monsters did not have arbitrarily high natural armor to make their AC crazy high because obviously everyone has +3 swords and Strength +6 items. Just create a monster, give it a CR, then in a small box on the page provide a little blurb of the monster being CR - X or CR + Y depending upon the party having particular magic items or not that makes the monster easier or harder to fight. Also keep in mind that warriors are supposed to be able to hit it. The AC doesn't need to be so high only a natural 18 will hit, unless it is supposed to be a CR + Y encounter.

[Friv]

In mythology magical items are special and rare, but they are also permanent, close to eternal. Sure they can break and be repaired, but thay last for ages. And that is just how old fantasy worlds are, ages aand ages of people making magic items. And from a financial view, there's more money in making +1 weapons than ibn making +5 weaons; production cost(crafting) is the same compared to saleprice(50%), and the market is bigger, with new adventurers having just looted their first tomb.

So after a few centuries of boom and bust empires, you are bound to have a world littered with magical items.

That really depends on how easy it is to make a magic item in general. In many low fantasy settings, a magic sword is rare because only one man in a thousand years had the skill needed to forge it. If it's been five thousand years since magical items began, and only a few hundred such items exist across the world, there is no sale price. Each one is literally a treasure without peer.

I'm sort of mixed. As a rule, I prefer the idea of magical objects that don't just boost your stats, but I also enjoy settings with lots of little magic around, Eberron-style. My personal ideal would be for 5e to not require magical stuff for play balance, but to include notes on how much altering treasure modifies the CR of challenges. That way, you could have both low-magic settings in which the players finding a single magic sword is a big deal, and settings where every street corner has a man hawking talismans, and have both settings work.

[DonDuckie]

That really depends on how easy it is to make a magic item in general. In many low fantasy settings, a magic sword is rare because only one man in a thousand years had the skill needed to forge it. If it's been five thousand years since magical items began, and only a few hundred such items exist across the world, there is no sale price. Each one is literally a treasure without peer.

I'm sort of mixed. As a rule, I prefer the idea of magical objects that don't just boost your stats, but I also enjoy settings with lots of little magic around, Eberron-style. My personal ideal would be for 5e to not require magical stuff for play balance, but to include notes on how much altering treasure modifies the CR of challenges. That way, you could have both low-magic settings in which the players finding a single magic sword is a big deal, and settings where every street corner has a man hawking talismans, and have both settings work.

Wow. I just realized how many typos I made.

Your point is valid, but I was answering in a 3.5 environment, which was the location of beef with OP. At least as I read it.

But awesome items can be just a numerical bonus. At least that is how I see the named swords in LotR. Narsil/Anduril was just a very good sword. But they had no special powers.

Much of awesome lies in 'flavor'. Which is known also as 'fluff' to those who crave mechanics.

[Prime32]

I'm sort of mixed. As a rule, I prefer the idea of magical objects that don't just boost your stats, but I also enjoy settings with lots of little magic around, Eberron-style. My personal ideal would be for 5e to not require magical stuff for play balance, but to include notes on how much altering treasure modifies the CR of challenges. That way, you could have both low-magic settings in which the players finding a single magic sword is a big deal, and settings where every street corner has a man hawking talismans, and have both settings work.

Eberron's fluff doesn't touch stat-boosting items - it's mostly background things like streetlights. There's a big difference between "magic items are fun toys" and "you are expected to have these specific items to stay alive".

Flat CR modifiers don't work, since even an lv100 fighter can't kill an incorporeal creature without a magic weapon.

[navar100]

Eberron's fluff doesn't touch stat-boosting items - it's mostly background things like streetlights. There's a big difference between "magic items are fun toys" and "you are expected to have these specific items to stay alive".

Flat CR modifiers don't work, since even an lv100 fighter can't kill an incorporeal creature without a magic weapon.

It's not unheard of needing a specific weapon to slay a monster. Common folklore says you need silver to kill a werewolf. A vampire is vulnerable to wood hit in the right spot. That a level 100 fighter needs even just a longsword +1 to slay a ghost is not offensive. Needing special items for special monsters is what makes the monster special. That helps to make magic items, weapons in this case, have meaningful flavor. However, various generic monsters should not have such a high AC that without the plus of a weapon you can't hit unless you roll an 18; likewise the saving throw DC for said generic monster's magical attack. Where to draw the line is the crutch of the problem, but the solution is not taking away the line. It would be interesting if having garlic gave you a +2 circumstance bonus to saving throws vs a vampire's supernatural abilities.

[Dragon Star]

I agree that magic items should have cool, unique effects, but +attack and +AC has its place. In my opinion, plain stat bonuses should be masterwork items. In books, a sword crafted by the Great and Legandary Smith don't light on fire, but they sure as hell are easier to use, and much more deadly. The armor that lets you fly is magic, the really well made armor with mithril inlay is not. Which one boosts your AC? And ther is no reason you can't have both on one thing. It just means that not everything relies on wizards, a high craft skill can be just as profitable (if not as useful, or cool)

[Prime32]

In books, a sword crafted by the Great and Legandary Smith don't light on fire, but they sure as hell are easier to use, and much more deadly.

Does so. You just need to make it out of "fire ore" or something.

[Keinnicht]

Might want to check out Iron Heroes, where even a +1 Sword probably has a name, history, and multiple legendary wielders.

[Doorhandle]

Does so. You just need to make it out of "fire ore" or something.

TOTALLY should go the monster hunter route, and have some materials only acquirable from monsters.

We're not killing the demon for attempting to wear the town’s populace as a cloak, we're killing him because we need him for for that totally kickass 3+ unholy greataxe we're going to carve out of his bones. Turnabout is fair play.