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

[JackPhoenix]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Schwann145]

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.

----------

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.

[stoutstien]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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... ) 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]

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]

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.

[Sigreid]

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]

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... ) 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]

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]

Define “solid magical gear”.

[Goobahfish]

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]

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).