D&D 5e: For real this time?

[Unbeliever]

@Magic Items
It is perhaps an issue like all magic in a fantasy setting:  if there are a lot mages or magic items, then the  assumptions about the setting might seem to fall apart. 

It's hard, though, to think about this at the level of a system as it seems to be a function of the setting.  But, to the extent that there's some setting-based idea that makes you want to make magic items rare -- some sense that they should be special and treated with a sense of wonder -- it runs into two issues. 

Issue #1:  in all editions of D&D to date magic items have been an important way of customizing your character.  They open up avenues that don't exist otherwise, and a series of combinations, builds, and archetypes rely on them.  Reducing them therefore reduces the richness of the characters available at the game table. 

Issue #2: getting magic items as loot is FUN!  I think some of Issue #1 and the math assumptions of the system get in the way of this a bit, as you just get rid of all the quirky random crap you find in favor of [thing that makes character/build more awesome #14].  But, that loot dynamic is part of what keeps D&D and games like it entertaining.

[Complete4th]

Aside from the fact you've gotten the wrong name there: how do either of these, in any way, correlate to 3.X's addiction to doling out pluses? They're interesting abilities, but they're not crucial, and they're not just numerical bonuses. It's the sort of thing that aids in strange plans rather than bizarre combat abilities.

You've just hit the head on the nail without realizing it.

3rd "plus" problem isn't simply magical items. Feats, Skills, mundane items, alchemical items, Races, Class, Templates, etc, all grant numerical bonuses and 3rd has hundreds of magical items that do not provide numerical bonuses. Exactly how does treating all magical items as rarity address any of this? You still have the same "plus" problem but now no one can spend their left over change in unique, cool, magic items.

Because rarity should reduce ingrained assumptions about needing a certain amount of magical bonuses to function, which actually makes the weird items more viable.

The problem of course being that you DO need those magical bonuses to function...

At least in the way that the game expects PCs to function.

You can run games where Bob the High-Level Warrior is lucky to have his +1 sword, but the gameplay is going to be very different from normal 3.x games. IME, the problem is that most DMs who want magical items to be rare don't realize this, which results in frustration, lots of dead PCs, and many scrapped campaigns.

Some particularly experienced DMs do realize this -- I played under one such DM -- but even so, the best that I can say about that short-lived campaign is that it was fun despite our lack of magical gear.

[Nytemare3701]

Because rarity should reduce ingrained assumptions about needing a certain amount of magical bonuses to function, which actually makes the weird items more viable.

That's just it. It doesn't.

A Rod of Ropes's value doesn't alter because you own a Vet of Resistance +3 or not, it's still a grappling hook and the Vest still saves you're life. As long as the vest exists, players will seek it. IE why have a 20% chance of being killed when you could have 15%, or even 10%? It's only after these bonuses are obtained do you turn else where and purchase those unique tools. Blanket banning and it's embodiment D&D Next share the same fundamental problem. They both want you to think +3.5 damage is a unique very rare effect. But all it really is, is a boring bland tasteless numerical bonus. The good stuff isn't worth typing up in new rule books or worth acknowledging.

When you ban things under the pretenses you want magic items to feel special, you're doing more harm than good. You've created a greater demand for numerical items, not the gimmicky or functionally interesting ones that are already special and cool to own.

From my experience playing artificers, I have to agree with you here. When I can use 1/10th of my WBL to cover all the standard gear, I tend to get excessively creative with the remainder of my money, making all manner of inefficient but FUN items.

[bhu]

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..."

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say you've never played Champions have you?

I've heard that Champions chargen is crazy "realistic."

And then you die. So basically, it sounds a lot like 3.x chargen turned up to 11.

No that's GURPS.

Champions is still cinematic, but if you'd made a pc for it you'd realize how easy 3.5 pc's are.  Doing a PC for 3.5 is like filling out your local taxes.  10 minutes and you're done unless you want to complicate things by calling the guy behind the counter a thieving bastard.  Champions is like filling out your federal 1040 with schedules and optional complications.  While naked in public next to a sign that says "My penis is a balloon animal feel free to touch him."    At one point I was good enough to write out 1 pc for it an hour, but for newbies the first two playing sessions are making your pc's.

[Complete4th]

3.x character building makes me think "Ughhh, I thought I already did my taxes this year..."

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here and say you've never played Champions have you?

I've heard that Champions chargen is crazy "realistic."

And then you die. So basically, it sounds a lot like 3.x chargen turned up to 11.

No that's GURPS.

Champions is still cinematic, but if you'd made a pc for it you'd realize how easy 3.5 pc's are.  Doing a PC for 3.5 is like filling out your local taxes.  10 minutes and you're done unless you want to complicate things by calling the guy behind the counter a thieving bastard.  Champions is like filling out your federal 1040 with schedules and optional complications.  While naked in public next to a sign that says "My penis is a balloon animal feel free to touch him."    At one point I was good enough to write out 1 pc for it an hour, but for newbies the first two playing sessions are making your pc's.

I can whip up a 1st-level fighter-type in 10 minutes. But usually I want to play something more interesting, or I'm DMing for a group and I'm lucky if they can manage one-hour chargen. I'm well aware that there are more time-intensive systems out there, but that doesn't make me want to deal with 3.x chargen any more.

The existence of oceans doesn't make the local lake any less wet.

[Bauglir]

On the other hand, I look at building things in 3.5 as a game of its own, and one which I enjoy thoroughly. Naturally, though, this causes problems if you like playing D&D, but don't like playing CharGen.

[littha]

On the other hand, I look at building things in 3.5 as a game of its own, and one which I enjoy thoroughly. Naturally, though, this causes problems if you like playing D&D, but don't like playing CharGen.

I quite often enjoy the CharGen more than actually playing the game... the latter disappoints me way too often.

[veekie]

For me, even high level chargen takes at worst an hour...and then I have to spend MULTIPLE hours gearing up in 3.5. Suffice to say, the math dependency on gear, especially magical gear is pretty much a timewaster, not to mention distracting from the actually interesting magic items. The rod of ropes is nifty and fun, but given the choice between it and a +3.5 damage enhancement, you'd flog the rod for the damage every time.

Whether magic items are rare or not isn't the problem. Whether the math is noticeably affected by magic items is.

[Keldar]

I thoroughly agree, Veekie, its the math of the items that makes them a problem.  Even what we see in 5E means magic items will make a minimum 30% impact on your attack bonus for the best published of them.  That's the kind of thing that makes the difference between Monty Haul and Scrooge campaigns so vast and the system break down on both ends.  And the smaller you make the number range, the greater the impact those numbers have.  If they had honestly wanted magic items to focus on the interesting rather than on the level math, they really needed to top all bonuses out at +1, because they've capped the level and attribute bonuses at +5 apiece.

[zioth]

I thoroughly agree, Veekie, its the math of the items that makes them a problem.  Even what we see in 5E means magic items will make a minimum 30% impact on your attack bonus for the best published of them.  That's the kind of thing that makes the difference between Monty Haul and Scrooge campaigns so vast and the system break down on both ends.  And the smaller you make the number range, the greater the impact those numbers have.  If they had honestly wanted magic items to focus on the interesting rather than on the level math, they really needed to top all bonuses out at +1, because they've capped the level and attribute bonuses at +5 apiece.

That's not how it looks to me. It seems like they've said, "+1 items are common. Anything with a higher bonus is either a unique, named item, or so rare that we're not even going to list it. The highest bonus I see on any magic weapon is +3, though I guess that is only a "rare" item...
 
The Fighter can get an attack bonus of up to +11 (+6 from class, +5 from primary attribute) before magic items. Add on a +1 weapon, and you've only increased it 9%. Of course, the highly-debated Belt of Giant Strength can add another +4, which is 30%, but classes with other primary attributes don't get that bonus.
 
Alright, maybe you're more right than I thought. Capping bonuses at +1 would make sense. And they have to get rid of that Belt of Giant Strength!

[Complete4th]

On the other hand, I look at building things in 3.5 as a game of its own, and one which I enjoy thoroughly. Naturally, though, this causes problems if you like playing D&D, but don't like playing CharGen.

QFT.

And "Do you like playing CharGen?" doesn't necessarily provoke a yes/no answer. I myself like playing CharGen...to a point. Picking class, race, and then assigning stats is fun (preferably by point buy). After that the water gets muddy though. If I'm making a wizard for example, I have to consider the game. Is this a one-shot game? If yes, sleep ftw! If no, I might pick grease if I think the DM might be erratic about making spells available. (Also, stuff like the HD cap of sleep reminds me of how gamey D&D is, as much as anything in 4e does. And why is the cap not based on CR/level?!)

And then the skills...skills exemplify what drives me nuts about 3.x chargen. Not only the long list of 'em, including the good, the bad, and the ugly ones that I have to navigate thru; but I also have to decide how many poinks to put into each one. (Usually I make this simple and max out a minimum number of skills, but non-vet players always obsess over how they assign their spoinks.) Skill taxes, skill traps, class vs. cross-class skills, skill synergies...ugh. I'm experienced enough that I can navigate thru it all with minimal fuss, but skills exemplify the things I don't like about 3.x.

[Complete4th]

On the other hand, I look at building things in 3.5 as a game of its own, and one which I enjoy thoroughly. Naturally, though, this causes problems if you like playing D&D, but don't like playing CharGen.

I quite often enjoy the CharGen more than actually playing the game... the latter disappoints me way too often.

How come? The rule-dynamics, the gamers, or both?

[Complete4th]

Whether magic items are rare or not isn't the problem. Whether the math is noticeably affected by magic items is.

I cannot agree with this enough.

[Raineh Daze]

I would like to introduce to you to the concept of the edit button. Please, make friends with this wonderful feature.

[Unbeliever]

@Complete4th

I think we get it.  You don't like fiddly chargen systems.  That's a preference, and that's fine. 

You might add that 3E marries its fiddliness to trap options and a lack of transparency -- say what you will about the complex point-buy systems (M&M, Champions, GUPRS, though I'm working from long memories on the latter two) but they tend to be relatively transparent.  I, for example, find the execution of Burning Wheel's lifepath system fiddly to the point that it ruins chargen, which is something I typically enjoy. 

In my limited experience I found 4E fairly fiddly and riddled with many, many trap options.  Class and race are easy enough, but choosing powers/spells/whatever they are called I found tremendously opaque.  So, it's pretty weird for me to hold 4E up as the game with not so fiddly chargen, especially when there are much better exemplars out there. 

To gamely attempt to bring this back to the topic, these sorts of divides sort of indicate the strength and weakness of the D&D brand.  I think the ideal would be this:  anyone who wants to just play a single-classed character and just GO! will be well-supported, but so will someone who has a fairly particular concept in mind and wants to indulge in the exotic side hobby (akin to miniature painting, etc. in that it's related to playing D&D but not exactly playing D&D) of chargen and charopp. 

So, someone who is jonesing to play a Druid or a Ranger is good as is someone who wants to play the Grey Mouser and will pore over rulebooks to get there.  This would, imho, require classes to credibly do what they say they are supposed to do, e.g., Rangers need to be competent in melee combat, and involve removing truly "trap" options.  It's fine if some options, especially in combination, are better than others, but things that are truly crappy just shouldn't exist. 

I suspect D&D will not try and balance those two and instead, perhaps being overattentive to the OD&D "revolution" (their term, not mine), and instead focus more on the straightforward, plug and play side.  That's sort of how I felt about 4E, which struck  me as much closer to AD&D in philosophy.  That's not an inherently bad thing mind you, it's just not my preferences.  It does mean abandoning a chunk of the player base and a chunk with a demonstrated desire to spend money.  Although query what it'd take to bring that player base back "into the fold." 

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Magic Items have to be balanced with the same
game maths, that the PCs and Monsters use.
If they aren't ... then craziness happens.

Value of a feat is a limited +1, or very limited +1.
4e did this rather well, except the Feat Tax ~fix.
Value of a magic item goes from game-breaking,
all the way down to useless.  Trouble.

[FlaminCows]

Magic Items have to be balanced with the same game maths that the PCs and Monsters use.
If they aren't, craziness happens.

Value of a feat is a limited +1, or very limited +1. Value of a magic item goes from game-breaking,
all the way down to useless.  Trouble.

One way to do this is to give magic items a level adjustment. For example, if the character possesses the Charring Flame-Sword of Blazing Combustion, she is considered one level higher than if she didn't have that sword. If she's facing opponents that are immune to fire she's considered of her normal level, and if she's facing opponents weak against fire she's considered two levels higher than normal instead.

[veekie]

That would help with unique, tremendously powerful items which you wouldn't use on a regular basis at least. You break them out for bosses and the like.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Interesting idea.

Let's say a Wizard 10 decided he needed
to whip out his shiny Staff Of Nad-golf.
It's worth an LA+1.  So the staff provides
about 1 levels worth of juice; and scales.
Later he's a Wizard 15 / Item LA+1 that
gets Sorcy-like extra uses of a few spells.

Let's say a Fighter 10 with UMD (the new linear)
and wants the same staff.  Sure no problem.
Here you go, have fun with your powers: ABCD.

[Ananse]

LA has never been a good answer to anything in the history of mankind.

Nonconsumable magic items should be a function of the broader character development system, not a function of gold obtained (just as they are in many solid games -- GURPS, HERO, FATE -- that are, oddly, spelled in all-caps). Thus, a new resource needs be created from which magic items can be drawn, and that resource should probably be expendable on some other character asset in order to make Not Having Magic Items a meaningful choice. (And that other asset should, of course, provide benefits worth forgoing magic items.)

Character power isn't a function of in-game economy, but of the character creation system we use to ensure inter-PC balance and challenge-appropriateness. Throwing the ridiculously variable in-character economy into the mix is simple insanity, as WBL has shown conclusively. It would only begin to make sense if one adopted a D&D 1ed-style rule where gold collected counted as xp, and that, though less insane, is thoroughly stupid.

Note that if this new resource helped pay for racial advantages, it could make a lot of sense. "Sure, you're a werewolf, but now you're naked and unarmed. Which isn't really a problem." And, oh, look at that, LA waddles into the dustbin of history alongside WBL and the Christmas Tree, all thanks to the Motherfucking Competent Game Design Faerie.