D&D 5e: For real this time?

[awaken_D_M_golem]

  ... if those new Planes that are like Transition Planes
to more unsurvivable planes is retained , I'll like it.  It's feels like
a consolidation of the various Outer Planes, and some of the
earthly Terrains, into one usable setting.

Instead of Fire, you have Fireyness, like Avernus, Phlegethos, Yellowstone
Instead of Salt, you have Desert, al-Qadim, Wastes, Sand, Dark Sun
Instead of Negative, you have Ravenloft, Vamp The Mask, 4e Shadowfell, Thriller Video
etc

[SorO_Lost]

I'm behind like two or three pages and only skimmed to catch (as usual ).

First all, I like 3rd's WBL. It *could* be a little more stream lined on the non-magical stuff, sometimes it's a pain in the ass to remember ink & and frigging ink well when you just want to make an in game note. Only to find out you forgot to note paper on your sheet as well. There is also the problem that most of your wealth is dumped in numerical bonuses rather than cool gear. However, it's still a superior option than say 4th's setup. 4th standardized Magic Item requirements, you must have X numerical bonuses to join or you'll die a most horrible death you underpowered noob. But they did away with WBL and didn't really give you any rules for obtaining these highly required magical items beyond the whims of a DM making crap up. This lack of WBL lead to some groups giving to many items creating over-powered characters and other groups not giving enough for TPK wipes, and everyone experienced headaches when trying to start beyond level one. 5th appears to have the same fuck you approach to magical gear, it's not WotC's job to attempt to balance their product, it's yours. A level one murdering a level 20 because he brought an Ironman's Jericho missile to a knife fight? Yeah, 5th doesn't care.

Also a word on the M&M since Equipment Points came up. M&M is not balanced in the rules but by a gentleman's agreement. It considers all flavor mutable. For instance, you can take the Flight power and attach a Flaw that requires you to hold a simple chicken feather in your hand, or attach a Flaw that your flight can be stolen. Which is all you're doing with the Equipment Feat, investing Points for Powers with an inherent Flaw. Mechanically calling it equipment so it can be stolen is just one of the thousand ways to obtain more powers than you should by using Flaws/Drawbacks, which routes back to the gentleman's agreement. One cannot truly say Magical Items exist in M&M, rather here is Powers & here is Flavor now mash them together how you want and try not to break the game.

The correct way of doing things is WBL, dedicated to shiny cool gadgets.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Yeah 4th's is ridiculous ... (separately it is playable though).

F/K use the Turnip / Gold / Wish economies.
While I doubt wotc would ever ... thinking of a Taylor Swift song here.
Deities are clearly on their own Economy, not giving much care to Turnip or Gold.

Turnip / Silver+ / Crafting say ~3s+4s / Wish / low Deific / near T.O.
... might be a finer toothed comb.

[Complete4th]

4th standardized Magic Item requirements, you must have X numerical bonuses to join or you'll die a most horrible death you underpowered noob. But they did away with WBL and didn't really give you any rules for obtaining these highly required magical items beyond the whims of a DM making crap up. This lack of WBL lead to some groups giving to many items creating over-powered characters and other groups not giving enough for TPK wipes, and everyone experienced headaches when trying to start beyond level one.

Funny, everyone I know has had the exact opposite experience with 4e.

That said, I'm not impressed by the 5e comments I've seen to the effect of "It's about the story, not the math." Bull shit, it's about the story and the math.

The correct way of doing things is WBL, dedicated to shiny cool gadgets.

WBL works great, so long as the ones writing it go the extra step of actually telling DMs what value-equivalent gear the PCs are supposed to find/buy with it. Otherwise you end up with stingy DMs telling the younger generation that +1 swords are precious super rare treasures even for 20th level PCs. As universal game fact, because hey, "Nothing in the DMG or PHB contradicts my Tolkien fantasy!" And then there are the mid-level parties with sub-15 ACs, because their new DM made the mistake of actually rolling for random loot.

[veekie]

The intent there is for WBL not to modify your statistics. Leave primary defensive and offensive traits as part of your chassis. The reasoning is simple. If everyone must buy one of those items, then nobody should have to buy them, all it does is add needless book keeping.

There is no piece of equipment less evocative than a +1 sword, armor or protective amulet.

[LordBlades]

The intent there is for WBL not to modify your statistics. Leave primary defensive and offensive traits as part of your chassis. The reasoning is simple. If everyone must buy one of those items, then nobody should have to buy them, all it does is add needless book keeping.

There is no piece of equipment less evocative than a +1 sword, armor or protective amulet.

The magic sword concept is a quite common fantasy trope. In D&D, upgrading from a MW sword to a +1 sword is quite evocative of that trope IMO. You can now hurt creatures that were either flat out immune to your MW sword (like Incorporeal creatures) or were supposed to be highly resistant to it (DR/magic, or any other kind of DR for that matter doesn't really do anything, but the system was designed with the assumption that it works in mind).

So, while I do agree with your statement on flat bonuses to stats (I too think they should go), I'd like the magical sword concept (even if it does nothing more than 'it's magical' which just allows you to hurt stuff you couldn't or had trouble with before) to stay. 

[veekie]

Except again, you can have a magic sword without any numerical bonuses at all. The numerical bonuses limit the effectiveness of TWF, thrown weapons, unarmed combat and natural weapons by imposing disproportionate costs to their use.
We do in fact have a type of magic sword which lets you hurt things you normally couldn't. Ghost touch weapons make it much more feasible to fight immaterial creatures. Keen weapons are just that, an extra sharp sword.

What I'm saying is, if you are making a choice for a character, said choice should be meaningful. As it is, you might as well call the +1 sword a sword, because it's not a choice but a necessity. There is no magic in it, heck, what creatures have DR /magic and have it matter? Everyone facing a creature with DR/magic has a full array of magic weapons. So the ability is effectively, wasted text.

[LordBlades]

Except again, you can have a magic sword without any numerical bonuses at all. The numerical bonuses limit the effectiveness of TWF, thrown weapons, unarmed combat and natural weapons by imposing disproportionate costs to their use.
We do in fact have a type of magic sword which lets you hurt things you normally couldn't. Ghost touch weapons make it much more feasible to fight immaterial creatures. Keen weapons are just that, an extra sharp sword.

What I'm saying is, if you are making a choice for a character, said choice should be meaningful. As it is, you might as well call the +1 sword a sword, because it's not a choice but a necessity. There is no magic in it, heck, what creatures have DR /magic and have it matter? Everyone facing a creature with DR/magic has a full array of magic weapons. So the ability is effectively, wasted text.

That's what I was saying as well. I do think numerical bonuses need to go as they're just a wBL tax. You actually have less WBL to do stuff with because you need to spend some of it on mandatory numerical bonuses which, as you said, is a disadvantage to people who need numerical bonuses to more stuff.

However, I can see a place for magic swords that don't necessary possess any specific obvious powers (like keen or flaming or whatnot), but just do some stuff by virtue of being magic swords (ghost touch is actually an excellent example of that).

As for DR/magic, I completely agree it doesn't work, but I believe that like many other things in 3.5, they believed it would. It probably was meant to be something like 'you want to fight that dragon? you need to get a magic weapon first' not 'by the time you meet that dragon you already have a magic weapons for 5 levels or so, so feel free to ignore that useless line in the statblock'.

As a tangent, I think a world where magic items are actually rare, and stuff of wonder, would be a better approach, as it would shift the focus more toward 'what your character can do' and less toward 'what your backpack can do'.

Think Merlin (the TV show), where the world is quite full of supernatural (numerous magic users, and literally every other episode had some sort of supernatural being appearing), and yet magic items are much rarer.

[oslecamo]

There is no magic in it, heck, what creatures have DR /magic and have it matter? Everyone facing a creature with DR/magic has a full array of magic weapons. So the ability is effectively, wasted text.

DR/magic isn't an anti-hero ability.

Is an anti-mook ability.

Sure, the PCs surely have all magic weapons.

But what about their summons/zombies/companions? And what about those local villagers? DR/magic means the dragon/infernal/celestial can't just be zerg rushed by the local population with rocks.

(And then there was the 3.0 DR/magic that could demand higher grades of magic to pierce)

[veekie]

As a tangent, I think a world where magic items are actually rare, and stuff of wonder, would be a better approach, as it would shift the focus more toward 'what your character can do' and less toward 'what your backpack can do'.

With magic wealth being divorced from direct combat competence, the role of wealth becomes more flexible. If the setting calls for everyone to have a wand? So be it. And if they weren't to have any either? No great fuss would result.

[Complete4th]

The intent there is for WBL not to modify your statistics. Leave primary defensive and offensive traits as part of your chassis. The reasoning is simple. If everyone must buy one of those items, then nobody should have to buy them, all it does is add needless book keeping.

There is no piece of equipment less evocative than a +1 sword, armor or protective amulet.

Oh I agree. Unfortunately, there's never been an iteration of D&D without mandatory +X items, and 5e appears to be the Edition of Nothing New so that's unlikely to change anytime soon. (Well, +X items might end up being unnecessary in 5e, in which case they'll simply be CharOp staples and every smart player's best friend. In other words; item cheese rather than item taxes.)

In any case, so long as D&D does have +X items, the rule books should ideally give us insight into what's expected of PCs. Whether that's part of a WBL guideline, a parcels guideline, or some other kind of guide.

[Complete4th]

On the DR tangent, years ago I incorporated this house rule into my 3.5 games:

I tweaked monsters with DR/magic so that the values are about (CR / 4) x 5.

Instead of DR being a binary thing, I said "For every +1 [actual] enhancement bonus your weapon has, you bypass 5 points of DR." So for example if you're fighting a big dragon with DR 20/magic, and you're hitting with a +2 frost dagger because it's sitting on you, you only subtract 10 damage with each hit.

I wish I could take credit for this bit of brilliance, but it came from someone on ENworld who I no longer remember. I love it because it's the best of 3.0 and 3.5 DR!

[Unbeliever]

We've had this conversation regarding magic items before.  I don't disagree with what has been stated above, but I do want to make one semi-counterpoint.  Magic items are a way to customize your character.  To the extent someone wants to customize their character in combat-relevant ways -- they want to play a tank or focus on burst damage or what have you -- then taking away the ability for someone to opt to, e.g., throw a bunch of that resource into hardening their defense you run the risk of taking away that option. 

This can be achieved through the +X bonus items that have been discussed above (e.g., Full Plate +3), but that isn't always necessary (e.g., Cloak of Displacement). 

D&D has traditionally approached these decisions through gear, but it could be done through feats and class features, if it was done right.  They are both character resources.  I'm not sure why one would be better than the other, but if building a new system from the ground up you could approach it that way. 

I guess here's my tl;dr of this comment:  removing "maintenance" items, things you need to have just to make the math work, is an attractive idea.  Removing all +X items or things that are operationally equivalent may remove some customization options, which is less attractive and should be accounted for somewhere else.

[veekie]

Nope, if they exist, they will always be more optimal than items which do not grant similar bonuses, and thus a party with high treasure necessarily has much better attributes all round than parties which do not.
Feats exist for such specialization, feats and the BASE form of the equipment. Arguably the choice to use a shield or heavier armor is all the customization towards defense you need, especially with abilities to back them up.

[Unbeliever]

And, how do you draw a distinction between Plate Mail +3 and a Cloak of Displacement?  How about a Wand of Greater Mirror Image? 

I think unless you do a really really good job at drawing those lines, you're just trading one mechanic for another.  And, if you do such a good job then what you've made is an idealized version of something like M&M's power level caps.  Which might be nice and all, and are probably necessary in that game, but, and I say this as a fan, bleed out a lot of the richness that a game like D&D offers. 

Also: 

Nope, if they exist, they will always be more optimal than items which do not grant similar bonuses

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, this cannot be true.  There are often much more efficient ways of spending your cash than a +X to a weapon, armor, or some other characteristic.  Just paging through Bunko's, the anit-beatstick guides, and stuff like god wizard advice has tons of those. 

Unless you mean that bonuses = affects combat.  Removing items that affect combat in any tangible mechanical way (as opposed to how a Tree Feather Token could affect combat in a creative way) would be something I'd have to give more thought to.  Although that runs into the initial problem I described.

...
Feats exist for such specialization, feats and the BASE form of the equipment. Arguably the choice to use a shield or heavier armor is all the customization towards defense you need, especially with abilities to back them up.

Why is it ok for feats to do so and not treasure?  I fail to see any value distinction between the two -- they are both character resources.  Why is it ok to take "+5 to AC" as a feat and not as a piece of equipment?  The analysis should be the same.

[veekie]

I don't draw a difference between Plate Mail +3 and a Cloak of Displacement, both have the same basic problem. When you specialize in defense, you pick plate mail. It limits you in terms of mobility, armor check penalty and dexterity, in exchange for increased defense. Or you pick a shield, dedicating your off hand to defense and eliminating the option for two weapons or two handing. Both require proficiencies.

These choices are true tradeoffs, which can be enforced to take from the same capabilities and you don't really need to alter the exchange rates any further. Due to how the d20 works, a gap of 5 points is going to be the same difference in probability over 20 levels. When you make a tradeoff, it should be between comparable factors. A bonus to combat should cost you in terms of other combat capabilities. Wealth is an uncontained tradeoff. It freely equates diplomacy, information ability, mobility, combat, and all into one single pool, and naturally the most optimal route would always be to spend on the area which you can be sure will turn up(namely, combat).

Feats don't vary game by game, treasure often does, in spite of the necessity. WBL is a tricky thing to keep in the right range, when for the most part there just isn't a NEED for such number wrangling and huge treasure amounts.

[oslecamo]

On the contrary.

Ever since The Hobbit that treasure has been the main motivation for D&D adventuring. Sure there may be a dragon or some evil overlord trying to take over the world in between, but I'll be damned if you aren't going to find plenty of sweet expensive loot along the way.

Let campaigns where kid's fists are always the equal of legendary swords to other games.

[Keldar]

On the DR tangent, years ago I incorporated this house rule into my 3.5 games:

I tweaked monsters with DR/magic so that the values are about (CR / 4) x 5.

Instead of DR being a binary thing, I said "For every +1 [actual] enhancement bonus your weapon has, you bypass 5 points of DR." So for example if you're fighting a big dragon with DR 20/magic, and you're hitting with a +2 frost dagger because it's sitting on you, you only subtract 10 damage with each hit.

I wish I could take credit for this bit of brilliance, but it came from someone on ENworld who I no longer remember. I love it because it's the best of 3.0 and 3.5 DR!

Just about everyone and their brother tried that as a house rule in 3.0.  If there was a more common house rule in that era, it was no Favored Class.     3.0 DR was so bad, that that fix was obvious to everyone.  So of course, 3.5 decided it was a pinin' for the golf bag.

[Unbeliever]

...
When you make a tradeoff, it should be between comparable factors. A bonus to combat should cost you in terms of other combat capabilities. Wealth is an uncontained tradeoff. It freely equates diplomacy, information ability, mobility, combat, and all into one single pool, and naturally the most optimal route would always be to spend on the area which you can be sure will turn up(namely, combat).

I'll just reiterate that the same analysis applies to feats, stats, class features, etc.  The number of feats in D&D represent a pool of character resources that can be spent in combat, social situations, and so on.  The same is true for class levels, etc.  Other systems highlight this a bit more clearly when they give you just a big pool of character points. 

Tangentially, to the extent you have players making any choices about how to deploy their character resources, wouldn't you run into the same problem? 

Feats don't vary game by game, treasure often does, in spite of the necessity. WBL is a tricky thing to keep in the right range, when for the most part there just isn't a NEED for such number wrangling and huge treasure amounts.

This is really the only treasure/gear-specific point.  I don't know if it's a system flaw that people want to ignore WBL guidelines, especially how integral magic items are to D&D.  There does seem to be real variation in the amount of freedom that is given in customizing one's gear, perhaps more so than when it comes to feats and class levels.  Although people seem to have all sorts of crazy house rules regarding classes and feats.  In my personal experience I have never found WBL difficult, just rolling up treasure and allowing some trading/customization has always proved sufficient. 

These seem to me more aesthetic arguments, though.  And (as Oscelamo notes above) ones that may be at odds with the idea of loot as a reward in the game.  I'm not saying this to be critical; I think there's some utility to clarifying the underlying argument and propositions.

[Ananse]

The "why not spend it all on combat stuff" problem exists whether or not buyable equipment exists. It must be addressed by some combination of making the other minigames more prominent, useful, and fair and letting those other minigames contribute to the combat minigame. If diplomacy could get you a reasonable number of goons in a reasonable fashion, that could justify putting points into diplomacy as opposed to more combat stuff.

Equipment isn't truly special. It's basically a character asset with the [Gear] tag that is purchasable by the "gold" resource pool as opposed to (say) the "feat" resource pool. A +1 to hit from a feat and a +1 to hit from a weapon is functionally the same. Once you've balanced the minigames available to characters, equipment will be relatively easy to design.