I never liked this playstyle too much, because it reminds me of playing MtG or a boardgame or Baldur's Gate. Not that I mind bending the rules to win a fight, but I play an rpg to scratch a different itch. To me it's all about simulating a character in that world. I often build my characters suboptimal if I thinks that fits the character better for example. Because it's a more accurate reflection. It's all about immersion for me.

I can understand "D&D as Diablo" not working well in WotC editions, but in OD&D or B/X its not an issue due to PC death. Also, you didn't always have loads of gold laying around to pay Clerics for Raise Dead, so you'd trade magic items. Plus, much of the treasure tables are expendable magic items - potions, scrolls, etc. If that wand is not rechargable, then 10 charges aren't going to last long.

I liked 4e's magic item system because it was easy to "level up" magic items instead of just adding additional items, so that +1 sword could become a +1 sword vs. undead, then a +2 sword vs. undead, etc. That's something I've ported over to OD&D.

But "D&D as Diablo" wouldn't fly in other fantasy RPGs I play. In my Stormbringer games, magic items are mostly demons in material forms, so there's all sorts of concerns with gathering those items.

estar lists treasure types from Monsters and Treasure. Given the average value of each treasure type and the average number of magic, and that most XP was from gold rather than defeating monsters, characters who need more than a dragon hoard by themselves to go up a level could expect to find a magic item every level - the ratio of gold to magic items in the averages varied from 2827 for type E (relatively high in magic items and low in gems and jewelry, which dominate the expected gold value) up to 84555 for type I (average gold value of 16911 and average number of magic 0.2), with dragon treasure (type H) at 80245.5 gold and 1.2 items for a ratio of 66878.75. (I ignored the extra gold that ogres and giants carry, and note that contrary to estar's list, skeletons and zombies do not have treasure.)

But it's more likely that the dungeon treasure generation in Underworld and Wilderness Adventures would be relevant, at least until characters reach a level where they could realistically defeat the numbers of monsters appearing in Monsters and Treasures in order to get the treasure types listed there. If characters plundered 9 dungeon levels of 36 rooms each that are all randomly populated as given in that book, they would average over a million gold pieces while finding a dozen magic items. However, it is also advised to place "several of the most important treasures" consisting of "various magical items and large amounts of wealth" before random generation of the rest. So the intended rate of gaining magic items is not at all clear. With just the randomly generated gold, 6 characters with a million gold (and a lesser amount of XP from enemies defeated) would reach 8th to 9th level and have 12 items - a rate of one item per character per 4 to 5 levels, and the "most important treasures" should increase that rate (as would grinding on levels numbered lower than character level, slowing XP without affecting items obtained). I have limited experience of modules from that era but the ratio of magic to gold/XP seems to me to be higher. And characters could inherit items from previous characters who die, or magic-users could make them once they reach 11th level.

Note that in both cases I am not counting the possibility of a magic item rolling up as a map, but it might be a map to several magic items (and significant treasure), and I'm counting consumable magic items, cursed magic items and useless items the same as the most valuable ones.

For 5e, the hardcover books tend to give magic items at a more generous rate (but with rarity appropriate for the character levels). For Adventurers League modules, in all but the last two seasons, there was typically one permanent magic item for the 3 to 7 characters to divide up in a 2 to 4 hour adventure, with additional consumables (potions and scrolls). The last season before the current one eliminated explicit treasure so characters got "advancement points" (4 or 8 to advance a level; usually one per hour of play) and the same number of "treasure points" which could be used to buy either the item found on an adventure ("unlocked" items) or the items available generally (like +1 weapons) - so if you found a permanent magic item, everyone present could have the same item if they paid the treasure point cost (based on item rarity). Consumables were still divided among the party. The current season ignores treasure point costs for permanent items but limits the number a character can have, and awards gold per hour up to a certain limit each level. So, in early seasons you could expect one item per 3 to 7 adventures (depending on party size) but you probably would not advance levels rapidly (especially at the end of a tier, where XP needed was much higher but XP awarded the same as at the start of the tier); with the treasure points, a good magic item could easily cost all of the treasure points from 4 levels; and in the current season the permanent item limit is 1 at 1st to 4th level, 3 at 5th to 10th level, 6 at 11th to 16th level and 10 at 17th to 20th level.

For OD&D, the random draw of magic items was a significant factor in character development; otherwise every Nth level character of a certain race and class was essentially the same as any other. So I believe there was a significant expectation of magic items. 5e, with feats and class features, is not quite the same situation.

More items may each be less special, but the total "specialness" might be higher - it's not clear where the optimal level of "specialness" would be.

I tried to listen, I really did.  But magical Cyborgs?

I believe Pundit never played 3e.

Whether or not you enforce saving throws on magic items, and how strictly, makes a significant difference in sustained play.  Or even sometimes shorter term. We used to roll up characters of a set XP values in AD&D (often averaging around 7th level) and see how long the characters could make it going through modules. It wasn't uncommon for the party to finish with less items than they started with.  One fireball at a strategic moment was almost guaranteed to knock out an item or two.

Quote from: Shasarak;1109152I tried to listen, I really did.  But magical Cyborgs?

I believe Pundit never played 3e.

Eberron?

Many older games (D&D, Rolemaster, Runequest to a certain degree) start off with PCs who are a bunch of weaklings. This might be some people's favorite way of starting off, but I never liked this. So I used to give PCs lots of special ++ items. But it didn't take me long to start asking for higher level starting PCs of course, but I still tended to give a couple of  above average items to put them on a level that I thought worked (this was mostly when I played Rolemaster). If I were to run a game now, I would tend to prefer games where starting with more competent characters is more of a default, or where that is at least an easy and quick option (e.g. BRP golden book).

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1109362Eberron?

Eberron had magical androids/robots in warforged, but I don't really recall magical cyborgs being a thing. There may have been a few based on some magical items that took the form of a replacement arm or eye or something, but the Eye and Hand of Vecna are along those lines even if there is no technology to them.

Quote from: Shasarak;1109152I tried to listen, I really did.  But magical Cyborgs?

I believe Pundit never played 3e.

I played quite a bit of 3e. The term "magical cyborgs" was not literal, but referred to the fact that by certain level you all but HAD to have certain magic items that granted you special protections, in order to counter the types of monsters you'd be fighting by then. If magic becomes a necessity, the magic items might as well be cybernetics.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1109751I played quite a bit of 3e. The term "magical cyborgs" was not literal, but referred to the fact that by certain level you all but HAD to have certain magic items that granted you special protections, in order to counter the types of monsters you'd be fighting by then. If magic becomes a necessity, the magic items might as well be cybernetics.

OK, yes, this absolutely was a thing in 3/3.5e (and Pathfinder, and 4e). Wealth by level was practically a mandatory thing for the assumed game balance. The game even gave you slots that restricted what a character could wear (implant ) on any given area of their body, and maximizing those slots was part of the character optimization game.

I do feel that 5e has traces of this, but it seems far more subdued and there is no hard "wealth by level" but instead just fuzzy guidelines by tier.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1109765I do feel that 5e has traces of this, but it seems far more subdued and there is no hard "wealth by level" but instead just fuzzy guidelines by tier.

The encounter building metrics seem to assume zero magic items (and no Feats or multiclassing) - by level 17 a single PC with Legendary gear can take on an encounter supposedly Deadly for a whole group.

Itemization as balance became an emergent design conceit in 3e and later editions. It needed to be killed. Instead of re-engineering the phenomenon of Monty Haul - they codified it into the game by necessity, by allowing the 20-lvl progression demon into the house. They painted themselves into a design corner, reinforced it and made no attempts to fix it.

Other companies did it in 3.x. but they are largely outliers.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1109765Wealth by level was practically a mandatory thing for the assumed game balance.

On page 145 of the 3e DMG it says, "One of the ways in which you can maintain measurable control on PC power levels is by strictly monitoring their wealth, including their magic items." The Wealth by Level chart was meant as a MAXIMUM that the PCs possess. not a mandatory minimum. As anyone whose converted a AD&D module to 3e knows, the first thing you do is remove all the excess and overpowered magic items those old modules contained.

In addition, 3e added two ways to overcome the need for magic weapons to hit monster. Firstly, it implemented a damage reduction so PCs can brute force their way past the resistance. Secondly, they added a simple first level spell, Magic Weapon, allowed them to temporarily make a weapon capable of bypassing the requirement for a magic weapon. The equivalent spell in AD&D was 4th level. Well beyond low level characters.

So, not only did 3e limit the total number of magic items the character possessed, but they also greatly reduced the need for players to have magic weapons to overcome certain monsters. Making 3e less reliant on magic items than any version of the game released before it.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1109842On page 145 of the 3e DMG it says, "One of the ways in which you can maintain measurable control on PC power levels is by strictly monitoring their wealth, including their magic items." The Wealth by Level chart was meant as a MAXIMUM that the PCs possess. not a mandatory minimum. As anyone whose converted a AD&D module to 3e knows, the first thing you do is remove all the excess and overpowered magic items those old modules contained.

In addition, 3e added two ways to overcome the need for magic weapons to hit monster. Firstly, it implemented a damage reduction so PCs can brute force their way past the resistance. Secondly, they added a simple first level spell, Magic Weapon, allowed them to temporarily make a weapon capable of bypassing the requirement for a magic weapon. The equivalent spell in AD&D was 4th level. Well beyond low level characters.

So, not only did 3e limit the total number of magic items the character possessed, but they also greatly reduced the need for players to have magic weapons to overcome certain monsters. Making 3e less reliant on magic items than any version of the game released before it.

I think you could argue that was a design intent; not sure you could argue that it was necessarily successful.  In earlier editions there were a few monsters that you needed a +3 or better to hit, but generally having a sword that was magic at all was enough.  And in prior editions it was true that you couldn't hurt opponents without the right type of weapon generally, but considering hit point bloat, 3.x DR isn't always more favorable to the player - at least in earlier editions it was clear you should run if you couldn't hurt someone, instead of trying to hack them apart with the equivalent of a butter knife.  And the characters that needed magic weapons didn't get any ability to cast the spells that made your spell magical; casters often had their own tactics against magical creatures so preparing a magic weapon spell wasn't a given.  

In 3.x, they make magic weapons much too expensive for wealth by level guidelines.  They could probably divide them all by 10 (or more) and make your second (backup weapon) only count as 1/3 of it's total value and you'd still only be close to parity between martial and magical classes.  A fighter needs tens of thousands of GP to contribute (armor, weapons - the tools of the trade).  The wizard doesn't need anything because even naked holding a book, he has his vast arsenal of magical powers.  Getting magical items for wizards is nice; for martials it is required.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1109751I played quite a bit of 3e. The term "magical cyborgs" was not literal, but referred to the fact that by certain level you all but HAD to have certain magic items that granted you special protections, in order to counter the types of monsters you'd be fighting by then. If magic becomes a necessity, the magic items might as well be cybernetics.

I came to 3e from ADnD and 2e where you could encounter monsters that were immune to damage unless you had magical items and as you went up in level you needed better magic to hit them.  So if there is such a thing as "magical cyborgs" then it was baked into the game right from the start of ADnD.