Published adventures in the TSR era had ridiculous numbers of magic items. At the end of each module we'd hold a magic item draft, with each PC selecting an item in turn until they were all gone. For a typical adventure, our party of 6 or 7 PCs would walk away with 5-6 magic items each, sometimes more.

In the period where I went mostly with homebrew content, I dialled that back dramatically. Few, but better, items.

Now 5E has dialled things back as well. Dungeon of the Mad Mage has huge levels, with 30-50 rooms each. And each level there are around 4 or 5 magic items (including consumables). I feel it's actually too few for a dungeon-crawl campaign, and I've added a few more.

Doesn't dnd 5e have the lowest number of magic items from any edition?
Also aren't you supposed to random generate them, since you don't have to hand out them to so players can fight the monsters, you might as well have some fun? (Exception for a +1 magic weapon for the parties fighters and whatnot)

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109850I 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.

Just to showcase this, Demogorgon in andn which is propably the strongest monster in the monster manual needed a +2 weapon to hurt. Only the following required +3: Orcus, Baalzebul,
Asmodeus and their friend Iron Golem.  

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109850And 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.  

3.5 should have made it easier to penetrate dr, a 20 level core fighter is supposed to be fighting pit fiends and balors and if he doesn't have appropriate weapons to penetrate their DR he is passively semi shut down.
3.0 had basically the old school dnd system, with a cap to how much damage was prevented. Pathfinder has a neat middle ground between the two it essentially functions like 3.5 but at certain enhancement bonuses you start ignoring cetain types of resistances. These days I am disillusioned with pathfinder, but this is a rule I could see myself porting in 3.5.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109850In 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.

I find dividing with 10 a bit too extreme. Just use cloak of resistance prices and if you wish to close the gap a bit, buff the melee classes in other ways.

Quote from: Malfi;11149773.5 should have made it easier to penetrate dr, a 20 level core fighter is supposed to be fighting pit fiends and balors and if he doesn't have appropriate weapons to penetrate their DR he is passively semi shut down.
3.0 had basically the old school dnd system, with a cap to how much damage was prevented. Pathfinder has a neat middle ground between the two it essentially functions like 3.5 but at certain enhancement bonuses you start ignoring cetain types of resistances. These days I am disillusioned with pathfinder, but this is a rule I could see myself porting in 3.5.

In my opinion a 20th level character should not even have a chance going up against the toughest creatures in the game without appropriate equipment.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115083In my opinion a 20th level character should not even have a chance going up against the toughest creatures in the game without appropriate equipment.

This doesn't even make sense.  Some characters can make level-appropriate equipment auto-magically.  Not just a soulknife - some classes have spells that can make level-appropriate weapons as a thing.  

If you want to have a monster that is immune to weapons unless they're bathed in the tears of angels before they're used, that's a defensible position, but recognizing that some classes are much more dependent on equipment outside of their class features than others who can entirely rely on their class features is important.

In our BECMI campaign when we were about 10, the DM dished me out an Intelligent Sword, which I sold to a friendly local store keep for HALF A MILLION GP, which I then used to build a castle. My guy was a halfling and it annoys me that I can't remember his name. Especially because he was the biggest swinging dick of all halflings.

I think we wanted to try out the domain rules.

Gotta say I don't have problems with magic items in OD&D.

PCs often die by ways that claim their stuff, like lava pits or forever deep chasms. And there's plenty of monsters who are going to loot your ass after a TPK. And there's monsters, magic and traps which destroy magic items.

Also, in OD&D, you ain't recharging that wand of fireballs. It's got X charges and then its dust.  

Also, magic items are often used as currency. Need a favor from a powerful monster? You pay in magic since you don't have 10k gold on you. It's a great use for +1 swords. They make badass gifts to a lord when he's pissed you "accidentally" whacked his tax collectors or his border guards or raided his grandmother's tomb.

Plus, hirelings and henchmen often need gear. Just convinced that ogre to join you? Hand him that spare +1 sword so he's more useful.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115083In my opinion a 20th level character should not even have a chance going up against the toughest creatures in the game without appropriate equipment.

Well the problem is he could have a +5 weapon, but not a silver +1 holy weapon and still be forced to deal with 15 damage reduction. In pathfinder if he has a +5 weapon he doesn't need a silver +1 weapon.

Quote from: Malfi;1115421Well the problem is he could have a +5 weapon, but not a silver +1 holy weapon and still be forced to deal with 15 damage reduction. In pathfinder if he has a +5 weapon he doesn't need a silver +1 weapon.

Should your +5 weapon be equally as good for every situation?  Or should you adjust your strategy to adapt to different encounters.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115430Should your +5 weapon be equally as good for every situation?  Or should you adjust your strategy to adapt to different encounters.

Should a wizard's spellbook include solutions for every situation? Should they have to maybe use something other than their core class feature in order to adapt to different encounters?

Quote from: Chris24601;1115449Should a wizard's spellbook include solutions for every situation? Should they have to maybe use something other than their core class feature in order to adapt to different encounters?

Should a Wizard have to use one spell for their whole career?  There are classes like the Warlock that spam Eldritch Blast over and over but the Wizard is supposed to be the swiss army knife.

I dont really see the problem of the Fighter having to use a +1 Silver Holy weapon instead of their +5 weapon if that is the best tool for the job.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115430Should your +5 weapon be equally as good for every situation?  Or should you adjust your strategy to adapt to different encounters.

It won't. For many situations you will need a +5 bow.

Ofcourse the matter is more complicated than that. The problem is the pit fiend is one enemy, having a silver +1 holy longsword will be worthless against a balor. If you go the route of "having the right tool for the job" you will end up severly hampering yourself, since there are mainly 2-3 alignments DR's, 3 material DR's and 3 type of damage DR's. On the other hand a +5 sword will be better than the strategy of "having the right tool for the job" even in the end you will struggle against high DR's enemies. So I guess should or should not it is what it is.

ALL THAT SAID I would enjoy it if you "should (you) adjust your strategy to adapt to different encounters", its just not sth very easily done with weapons specifically in dnd 3.0-pathfinder.
Also swapping your weapon to penetrate dr isn't that big of a tactical decision and what was a bit of fun in earlier edition's was that weapons had weird enhancements you could utilize, which again is a very subpar strategy in 3rd edition dnd.

Note all of this are secondary. My main point is that dnd 3.5 would be better if it had pathfinder enhancement penetrates DR's rule and that it was a mistake to change the more old schoolish dr mechanism. Do you disagree, agree or neither-since-it-doesn't-matter?
Also perhaps by making weapons cheaper its becomes in your best interest to have different tools for the job, or at least some variety in your magic items.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115083In my opinion a 20th level character should not even have a chance going up against the toughest creatures in the game without appropriate equipment.

I just wanted to say I generally agree with this, I just don't see how it counters what I am claiming to be true.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1115320This doesn't even make sense.  Some characters can make level-appropriate equipment auto-magically.  Not just a soulknife - some classes have spells that can make level-appropriate weapons as a thing.  

If you want to have a monster that is immune to weapons unless they're bathed in the tears of angels before they're used, that's a defensible position, but recognizing that some classes are much more dependent on equipment outside of their class features than others who can entirely rely on their class features is important.

If a 20th level wizard can go against CR 20 creatures without equipment and win, that's a bug of the system not a feature or at the very least is an aberation.
In 3rd edition dnd you are supposed to have lots of magic items as I said I am pro magic weapons being cheaper, I am not sure you should be making melee classes not need magic items because some classes might need them less.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115083In my opinion a 20th level character should not even have a chance going up against the toughest creatures in the game without appropriate equipment.

Depends on the magic level of the campaign. If you're doing a Conan/Nehwon inspired, low-magic campaign, then anything should be killable by a 20th level character with a sword - it should be pretty difficult though. If you're doing a high-magic campaign, then even a lowly imp might require magic weapons to hurt to permanently - or it could be that certain classes can kill anything with (say) a metal cup as their attacks count as magical anyway.

However, I do think that having the appropriate equipment should make it easier to kill/subdue creatures which are protected from mundane weapons. But it's nice to mix things up a little (e.g target is vulnerable when in sunlight, starlight, can hear sound of singing, screams of terror - depends on the target).

Yep, this entire discussion is what I think it too meta. It's all about the numbers and rolls and that gets me out of the zone. I like this way of thinking where you are trying to win at all costs in board games and in card games, but I like roleplaying games being an immersive experience. This is why I don't play D&D.

Quote from: spon;1115473Depends on the magic level of the campaign. If you're doing a Conan/Nehwon inspired, low-magic campaign, then anything should be killable by a 20th level character with a sword - it should be pretty difficult though. If you're doing a high-magic campaign, then even a lowly imp might require magic weapons to hurt to permanently - or it could be that certain classes can kill anything with (say) a metal cup as their attacks count as magical anyway.

However, I do think that having the appropriate equipment should make it easier to kill/subdue creatures which are protected from mundane weapons. But it's nice to mix things up a little (e.g target is vulnerable when in sunlight, starlight, can hear sound of singing, screams of terror - depends on the target).

Depends on how the game is designed and if you care to play within the rules of this design.
For example in the dnd 3.5 Conan campaign you might ignore magic items and just roll around with your 10th-20th level fighter, just dont expect the CR system and class balance to work at all.
Honestly at that point maybe you should just play Mythras/runequest or sth though.
Another solution is the pathfinder one with the automatic bonuses from pathfinder unchained.

However in dnd this no magic items game generally doesn't work. It works pretty well in dnd 5e, maybe in old school dnd up to a point, but not really in dnd 3rd and 4th edition.
Also all editions basically require the melee guys having a magic sword capable of hurting magical creatures, the Pundit has a solution to this, which he call the +0 magic weapon which is a magic weapon that simply adds no bonus and can fit a low magic setting very easily.