TheRPGSite

In my latest video, I talk about how in any setting, the easier magic is to get, the less special magic will be.

[video=youtube_share;NwnK1ed2T3E]https://youtu.be/NwnK1ed2T3E[/youtube]

That has allways been an issue and various editions have approached it differently. WOTC seems to have embraced Monty Haul until 5e when they reigned it in a fair bit. Items are less common and do not drop from minion types.

I never found restricting magic items made them either more interesting nor more valued by the players. A +1 sword only affects the outcome of an attack roll 1 time out of 20. That's a pretty meh item even if it were the only magical sword in all of existence.

Quote from: Omega;1108770WOTC seems to have embraced Monty Haul until 5e when they reigned it in a fair bit.

3e had a chart that limited the total number and power level of the PC's magic items. Is this chart in 5e?

I was thinking about using a similar chart in my OD&D game but it's not as necessary as in AD&D as in OD&D, the magic items are already restricted by the XP charts (in a roundabout way).

Ultimately, only the items you actually use matter.  Having a lot of choices isn't a problem.  

Players latch on to a particular item for any number of reasons.  The best thing you can do as a GM is be ready to describe each item in a little detail; pattern, material, artistry.  Sometimes a player won't care what an item DOES as much as they care how it LOOKS.  

If you can deck yourself like a Christmas tree, that's a problem.  So having a few items you can use at a given time is probably for the best.  Having a domain plan where you can start passing magical items down to cohorts and minions is also good.  Knowing that your prior sword is going to make your retainers more powerful helps keep it special, even when you have something BETTER.

Here's a write-up re: magic shops from one of the early D&D playtest rules:

Smallest places have nothing, middle-sized places will have fair probabilities of having standard mounts, magic swords and arrows, and standard-type mounts. The same is true of gems for sale. Walled towns will have all standard items for sale, some unusual ones, and a dragon market in which to sell your catch.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1108773A +1 sword only affects the outcome of an attack roll 1 time out of 20. That's a pretty meh item even if it were the only magical sword in all of existence.

That view completely ignores the vast numbers of creatures that are resistant to damage from non-magical weapons.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1108793That view completely ignores the vast numbers of creatures that are resistant to damage from non-magical weapons.

This is similar to the Thief problem. Traps exist in the dungeon just to give thieves something to use their skills on. Before the Thief class was added, you didn't see the large number of mechanical traps in dungeons. Likewise, monsters resistant to non-magical weapons exist only because magic swords exist. IOW, if there weren't magic swords all over the treasure charts, you wouldn't see a bunch of monsters that could only be hit by magic weapons.

I'm not giving them too many. If anything, I'm erring a little on the stingy side.  My last session had 7 characters ranging from levels 7 to 9.  They had a +1 Trident between them, as far as magic weapon go, though the Monk's abilities also counted.  They've had the Trident for months (real time) and still don't know that it has a few other special abilities.  Though in fairness, since they avoided a near party wipe in that session, they'll probably pick up another item in the next.

Mainly, I want consumable items to get used.  This group of players is notorious for stockpiling potions and scrolls for an emergency that never comes if they've got lots of other toys.  That hasn't been a problem in this campaign. :)

I have similar views on roleplaying. It seems to me that Pundit likes his fantasy games gritty and low-powered. More Game of Thrones than Lord of the Rings. The weird thing is I always saw D&D as being similar to high fantasy with all the pc's being Swiss army knives and having a spell or ability for everything. The typical low fantasy, gritty playstyle that Pundit advocates and thinks is synonymous with D&D, I never saw that in D&D but I always thought that was Warhammer. Or maybe Runequest. But we have similar views. This stacking of magic spells and items (and too much combat) is what drove me away from fantasy rpg's and started playing World of Darkness, because I like that style of playing better. Weirdly enough the way the WoD books are written didn't click with me, but that's another story.

This is one of the reasons I like weapon quality to be a thing. Much more interesting to have the low level special items (+1 / +2 swords and such) be better because they are well crafted, then the actual magic weapons can be saved for truly superior weapons gaining the bonus for good craftsmanship (because what kind of fool wastes magic enchantments on a Harbor Freight sword) further improved with magic.

Every little town and hamlet having a magic shop is just silly, but you do see it in some published adventures, because at times that has just been the way it is.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1108773I never found restricting magic items made them either more interesting nor more valued by the players. A +1 sword only affects the outcome of an attack roll 1 time out of 20. That's a pretty meh item even if it were the only magical sword in all of existence.

In older editions (I'm specifically thinking 2E), a +1 to hit and damage was the realm of characters with 17 or higher Str scores; so it DID really matter. 1st level characters having a 20 STR with +5 to hit and damage didn't exist.

I like how in my Princes of the Apocalypse game the 8th level Barbarian treasures the +1 greataxe he took from a dead orc warchief. The player even had his mini printed in steel, great axe and all! Thinking of having it level up with him when he hits 11th.

I allowed a bunch of free purchase items in my 5e games, probably more from legacy 3e/4e type thinking, but I am coming round to the idea that maybe only healing potions (in limited numbers) and a few common consumables should be available in a typical setting, and it works well to have items be unique to certain named vendors you have to maintain a relationship with, like the Perfumier in my Thule game who sells Perfume of Bewitchment to favoured customers.

For me, D&D is about finding lots of magic items.

Not RPGs in general, but "D&D as Diablo" is good by me.

In stark contrast, magic items in my Warhammer games are like magic items found a Cthulhu Mythos game. If it isn't a tool of Chaos, it's a tool of Law that comes with its own price, or its some crazy Elf magic that permanently alters the user's reality.

In my Mazes & Minotaurs game, magic items are unique and tied to the gods, mostly as gifts. So they are both rare and come with an attachment to a higher power.

One concept from Earthdawn that I really liked was that magical weapons and items were imbued with power from legends, ie: the deeds that were accomplished with them in the past.  The more you "attuned" yourself to the item the more you could tap into that power.  The process of attuning yourself required that you learned the history of the deeds done with the item and, in some form, re-enacted those deeds.  Earthdawn being a high-magic system/setting there were plenty of low level "enhancement" type magic trinkets laying around, but any item granting serious bonuses was more than just a powerful widget, it was also a quest generating narrative device.  

For example, if you found a rusted rune covered sword, you might detect a faint magical aura.  You'd then have to decipher the runes to learn the name of the weapon.  This would lead you to the great Dwarven library or something.  Of course, the Dwarves aren't just going to let a bunch of scruffy adventurers access their most sacred treasure - the accumulated knowledge of millennium.   But per-adventure you may come to learn that the sword was once used to slay a great evil, and legend says.. etc... etc...      

The specific implementation in Earthdawn would easily drift into a kind of "meta-gamey" point system if the GM wasn't careful, but I thought the concept was really neat.

The City State of the Invincible Overlord had the Sorceror's Supply House in 1980 and since then I always had magic item shops.

There is no intrinsic reason for magic items to be "special" anymore than casting spells need to "special". If you want it to be special then you got some work do with classic D&D and you will wind up in a similar place as Adventures in Middle Earth compared to D&D 5e.

There is nothing wrong with that. It a dial out many to make setting interesting for a campaign. Both extremes have been made to work as well as in-between options.

As for me I treat magic items as luxury items with a trade similar to that of spice and other rare items. Most of the trade is done by commission. Either to make or to find. Wealthy individuals make private arrangement to get what they want.

The following is the price list I have been working with for my Majestic Wilderlands campaign using Swords & Wizardry.

Magic Item Creation (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/Magic_Item_Creation_Rev_2.pdf)

One of the things that I thought was pretty cool about Numenera is that the majority of the cyphers (its "magic items") are single-use, and since the setting is one billion years into the Earth's future and is built upon nine previous "worlds" (it's known as the Ninth World), the forms in which these cyphers take place are legion.  But they're only single-use AND there's an in-game justification for limiting the amount of cyphers a character can possess on their person at any one time, so it encourages using them regularly.

Then there are artifacts, which are longer-lasting "magic items."  The reason these are longer-lasting and not permanent is that whenever they are used, you make a depletion roll (each artifact has its own depletion roll and depletion die, such as "depletes on a 1 in 1d20").  If you roll within the depletion range, that was that artifact's last use and then it's just a paper weight.

Other than that, I agree with the subject matter presented in this video.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1108800Before the Thief class was added, you didn't see the large number of mechanical traps in dungeons.

Before there ever was a Thief class, there was a 10' pole on the equipment list.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;1108805Or maybe Runequest.

Runequest is a bit of an odd case. It's as deadly as any gritty setting, but every character has spells and everything in the world already is magical.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1108800This is similar to the Thief problem. Traps exist in the dungeon just to give thieves something to use their skills on. Before the Thief class was added, you didn't see the large number of mechanical traps in dungeons. Likewise, monsters resistant to non-magical weapons exist only because magic swords exist. IOW, if there weren't magic swords all over the treasure charts, you wouldn't see a bunch of monsters that could only be hit by magic weapons.

Looking at the sample dungeon in Underworld and Wilderness Adventures on page 5 seems to indicate traps were a thing far earlier than when the thief was introduced.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1108859For me, D&D is about finding lots of magic items.

I've run D&D this way before, and every time it turns into a clusterfuck. One of the major reason I despise the Forgotten Realms...got roped into running some modules before and I had to quit after a few sessions. That said, sometimes clusterfucks can be fun, but they usually turn more zany than serious for me.

I think a lot of the reason I limit magic items so severely in my B/X/AD&D games is due to some sort of brain damage I got playing Chivalry and Sorcery so much...when you have to spend literally hours of real time to create magic items, that shit is special.

Unless you want to play zany superheroes but in a "medieval" setting.

While I never liked the fire and forget system of magic, it's a good limiting option for minor magical items, I seem to remember some game with something like this, not sure, not my book and it was a looooooooong time ago.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1108859For me, D&D is about finding lots of magic items.

Not RPGs in general, but "D&D as Diablo" is good by me.

In stark contrast, magic items in my Warhammer games are like magic items found a Cthulhu Mythos game. If it isn't a tool of Chaos, it's a tool of Law that comes with its own price, or its some crazy Elf magic that permanently alters the user's reality.

In my Mazes & Minotaurs game, magic items are unique and tied to the gods, mostly as gifts. So they are both rare and come with an attachment to a higher power.

I don't mind playing or running D&D as Diablo if all the players are willing to do it that way.  I've done it and had fun.  I do very much mind running a D&D game as Diablo when half the players are not keeping track of their stuff properly.  Turns being a GM into being an accountant.  For whatever reason, my GM style tends to attract players that are mostly on board with the usual D&D experiences, but D&D as Diablo is not one they take to.  Not sure exactly why that is.

My system is fairly high magic (it also has item quality grades), but it'd be more accurate to describe it as high "low magic."

Some amount of potions or other consumables are common. Anyone fluent in Arcanos can try to employ a ritual and mid-to-large towns probably have a ritualist they can bargain with to gain copies.

Minor magic items; a ring that lets you use a cantrip, a weapon whose blade can ignite (no extra damage, but deals fire damage) or armor that resists environmental heat and cold (i.e. temps between -40 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit) is expensive, but magical artisans in the large cities can still manufacture it. Fine quality non-magical weapons and armor (the first step up from baseline starting gear) are similarly priced and generally provide equal or better benefits to these minor items (just more mundane properties).

On the other hand, major items (a staff that can produce various lightning spells, a flying carpet, etc.) are extremely rare and generally require both rare/dangerous to obtain materials and lost rituals to create (the setting is post-post-apocalyptic so the ruins are filled with lost magical knowledge). In other words PCs are mostly going to find them via adventuring (either taking an entire item or finding the enchanting ritual for one and then questing for the materials needed).

There's also a limit on how many permanent items a single PC can carry at once without their auras shorting each other out. It ranges from carrying just one permanent item at level 1 up to five items at level 13+ as you're better able to manage the interactions (and even then GMs are encouraged to describe non-mechanical effects of the interacting auras; your wand also gives off a shower of sparks in addition to the spell, the magic ring throbs on your finger, the amulet on your neck hums audibly as you draw or sheath your magic sword because you're drawing it closer, etc.).

Because it doesn't matter whether a permanent item is minor, major or an artifact; PCs have an incentive to not just buy minor items, but to seek out major ones since a wand with three different built-in spells counts the same as one with just a single spell on it.

In terms of GM advice for placement, the system recommends each PC find about one major permanent item every five levels (the system caps at level 15), but the math works even with no items awarded since there are no +1 swords... all the hit and damage math is in the PCs... magic weapons let you deal fire damage with them or allow your adjacent allies to use your defenses if they're higher or to push enemies you hit back one or more paces. More potent item properties also require the PC to spend some of their tactical (focus) or strategic (heroic surges) resources to use those properties so often magic items are about providing more options than just raw power.

As a result there's no magic item treadmill where you have to replace your +1 flaming sword with a +2 (or 3, 4 or 5) sword just for the game math to work. The magic sword you find early in your career can be your Longclaw or Durnwyn* for the entire campaign and not become obsolete as you continue to level up.

*side-bar: another GM advice sidebar is that every major item should have a name and a story. The party doesn't find a flaming sword... they find Emberstroke, the family longsword of the lost house of Evandur.

Quote from: Novastar;1108807In older editions (I'm specifically thinking 2E), a +1 to hit and damage was the realm of characters with 17 or higher Str scores; so it DID really matter. 1st level characters having a 20 STR with +5 to hit and damage didn't exist.

I think a +1 sword is quite powerful regardless of the system. You are removing a miss and adding a hit to all possible attack results, and increasing the damage of all your hits and crits.

Even the powerful low level 5e character with a standard array (+5/+3) is going to get in the ballpark of a 20% increase in their average damage, depending on the target AC.

For the older and OSR style systems with fewer modifiers, its an even bigger increase as you said. And having a much better chance to kill those low HP enemies outright is definitely a factor.

I find my own propensity for giving out items really depends on the system.

Quote from: Conanist;1108962I think a +1 sword is quite powerful regardless of the system.

No, it's not.  Power depends on the system.  

If your normal attacks do 4d12+32 and opponents normally have 750 hit points, the +1 does virtually nothing.  

If your opponents have '1 hit' and you already hit on a 2+ (and a 1 is always a miss), the +1 does absolutely nothing.  

There are also situations where the bonus provided by a magical item is duplicated elsewhere (the benefits overlap and do not stack).  

It is not possible to evaluate a benefit in a vacuum.  The 'power level' is related to the benefit.  Therefore it is not possible to make a blanket statement about the significance of a +1.

As a point of Reference here are some treasure types from OD&D
Type A Land
#1
8,000 GP; Gems: 2 x 50 GP; 11 x 100 GP; 9 x 500 GP; 5,000 GP; 100,000 GP; Jewels: 1 x 900; 2 x 1,000; 2 x 1,200; 1 x 1,300; 5 x 2,000; 1 x 3,000; 5 x 4,000; 2 x 5,000; 2 x 6,000; 1 x 9,000; Armor +1, Shield +1; Oil of Etherealness; Map To (Potion of Fire Resistance; Neutral Sword +1; Rod of Absorption; Potion of Undead Control)

#2
3,000 SP; Shield +1; Potion of ESP; Shield +1

Type A Water
#1
Gems: 2 x 10 GP; 2 x 50 GP; 16 x 100 GP; 8 x 500 GP; 5,000 GP; 100,000 GP; Map To (40,000 SP; 18 GP; Gems: 3 x 10 GP; 2 x 50 GP; 4 x 100 GP; 5,000 GP; Jewels: 1 x 900; 1 x 2,000; 1 x 3,000; 1 x 4,000; 2 x 5,000; 3 x 6,000)

#2
Gems: 50 GP; 7 x 100 GP; 2 x 500 GP; Jewels: 1 x 500; 1 x 800; 5 x 1,000; 1 x 1,100; 4 x 1,200; 2 x 2,000; 2 x 3,000; 1 x 4,000; 7 x 5,000; 3 x 6,000; 2 x 8,000; 1 x 10,000;

Type A Desert
#1
3,000 SP; Gems: 5 x 10 GP; 7 x 50 GP; 19 x 100 GP; 8 x 500 GP; 5,000 GP; Jewels: 1 x 800; 5 x 1,000; 2 x 1,200; 1 x 1,300; 1 x 1,700; 4 x 2,000; 3 x 3,000; 4 x 4,000; 2 x 5,000; 4 x 6,000; 2 x 7,000; 1 x 10,000; Potion of Control Bronze Dragon; Potion of ESP; Potion of Delusion, Potion of Clairaudience

#2
Jewels: 1 x 700; 1 x 1,200; 4 x 3,000; 1 x 5,000; 3 x 6,000;

Type B
#1
1,000 CP; 6,000 SP;

#2
7,000 CP; 2,000 GP; Gems: 50 GP; 2 x 100 GP; 500 GP;

Type C
#1
4,000 SP; Jewels: 1 x 900; 1 x 3,000; 1 x 4,000; 1 x 5,000; Neutral Sword, Flaming +1, +3 vs Ents; Lawful Sword +1, +3 vs Trolls with Locate Secret Doors, Detect Gems, Detect Traps, Speaks 1 Languages; Ego 8

#2
1,000 SP; Gems: 10 GP; 50 GP;

Type D
#1
2,000 GP; Gems: 100 GP; 5,000 GP;

#2
8,000 CP; 5,000 GP; Gems: 5,000 GP;

Type E
#1
Map To (Potion of Treasure Finding; Armor +2, Shield +2; Shield of Missile Attract -1); Potion of Oil of Slipperiness; Potion of Healing; Scroll of 1 Wizard Spell

#2
7,000 SP; 8,000 GP;

Type F
#1
Crystal Ball; Map To (30,000 SP); Map To (Gems: 10 GP; 50 GP; 6 x 100 GP; 2 x 500 GP; Jewels: 1 x 1,000; 2 x 2,000; 3 x 3,000; 1 x 4,000; 1 x 5,000; 1 x 6,000; 1 x 9,000); Oil of Etherealness; Scroll of 3 Wizard Spells

#2
Nothing

Type G
#1
30,000 GP; Map To (Shield +1); Book of Darkness; Scroll of 1 Wizard Spell; Manual of Exercise; Scroll of 1 Wizard Spell

#2
20,000 GP; Gems: 10 GP; 10 x 100 GP; 5 x 500 GP; Map To (Gems: 4 x 10 GP; 4 x 50 GP; 26 x 100 GP; 6 x 500 GP; Jewels: 1 x 1,400; 2 x 2,000; 2 x 3,000; 1 x 4,000; 5 x 5,000; 2 x 6,000; 1 x 7,000); Potion of Super-Heroism; Potion of Invulnerability; Armor of Vulnerability; Scroll of 1 Wizard Spell

Type H
#1
17,000 CP; 81,000 SP; 10,000 GP; Gems: 4 x 10 GP; 5 x 50 GP; 18 x 100 GP; 5 x 500 GP; 5,000 GP; Jewels: 1 x 400; 1 x 800; 2 x 900; 5 x 1,000; 1 x 1,100; 1 x 1,300; 2 x 1,700; 5 x 2,000; 9 x 3,000; 4 x 4,000; 2 x 5,000; 6 x 6,000; 1 x 9,000; Map To (Gems: 10 GP; 3 x 50 GP; 27 x 100 GP; 8 x 500 GP; 5,000 GP; Jewels: 1 x 600; 1 x 700; 1 x 1,000; 1 x 1,200; 1 x 2,000; 3 x 3,000; 2 x 10,000); Shield +1; Armor +1; Potion of Clairvoyance)); Scroll of Prot: Lycanthropes; Stone of Control Earth Element.; Rod of Cancellation; Potion of Fire Resistance; Scroll of 2 Wizard Spells

#2
17,000 SP; 20,000 GP;

Type I
#1
Gems: 2 x 50 GP; 4 x 100 GP; 500 GP;

#2
Gems: 10 GP; 50 GP; 4 x 100 GP; 2 x 500 GP; 5,000 GP;  

A list of Treasure Type Assignments in OD&D

• B,C,D, E, & F are in order of increasing value. Although D&E are roughly equivalent, D has less potential value but greater odds, while E has greater potential odds but lesser odds.
• A, G, H, I are all all special treasure basically assigned to only one monster each.

A:Men & Centaur and is divided into Land, Desert, Water subcategories.
B:Skeletons, Zombies, Wights, Hydras, Nixies
C: Ogres (+1,000 GP), Gargoyles, Lycantropes, Minotaurs, Pixies, Gnomes
D:Orcs, Hobgoblins, Gnolls, Mummies, Cockatrices, Manticoras, Purple Worms, Dryads
E:Giants (+5,000 GP), Wraiths, Spectres, Gorgons, Wyverns, Elves, Griffons
F:Vampires, Basiliks, Medusae, Chimera
G:Dwarves
H:Dragons
I:Rocs

Quote from: Spinachcat;1108859For me, D&D is about finding lots of magic items.

Yeah, that is where 5e lost me as a player.  My top complaint was the treatment of magical items and bounded accuracy.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1108970No, it's not.  Power depends on the system.

"Can only be hit by magic weapons"

That +1 sword might be the difference between life and death, regardless of how many points of damage your normal attack can do.

Quote from: Conanist;1108962I think a +1 sword is quite powerful regardless of the system. You are removing a miss and adding a hit to all possible attack results, and increasing the damage of all your hits and crits.

A +1 sword in OD&D is going to result in a bit over 40% increase in average damage per round for a first level character vs an orc. It will go down as the player levels up but the majority of the increase is from the damage bonus, not the to-hit bonus.

One thing I do in my OD&D game is to list magic weapons like: Sword +1/d10  Where the first number of bonus to hit and the second number is the damage rolled. This allows a bit more variety among low level weapons as you can have a Sword +1/d8 or Sword +0/d10 trading off to-hit bonuses for damage and vice versa.

Quote from: Brad;1109000"Can only be hit by magic weapons"

That +1 sword might be the difference between life and death, regardless of how many points of damage your normal attack can do.

Exactly.  System matters.

One way I've thought would handle magic items is something I call the "Gothic Model". If you haven't played it: In Gothic(the crpg) most good loot is horded by the faction leaders and not found on the mobs. To quote Lord Mandalore in his review "This guy has been there, done that, so HE has all the best loot." My variation of this is: The players cannot buy magic items in town because the local liege lord and his rivals are trying to amass them for their own private wars". This encourages them to go out and adventure for things. This and the "Weapons of Legacy" book for 3.5 I think would help.

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.

In OD&D, lacking a magical weapon, we occasionally managed to loot a room with a single gargoyle in it (they were only 4 dice, so Sleep affected them), but we had no way to kill them, lacking magical weapons. Once they became more than 4 dice in AD&D, we had nothing and ran away. Add in that the most common thing that would distinguish characters in OD&D was what magic items they had.

Yes, you're more manly because in your campaign PCs die permanently all the time and get no magic items while everyone else is doing it wrong. Yes, I sincerely believe that you've played that way for 40+ years. Pat yourself on the back if you can reach it.

No, see, in my campaign any character that lives long enough will inevitably get magic items. Practically guaranteed!

But the difference is that instead of a wheelbarrow of magic items they treat as boring tools, it's one or two or maybe three magic items that they treat as a fundamental character-defining feature.

Get it now?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1110203No, see, in my campaign any character that lives long enough will inevitably get magic items. Practically guaranteed!

But the difference is that instead of a wheelbarrow of magic items they treat as boring tools, it's one or two or maybe three magic items that they treat as a fundamental character-defining feature.

Get it now?

If you're keeping the numbers low, how do you feel about the magic items that grow with the character? This way PCs 'unlock' abilities slowly rather than all at once. I believe D&D had something like this in 3.5 (I recall "legacy something" in the description) and it's the basis for almost all magical (thread) items in Earthdawn.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1110203No, see, in my campaign any character that lives long enough will inevitably get magic items. Practically guaranteed!

But the difference is that instead of a wheelbarrow of magic items they treat as boring tools, it's one or two or maybe three magic items that they treat as a fundamental character-defining feature.

Get it now?

That is more or less how I treat them in my campaigns, as well. Although it depends on the PC too. Some players don't necessarily want magic items, and that's fine too. My games aren't 'balanced' around them, but they make a nice well-earned reward, and some players do greatly enjoy integrating them into their character's identity.

I remember playing in a D&D 3.5 campaign my buddy was running...we had a bunch of powergamers and munchkins who strictly adhered to the alleged minimum magic per level nonsense. He decided to give EVERY permanent magic item a personality, with all of them being able to talk. Hilarity ensued when one of the munchkins got a really powerful sword that was basically an obnoxious tattletale, not to mention had a somewhat puritanical outlook. Every time he killed anyone or anything, the sword would say something like, "Why are you so evil? How can you live with yourself?" During combat the sword would apologize to the enemies, and start giving them tactical advice. Whenever the party would interact with an NPC, it would butt in and explain how horrible the player was and start listing all the bad stuff he had done.

I think he ditched that sword about three sessions after finding it because it was just so annoying, and he never once complained about not having enough magic items again.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1109850In 3.x, they make magic weapons much too expensive for wealth by level guidelines.

Some prices needed adjustment, especially wands, but at least the ratios were better. In AD&D, you could trade two +1 swords for a +2 and only eight +1 swords for a +5. In 3e, you'd need four +1 swords for a +2 and twenty five for a +5 sword. That's a decent ratio for a top tier weapon.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1110244Some prices needed adjustment, especially wands, but at least the ratios were better. In AD&D, you could trade two +1 swords for a +2 and only eight +1 swords for a +5. In 3e, you'd need four +1 swords for a +2 and twenty five for a +5 sword. That's a decent ratio for a top tier weapon.

3e weapons just cost too much relative to wizard items, and relative to armour. Halving the costs for +s so they equal armour costs would pretty much fix it; energy damage bonuses like +d6 fire need to stay at least that much though.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1110223If you're keeping the numbers low, how do you feel about the magic items that grow with the character? This way PCs 'unlock' abilities slowly rather than all at once. I believe D&D had something like this in 3.5 (I recall "legacy something" in the description) and it's the basis for almost all magical (thread) items in Earthdawn.

I think that can sometimes feel very contrived, unless you're very clever about how you do it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1110203No, see, in my campaign any character that lives long enough will inevitably get magic items. Practically guaranteed!

But the difference is that instead of a wheelbarrow of magic items they treat as boring tools, it's one or two or maybe three magic items that they treat as a fundamental character-defining feature.

Get it now?

I get it. No longer are the pc's treated as Swiss army knive men who have a magical item as the solution to everything. Every player only has a handful of items that define their character. For example a thief might have a lockpick which opens every lock, but he can only use it once every mooncycle. He also has cloak of invisibilty that hurts his health every minute he uses it and a scroll of identify he can use as often as you want, but cause the character to slowly go insane.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1111889I think that can sometimes feel very contrived, unless you're very clever about how you do it.

I keep this rare, but it works well for special items. Eg Ralf the Uthgardt Barbarian in my FR campaign took a great axe from a dead orc war chief at level 5. It was just a +1 greataxe, but he loved that axe. The player had a steel mini made of his PC with that axe, lovingly painted by his wife. The axe is slowly revealing more powers as he attunes to it and grows in power, now at level 9 it does +d6 frost damage. I decided it is actually the axe of Uthgar, the race-hero demigod of his people, slowly coming back to life. My plan is it goes to +2 at 13th and +3 at 17th.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vlF2OmOET7A/XaynUSgAw5I/AAAAAAAAOUs/Bj4GD9pkjlkglPlHlQ7ohk4go18wsxNEwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/72650681_10220136369348320_6139136183143235584_n.jpg)

Quote from: HappyDaze;1110223If you're keeping the numbers low, how do you feel about the magic items that grow with the character? This way PCs 'unlock' abilities slowly rather than all at once. I believe D&D had something like this in 3.5 (I recall "legacy something" in the description) and it's the basis for almost all magical (thread) items in Earthdawn.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1111889I think that can sometimes feel very contrived, unless you're very clever about how you do it.

The best take I've seen was on an osr game Eorathril, that had two ways to do this: (and I believe they got the idea from another game.)

 You found that +1 whatever, and like S'mon's player the  item grew as the PC did greater deeds with it. The game had a little chart that listed the various types of deeds that would accrue points, which when enough were earned, would bestow various "upgrades" to the legendary weapon.

The other way was basically the same as the first except that the player would invest I think some amount of XP in a mundane weapon that they had, which would then become a +1 something, and then the chart would kick in as normal.

I thought it rather clever as the bonuses ought to usually reflect the uses the weapon was put to - like if you killed a lot of Orcs, you can have it glow when they are near, or a +bonus to dmg for a given enemy, or induce a morale check, etc.

Quote from: Jaeger;1111908You found that +1 whatever, and like S'mon's player the  item grew as the PC did greater deeds with it. The game had a little chart that listed the various types of deeds that would accrue points, which when enough were earned, would bestow various "upgrades" to the legendary weapon.

I was thinking about making a class for magic weapons. They gain XP as you use them and level up like a wizard. Forex, a 3rd level magic sword would have two first level powers and one second level power.

Of course, if the owner of the sword dies, the sword loses two levels. With enough wielder deaths, the sword ends up cursed. If you use a cursed sword enough, you'd eventually bring it back to positive levels, making it valuable.

What bugs me the most about too many items and too much bending of rules and finding tricks to defeat the npc's is that it's just too meta for me. It becomes just like a card or a board game and it doesn't make me immersed in the setting. I have the same with grids, positioning and line of sight mechanics. You are playing the game and not really playing your character. Way too meta.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;1114874What bugs me the most about too many items and too much bending of rules and finding tricks to defeat the npc's is that it's just too meta for me. It becomes just like a card or a board game and it doesn't make me immersed in the setting. I have the same with grids, positioning and line of sight mechanics. You are playing the game and not really playing your character. Way too meta.

Playing the game versus playing your character? I understand what you mean but you're pretty much playing both if you're playing. I like grids/positioning/line of sight because it makes the situation clearer without a lengthy back-and-forth with the GM, and I accept the oddities (faster to move with the grain of your grid than against it, for example) the same way I accept the oddities that go with hit points and combat mechanics and so on. You pretty much have to know if you can see an opponent and how far away they are to target them with a spell or a bow, and the game goes faster if you can just look at some figures on a grid, and faster play helps immersion.

I dislike it when players calculate based on the mechanics and then port their conclusion back into the world being simulated, but I don't think that large numbers of magic items make this more likely. It can spoil immersion in the game when the character disappears under a pile of magic items, though.

I don't have a set rule on magic items, but I've always been at odds with them in D&D. Part of the reason I never got around establishing a set of rules for them in my games is the magic weapon requirement for damaging certain creatures in D&D (which may require a specific "+"), which sort of pigeonholes me into including +X weapons for characters to be able to fight those creatures. Granted, I could just ignore that rule or handle it a different way, but that tends to go against expectations from players experienced with D&D, and becomes one more thing I have to drag time explaining to them that things work differently in my game (as many other things already do).

The main issue I have with magic items in D&D is the wealth of items that persistently modify stats--not just ability scores, but also attack rolls, AC, skills, saves, etc.--which tends to throw things off in terms of balance when stacked with ability-based bonuses, especially if I already include a wealth of options to improve the character's rolls and such through character abilities. This became a major issue in AD&D 2e when I introduced my own modified "Player Options" rules, including weapon mastery, which allowed bonuses as high as +5 for Grandmasters on top of the (up to) +5 bonus for magic weapons, STR/DEX bonuses, etc.

A +1 or +2 bonus may seem like crap on its own, but when you have three or four other things that ALSO give you bonuses ALL the time (not even on activation) it starts to get ridiculous. And I the end of the day I would MUCH rather characters get bonuses from their own abilities rather because they have a magic toy that does it for them. I've been thinking of eliminating persistent magic bonuses from magic items for a while and making magic items something that generates spell-like effects on activation instead. Rather than a +X flaming sword, characters could get a high quality weapon with no permanent bonuses (except maybe a +1 quality bonus) that can temporarily inflict a extra flaming damage upon activation a limited number of times per day, or perhaps based on a magic device using skill roll.

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. :p

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.

Quote from: Malfi;1115479Depends 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.

To be fair, I couldn't get on with 3rd/3.5, possibly because it was a tightly bound ruleset. I prefer 1st/2nd/5th Ed. Then minimal rules changes are needed to cope with a low magic setting. But the +0 magic sword seems a very sensible solution if needed to avoid major work elsewhere.

Quote from: Malfi;1115479However 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.

4E had a widely used option called "inherent bonuses" that let you run a no-magic item campaign more easily than any version of D&D I've ever seen. The warlord class also enabled a literal no-magic campaign with zero house-ruling needed beyond restricting race to human and the classes to the martial ones.

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.

If I remember my Conan stories correctly there are plenty of creatures that he can not fight and runs away from.  Maybe it is just DnD type games where you are expected to be able to fight everything.

QuoteHowever, 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).

Exactly.

ONE 20th level character against a CR20 monster? That's more than three times a deadly encounter; I don't think that average magic items are going to make up that gap in general, although certainly lacking them does hurt.

I agree with Jan Paparazzi that this is not a good topic, although I don't blame D&D.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;1115478Yep, 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.

I have none of these issues in OD&D. Zero. If you can't beat the monster, you escape (or die). For us, its always about the immersive experience of being an adventurer in a fantasy world. Sometimes you were lucky and had the right gear at the right moment (finally, that potion of animal control was useful!), and sometimes your mage only had fire spells memorized when you ran into those fire elementals.

PCs should try to win at all costs - but within the confines of the game world. Note I said PCs, not players. The lives of the characters are on the line and they should pull out all the stops to survive and win, but not players yanking out books and whining about rule issues.

Quote from: rawma;1115521ONE 20th level character against a CR20 monster? That's more than three times a deadly encounter; I don't think that average magic items are going to make up that gap in general, although certainly lacking them does hurt.

IME I'd expect most level 20 5e PCs to be able to kerbstomp a typical CR 20 monster even without items, although it depends on circumstances (if the ancient red dragon ambushes the Wizard it won't go well). The system is very generous at higher level. An even match for a level 20 Barbarian PC is around CR 25; I'd expect a party of 4 can take down a CR 30.  I tend not to bother calculating CRs in my E20 game but I think my version of Xin's Reliquary was around CR 30 and they beat it ok on Saturday, a couple PCs went to 0 hp. It had ATT +15 with 4 attacks (plus 3 legendary action) doing 47 (crit 62) damage each, if 2 hit then could Rend for another 47. So with a few good hits it could drop most level 20 PCs in 1 round and did drop both the Paladin and the Rogue, who was Polymorphed into a giant ape.

The DMG says a typical CR 30 has AC 19, 806-850 hp, ATT +14 and 303-320 damage/round. The Reliquary had AC 25, 442 hp (but Resist All unless attacker had the Sihedron), ATT +15, max damage without crits 47x9 = 423. It was backed up by 5 minions around CR 10-12 while the PCs had Shastaak the Rune Giant, worth around 2-3 of the minions. The PCs were level 20E Barbarian, Rogue, Druid & Paladin.

Quote from: Chris24601;11154914E had a widely used option called "inherent bonuses" that let you run a no-magic item campaign more easily than any version of D&D I've ever seen. The warlord class also enabled a literal no-magic campaign with zero house-ruling needed beyond restricting race to human and the classes to the martial ones.

And pathfinder unchained had automatic bonuses and it had an option that could allow a "no magic item" campaign but do note that the players would still have magical bonuses, so they would arguably be more superhuman than the ones in old school dnd and 5e, which could end up defeating the point.

Also completely no magic items both in pathfinder unchained and 4e isn't exactly a perfect fit to the system(you don't get item power and properties you are supposed to), but it almost is in 5e.

My take for 4e is that a lot of people used inherent bonuses with magic items so they wouldn't have to worry too much about magic items themselves. Which is pretty great, but not exactly what we are talking about.

Quote from: rawma;1115521ONE 20th level character against a CR20 monster? That's more than three times a deadly encounter; I don't think that average magic items are going to make up that gap in general, although certainly lacking them does hurt.

I agree with Jan Paparazzi that this is not a good topic, although I don't blame D&D.

In what dnd edition?
In 3.5 it is the highest challenge. A level 20th character with his normal wealth by level is supposed to have 50% of victory against a CR 20 creature. Ofcourse monsters and characters being so diverse, its better to look at it as a party of 4 20th level pc's with the appropriate equipment vs 4 CR 20 monsters.

In 5e you are correct.

Quote from: S'mon;1115535IME I'd expect most level 20 5e PCs to be able to kerbstomp a typical CR 20 monster even without items, although it depends on circumstances (if the ancient red dragon ambushes the Wizard it won't go well). The system is very generous at higher level. An even match for a level 20 Barbarian PC is around CR 25; I'd expect a party of 4 can take down a CR 30.  I tend not to bother calculating CRs in my E20 game but I think my version of Xin's Reliquary was around CR 30 and they beat it ok on Saturday, a couple PCs went to 0 hp. It had ATT +15 with 4 attacks (plus 3 legendary action) doing 47 (crit 62) damage each, if 2 hit then could Rend for another 47. So with a few good hits it could drop most level 20 PCs in 1 round and did drop both the Paladin and the Rogue, who was Polymorphed into a giant ape.

The DMG says a typical CR 30 has AC 19, 806-850 hp, ATT +14 and 303-320 damage/round. The Reliquary had AC 25, 442 hp (but Resist All unless attacker had the Sihedron), ATT +15, max damage without crits 47x9 = 423. It was backed up by 5 minions around CR 10-12 while the PCs had Shastaak the Rune Giant, worth around 2-3 of the minions. The PCs were level 20E Barbarian, Rogue, Druid & Paladin.

Really?! I have never played at high levels in 5e.
I have heard about the whole high level monsters are kinda weak in 5e multiple times, but didn't know what to make of it.
Maybe the designers balanced the whole thing, thinking that you wouldn't take feats or multiclass?

I haven't played many high level campaigns, but in my experience characters in D&D can generally roflstomp encounters of comparable level, and the higher the level and more decked out in stacking magical crap the worse it tends to get. IMO the rules don't accurately account for scaling power as you add up a bunch of special abilities and magic items. The one 20+ level group I played in 2e became so laughably powerful the dual-wielding fighter--decked out in +5 scimitars, weapon mastery and two-weapon fighting abilities--and my chain lightning spamming witch could take out a great wyrm in a single round or two, IIRC. Granted this was 2e, where dragons were weaker, but that fighter could routinely make called shots to the head (-8 penalty) against fully armored warriors, with like 5 attacks per round, and not miss.

There was nothing in the Monsters Manual that could give them a challenge--the only way to do it was to make crap up, and the rules didn't account for ridiculously low THAC0 with weapon mastery, uber strength and magic bonuses. The only way to make the fighter miss was to artificially inflate an encounter's AC just so that particular character (who was a freak) would have a hard time at things. Granted, this group was using special weapon mastery rules, but I did the math at the time and even removing that ability, he would still have been able to routinely call shot to the head (or at least have a decent chance of success) anything in the Monsters Manual.

This why I tend to give monsters class levels and access to every single ability that PCs have. And I've been seriously considering Pundit's +0 magic weapon rule, cuz the +X magic bonuses just throw things out of wack. And creature resistance to non-magic weapons is an artificial measure anyways that DOES NOT increase challenge the moment that characters acquire magic weapons--especially when you consider that the +X bonuses actually increase both, damage AND hit rates. So it ultimately DECREASES challenge once characters are equipped with the required uber weapons.

Quote from: Malfi;1115601Really?! I have never played at high levels in 5e.
I have heard about the whole high level monsters are kinda weak in 5e multiple times, but didn't know what to make of it.
Maybe the designers balanced the whole thing, thinking that you wouldn't take feats or multiclass?

The system is very playable without feats or multiclassing. Those do not necessarily even give a big boost.

Quote from: Malfi;1115598My take for 4e is that a lot of people used inherent bonuses with magic items so they wouldn't have to worry too much about magic items themselves. Which is pretty great, but not exactly what we are talking about.

We used inherent bonuses and humans/martials only for a Robin Hood-style campaign to very good effect. All inherent really do is keep you mostly in line with the system's +1/level presumptions for attack and defense.

You could forego the inherent bonuses too if you just subtracted 1/4 levels from the PCs when determining encounter difficulty (i.e. a 12th level PC with no items is about equal to a level 9 with expected items). Given the dearth of level 24+ monsters this actually makes going not only no magic items, but no inherent bonuses almost a feature instead of a flaw since a 30th level no-items PC is about equal to a 23rd level with items and there are plenty of low epic monsters you can challenge them with for as long as your campaign needs to finish up.

In practice, item powers in 4E were a non-issue at our table. No one used them even if they got them because they were sub-par to your personal powers by design (a daily item power is only as strong as a class encounter power) and fights were over before they'd matter. Theme abilities and powers were far more important to players than items ever were.

Honestly, the only items players ever cared about were the ones that added static bonuses to things (ex. the staff of ruin was what every wizard wanted because of the matching item bonus to damage was more valuable than any 1/day encounter power would ever be). Item powers in 4E, as designed were one of the biggest misfires of the edition (and I say that as a huge 4E fan).

As a result, it was pretty easy to just leave out magic items entirely for the most part. Players had more than enough powers just from their race/class/theme already and the only practical difference in terms of game-play to just using inherent bonuses was that on-level fights weren't automatic curb-stomps in the party's favor.

Frankly, leaving out magic items and using just inherent bonuses (or NOT using inherent bonuses or items) resulted a LOT more fun play experience in 4E overall.

Quote from: Haffrung;1114973Published 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.

Which ones? Ive gone through some of the BX modules and they are surprisingly light on magic items. Scrolls and potions seemed the most common items to find. The occasional +1 weapon or armour.

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?

Quote from: Shasarak;1115460Should 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.

Keep in mind that prior a wizard had on hand to apply to problems only the spells they had memorized for each spell slot. They were not "swiss army knives" they were "Batman utility belts". Make do with what you happened to prep before going out to smack evil around today.

My favorite option in 4e was upgrading magic items to grow progression-wise along with your character; so you might find one or two magic items near the start that are relatively low-powered, and magic items could be rare in general, but then later you slaughter a dragon king (leveling up in the process), dip your sword in its blood and gain a +1 or a new power or whatever.

Out of curiosity, does 5e have anything like that?

Quote from: Antiquation!;1115626Out of curiosity, does 5e have anything like that?

Not that I've seen.

And as far as magic items growing, Earthdawn did it way better back in the 90s.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1115631Not that I've seen.

And as far as magic items growing, Earthdawn did it way better back in the 90s.

Can't say I've read Earthdawn, but I've heard it's a cool setting. Maybe I'll check it out.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1115631And as far as magic items growing, Earthdawn did it way better back in the 90s.

How did Earthdawn do it?

Quote from: Zalman;1115643How did Earthdawn do it?

The item has X ranks of powers. You have to unlock them by uncovering lore and/or doing deeds then spending XP to connect a magical "thread" between your legend and that of the item. Eventually, once you master all X ranks of the item, you might even be able to develop an X+1 (and maybe more) rank of power for the item. Most items can only have threads woven to them by a limited number of people at one time (so Mjolnir obviously has a thread to Thor and Odin, but later to Steve Rogers after Odin dies).

I have to admit that in all my years of listening to people complain about boring magical pluses on weapons, the idea of a +0 magical weapon is the worst that I ever heard.

I dont know how I would even run that past my players.

Quote from: Omega;1115623Keep in mind that prior a wizard had on hand to apply to problems only the spells they had memorized for each spell slot. They were not "swiss army knives" they were "Batman utility belts". Make do with what you happened to prep before going out to smack evil around today.

Considering that Batmans utility belt most likely contains a swiss army knife it really seems like a distinction without a difference.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115646I have to admit that in all my years of listening to people complain about boring magical pluses on weapons, the idea of a +0 magical weapon is the worst that I ever heard.

I dont know how I would even run that past my players.

If it serves a function (e.g., bypassing damage resistance or shedding light when drawn), then it's still useful.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1115648If it serves a function (e.g., bypassing damage resistance or shedding light when drawn), then it's still useful.

Shedding light would at least be useful.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115646I have to admit that in all my years of listening to people complain about boring magical pluses on weapons, the idea of a +0 magical weapon is the worst that I ever heard.

Worse than the game breaking and boring AF idea of the pluses themselves?

Back in the day when I was first introduced into the game and my mind wasn't yet poisoned by game conventions and assumptions I remember thinking why they had to make weapon enchantments a +X instead of making it stuff like some type of elemental damage that did a ton of damage (like 2d6) for a brief period on activation, or some type of spell-like ability, like Fear, Light (for low level weapons) or Haste, etc. And have the activation effects be X times a day, or maybe something that required some sacrifice from the character, like taking a small amount of damage, or stamina damage, if the game had that type of mechanic, or maybe require some activation roll and be limited to once per encounter.

But instead we have to content with persistent bonuses that throw the game balance out of wack once you pile them up on top of all the other bonuses characters get from their normal combat progression, special abilities (which I prefer over magic items and would give items up before special abilities) and other magic items. And these magic +s are then required to actually damage certain creatures that become less challenging cuz the + required to damage them actually boosts your attack and damage (persistently) on top of ignoring their oh so fearsome resistance to non-magic weapons, which becomes a joke at that point unless you get disarmed or something.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115646I dont know how I would even run that past my players.

Maybe your players should consider not being munchkins :p

Quote from: VisionStorm;1115659Worse than the game breaking and boring AF idea of the pluses themselves?

If I was to make an estimate then I would guess that a +0 is probably a million times more boring then a +1

QuoteMaybe your players should consider not being munchkins :p

Yeah maybe we can sit around the game table holding hands and singing Kumbaya.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: Shasarak;1115666If I was to make an estimate then I would guess that a +0 is probably a million times more boring then a +1

Not if you replace the +X bonus with spell-like effects that work on activation, like I mentioned in the rest of my post. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Shasarak;1115666Yeah maybe we can sit around the game table holding hands and singing Kumbaya.  :rolleyes:

OR you could go out and fight monsters using your actual skills and powers, instead of relying on magic toys to do the work for you. :p

Im not for munchkinism, but Im not sure why bonuses are bad and boring.

I mean I find most D&D bonuses bad and boring because they are both kinda piddly insignificant and required at the same time.

Its the tiny incrimentalism that makes it dull.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1115680Its the tiny incrimentalism that makes it dull.

It's like getting a 0.04% annual raise or leveling up in Alternity.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1115680Im not for munchkinism, but Im not sure why bonuses are bad and boring.

My issue at least is that all those bonuses add up. And while they may seem tiny at first, when you have a bunch of +2s and +3s, etc. from half a dozen different sources, including other magic items, special benefits, like feats (or old weapon mastery), class abilities and normal combat progression (before 5e) those bonuses can reach values in excess of +10 really fast, or even higher than +20 with higher level characters, which is where you start getting into "needs a natural 1 to fail--even against high difficulties" territory.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1115680I mean I find most D&D bonuses bad and boring because they are both kinda piddly insignificant and required at the same time.

Its the tiny incrimentalism that makes it dull.

I have come to accept this as a fact of life in RPGs, and all systems have this issue, it's just some disguise it better than others. d100 systems hide it behind the fact you're work with higher variables, so a +5 bonus seems higher than a +1 bonus to a d20, even though mathematically they're the same thing. And dice pool systems hide it behind extra dice to maybe score one more success, etc. But ultimately if you want to avoid things going off the rails in terms of balance, you have to work with small increments.

Greetings!

Hmmm...I would think a Gladius, having a silver inlaid handle, with the pommel being carved into a shrewdly detailed wolf head, would be well-recieved by players. The weapon has a +1 enchanted bonus, and sheds light like a torch after sundown, or otherwise in darkness. The sword inflicts 1d8 damage dice when fighting against Orcs, Beastmen, or creatures of Chaotic alignment. The wielder of the sword may enjoy the benefit of being *Hasted* up to 3/day, gaining a bonus weapon attack. Each use of the special Hasted power has a three round duration. The Hasted power may be activated through the wielder uttering the command phrase, "Glory to the Empire!". The special command phrase is delicately inscribed in an old, archaic human tongue, along the base of the blade near the handle. The sword's scabbard is crafted of black leather, fine steel, and inlaid with copper accents along the scabbatd's length.

The owner of the weapon periodically hears occasional whispers of encouragement, stirring exhortations, and solemn chanting from the ancient blade.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Omega;1115621Which ones? Ive gone through some of the BX modules and they are surprisingly light on magic items. Scrolls and potions seemed the most common items to find. The occasional +1 weapon or armour.

The 1e AD&D tournament modules, notably.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115666If I was to make an estimate then I would guess that a +0 is probably a million times more boring then a +1



Yeah maybe we can sit around the game table holding hands and singing Kumbaya.  :rolleyes:

Neither statement was called for. Please let's focus on how you sell a 0+ equipment. Magical equipment and develops its power over time so it might give you only a tiny situational effect but with the right inducements it wil! be become a poweful weapon that fits with how your character has developed. You can only have one magical weapon, armour etc because the one you hold absorbs the magic from a second, third... one which aids in first one's development and makes the other one ordinary.  All magical equipment is rare and interesting. Something like that is a good sell.

Quote from: SHARK;1115688Greetings!

Hmmm...I would think a Gladius, having a silver inlaid handle, with the pommel being carved into a shrewdly detailed wolf head, would be well-recieved by players. The weapon has a +1 enchanted bonus, and sheds light like a torch after sundown, or otherwise in darkness. The sword inflicts 1d8 damage dice when fighting against Orcs, Beastmen, or creatures of Chaotic alignment. The wielder of the sword may enjoy the benefit of being *Hasted* up to 3/day, gaining a bonus weapon attack. Each use of the special Hasted power has a three round duration. The Hasted power may be activated through the wielder uttering the command phrase, "Glory to the Empire!". The special command phrase is delicately inscribed in an old, archaic human tongue, along the base of the blade near the handle. The sword's scabbard is crafted of black leather, fine steel, and inlaid with copper accents along the scabbatd's length.

The owner of the weapon periodically hears occasional whispers of encouragement, stirring exhortations, and solemn chanting from the ancient blade.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

That's a pretty nice description that makes it interesting and useful while keeping a low plus. The light gives it general utility and the increased damage against specific types of enemies adds an extra touch without making it too overbearing. The Haste feature, finally, gives it significant power without making it too overpowered, since it only lasts three rounds and can only be used three times per day. That's probably the way I would handle most activation features if I was going the X/Day route. The rest gives it a nice touch and makes it overall useful even when its key magical feature isn't active.

Quote from: cloa513;1115695Neither statement was called for.

In fairness, I went in with the "munchkins" quip first trying to be cheeky.:o

Quote from: cloa513;1115695Please let's focus on how you sell a 0+ equipment. Magical equipment and develops its power over time so it might give you only a tiny situational effect but with the right inducements it wil! be become a poweful weapon that fits with how your character has developed. You can only have one magical weapon, armour etc because the one you hold absorbs the magic from a second, third... one which aids in first one's development and makes the other one ordinary.  All magical equipment is rare and interesting. Something like that is a good sell.

It depends on how you handle the item's incremental power, what specific sort of benefits you get over time and what mechanics are involved. Restricting it to just one item at a time would limit magic items significantly, though, and along with the incremental gain of power thing would radically change the dynamics of how magical items are handled in the game, making it more like Earthdawn than D&D. It would also require a whole system for determining how items gain in power, and would have a specific flavor that might not be suited for all campaign styles or settings.

Quote from: Malfi;1115600In what dnd edition?
In 3.5 it is the highest challenge. A level 20th character with his normal wealth by level is supposed to have 50% of victory against a CR 20 creature. Ofcourse monsters and characters being so diverse, its better to look at it as a party of 4 20th level pc's with the appropriate equipment vs 4 CR 20 monsters.

In 5e you are correct.

I was considering only 5e, and a single PC, but I see that the context has been somewhat variable.

Quote from: S'mon;1115535IME I'd expect most level 20 5e PCs to be able to kerbstomp a typical CR 20 monster even without items, although it depends on circumstances (if the ancient red dragon ambushes the Wizard it won't go well). The system is very generous at higher level. An even match for a level 20 Barbarian PC is around CR 25

Without items means no magic weapons (reducing damage output a lot for the martial types, as many opponents have resistance to nonmagical attacks) and typically no flying. A 20th level Barbarian PC with no magic items will likely be taken out by a Pit Fiend (CR20) flying out of reach and dropping at-will fireballs (although a few character races can fly without items). Barbarian damage with no magic items seems fairly low per round - a good non-magical weapon by itself averages below 10 points and max of +7 for strength and the rage bonus - but only two attacks per round, with critical hits not adding a lot (doubling weapon dice only). If the Barbarian has highest dexterity and constitution and a shield, then AC24 and will hit more often, and may have slightly more hit points with the Tough feat. The barbarian should have silver weapons and not have damage reduced, the damage output is still comparable toe-to-toe, and the Pit Fiend will benefit from critical hits more. But with all the physical abilities so high and maybe the Tough feat, the Barbarian probably does not have a good save against the hold monster spell.

So I'm betting on the Pit Fiend there.

I've nuked the +X for magic items in the past and went with +0 and special abilities.
The players had no problem because the abilities were cool.

I enjoy a game where obtaining magic is a big deal and a +1 or +2 for armor or weapons is really big and a wand or stave is just awesome and other things like cloaks, gloves, boots, rings, potions and scrolls are a fantastic haul.

In any discussion about "too many magic items", there needs to be a separation between Permanent and Expendable magic.

One use or limited charge items aren't campaign breaking, and most are effectively just adding a bonus spell to the party for the adventure. Potions and Scrolls are the easy ones, but you could easily add Charms, Wards, Runes or other one-shot goodies and distribute them liberally between the "big hauls" of permanent items.

Quote from: rawma;1115758I was considering only 5e, and a single PC, but I see that the context has been somewhat variable.



Without items means no magic weapons (reducing damage output a lot for the martial types, as many opponents have resistance to nonmagical attacks) and typically no flying. A 20th level Barbarian PC with no magic items will likely be taken out by a Pit Fiend (CR20) flying out of reach and dropping at-will fireballs (although a few character races can fly without items). Barbarian damage with no magic items seems fairly low per round - a good non-magical weapon by itself averages below 10 points and max of +7 for strength and the rage bonus - but only two attacks per round, with critical hits not adding a lot (doubling weapon dice only). If the Barbarian has highest dexterity and constitution and a shield, then AC24 and will hit more often, and may have slightly more hit points with the Tough feat. The barbarian should have silver weapons and not have damage reduced, the damage output is still comparable toe-to-toe, and the Pit Fiend will benefit from critical hits more. But with all the physical abilities so high and maybe the Tough feat, the Barbarian probably does not have a good save against the hold monster spell.

So I'm betting on the Pit Fiend there.

Well this is wrong, a Barb 20 normally has str 24 (and may have con 24), can reckless for easy hits and boost damage with polearm master ad greatweapon master. Obviously I assume a neutral ground dungeon encounter not ambush by flying pit fiend in open terrain. Totem barb halves fire damage while berserker can bonus attack and riposte for 4 attacks/round.

Barb 20 str 24 does +11 damage or +21 with a greatweapon atrack. Attack at +13 with advantage. Or greatweapon +8 advtg and damage +21. 3rd attack via berserk or polearm master. Halberd/glaive gives nice brutal crit damage too.

BTW a pit fiend is only Large so can be grappled and knocked prone. The pf gets +8 on str checks while the barb has a minimum floor of 24 on athletics rolls as well as +13 athletics.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1115772In any discussion about "too many magic items", there needs to be a separation between Permanent and Expendable magic.

One use or limited charge items aren't campaign breaking, and most are effectively just adding a bonus spell to the party for the adventure. Potions and Scrolls are the easy ones, but you could easily add Charms, Wards, Runes or other one-shot goodies and distribute them liberally between the "big hauls" of permanent items.

... and Ammo! :) ... and Gear!

Yup, one-shots and charges are a great way to give powerful toys without as much worry. And once you walk away from the plus-crutch, it's pretty easy to swap in abilities, proficiencies, feats, spells, features, and the like to keep things interesting.

"Lamp Oil of Detect Magic - X charges, Y cost. A use is enough oil to last 10 minutes; multiple uses can be poured ahead of time into the same lamp or lantern to be used sequentially."

Easy peasy!

Quote from: Antiquation!;1115626My favorite option in 4e was upgrading magic items to grow progression-wise along with your character; so you might find one or two magic items near the start that are relatively low-powered, and magic items could be rare in general, but then later you slaughter a dragon king (leveling up in the process), dip your sword in its blood and gain a +1 or a new power or whatever.

Out of curiosity, does 5e have anything like that?

You could probably do that with a magic item recipe and apply it to a weapon allready enchanted to just upgrade its bonus. Example using a +2 recipe to upgrade a +1 blade to +2. Any being able to apply boons and the like could possibly enchant a PCs weapon to upgrade it one step.

And other ways to go about it without bending the rules any.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115646I have to admit that in all my years of listening to people complain about boring magical pluses on weapons, the idea of a +0 magical weapon is the worst that I ever heard.

I dont know how I would even run that past my players.

A weapon that emits light. Or rattles in its sheath when enemies are near. Or never gets dull/worn. Or appears to be made of fire and does bonus damage or ignites flammables. Or one made of ice, crystal, light, etc, but is otherwise the same as a normal weapon. Or requires a really high stat to be able to wield it. Or flies and fights on its own.

And so on.

Quote from: Shasarak;1115647Considering that Batmans utility belt most likely contains a swiss army knife it really seems like a distinction without a difference.

Only when you are being pedantic. Or willfully ignorant.

Quote from: S'mon;1115692The 1e AD&D tournament modules, notably.

Those really dont count as they are, well. One off convention modules. Score points and all that.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1115772In any discussion about "too many magic items", there needs to be a separation between Permanent and Expendable magic.

One use or limited charge items aren't campaign breaking, and most are effectively just adding a bonus spell to the party for the adventure. Potions and Scrolls are the easy ones, but you could easily add Charms, Wards, Runes or other one-shot goodies and distribute them liberally between the "big hauls" of permanent items.

I hit on this in another thread. Too many seem to complain about only the numbers, not the actual items. For example in 5e a probably fair chunk of the "magic items" that might be found in the course of a campaign tends to be taken up by potions and scrolls.

Quote from: Omega;1115823Those really dont count as they are, well. One off convention modules. Score points and all that.

They were sold as regular modules though. Really all the 1e AD&D mods have tons of items.

Quote from: S'mon;1115782Well this is wrong,

Hmm, we have to dig down into the details, so fire up the spreadsheets*! I was taking a bear totem barbarian to effectively double hit points, but you are correct that since most of the damage is from weapons a berserker barbarian will do better by easily doubling the number of attacks while losing little since most of the pit fiend's damage is weapon type.

(* I'm tired and have had too many beers so there may be some calculation errors. I stand by the conclusions, though.)

Quotea Barb 20 normally has str 24 (and may have con 24), can reckless for easy hits and boost damage with polearm master ad greatweapon master. Obviously I assume a neutral ground dungeon encounter not ambush by flying pit fiend in open terrain. Totem barb halves fire damage while berserker can bonus attack and riposte for 4 attacks/round.

Barb 20 str 24 does +11 damage or +21 with a greatweapon atrack. Attack at +13 with advantage. Or greatweapon +8 advtg and damage +21. 3rd attack via berserk or polearm master. Halberd/glaive gives nice brutal crit damage too.

You're not going to boost much damage with polearm master if you're already going berserker. I'm willing to forego the "fly around and use FB to kill the barbarian who can do nothing but try to run away" strategy even though flying is a pretty common advantage for CR20 monsters. But you never addressed the hold monster issue. If the barbarian dump-statted Wisdom and didn't take Resilient-Wisdom, it's certain death; each round that the barbarian remains paralyzed is another set of critical hits, averaging more than half the barbarian's hit points per round if they all hit (and no reduction from rage). I calculate that you'd need a +10 save before 3 uses of hold monster and consequent critical hits will inflict an average of less than 300 hit points (a very high AC could mitigate this a little - a 24 AC from max dex, max con and a shield would stem a fourth of the critical hits, although that shield's not compatible with the weapons you suggest).

(Critical damage is not that significant; a little more than 1 point per attack when reckless, even with 2d12 extra, since it happens so rarely. With more dice, the pit fiend does better on critical damage.)

But where does the barbarian get all these increases and feats? If you start with point buy, you're going to need 4 of 5 ability score increases to reach 24 in both STR and CON, and that's starting from pretty high totals in either. (If you want to start with rolled ability scores that are suspiciously high, then I'm rolling hit points for the pit fiend and giving it correspondingly higher hit points.) You've also suggested Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master with the generally high ability scores. There's a 10th level human barbarian at https://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/trpg-resources/character-sheets who would need all three remaining ability score increases to get 24 STR and 24 CON and has no feats at 10th level; with only a +2 WIS save vs DC21, the resulting barbarian will probably be paralyzed for a long time.

If they trade blows and accept that every attack will hit (e.g., reckless attack), the berserker barbarian without Great Weapon Master will average 4 attacks of 17.5 damage and the pit fiend will average (after reductions) only 59, plus potentially 21 poison (CON save 21, so happens 1/3 of the time with max CON bonus). The pit fiend has more hit points unless the barbarian has Tough and at least 22 CON. Tweak the pit fiend to be resistant to non-magical weapons and the story is substantially different, but that should increase the CR (maybe not, since high level PCs would normally use few non-magical weapon attacks). Still, I'm satisfied that the pit fiend is winning most of the time with Hold Monster.

I considered using a balor for the resistance to all non-magical weapons, but it's only CR19; still, the barbarian would take 40 points of damage from successful balor attacks, and inflict less than that due to the damage reduction. (Slightly more if using great weapon master, and the balor might have less HP than the barbarian.)

QuoteBTW a pit fiend is only Large so can be grappled and knocked prone. The pf gets +8 on str checks while the barb has a minimum floor of 24 on athletics rolls as well as +13 athletics.

Hmm, so larger creatures can't automatically break free of grapples. I had thought the pit fiend was huge but I was apparently thinking of the balor's size. OK, that's some good rule lawyering but you're not grappling with your great weapon. I don't think supersizing the pit fiend to huge with no other changes is going to change its CR (specifically, not increasing the size of its hit dice). Definitely Indomitable Might is as broken as Reliable Talent for high level rogues, and maybe more so as this example indicates. Barbarian still loses to Hold Monster.

Nobody should trust S'mon's estimates of how tough high level characters are in 5e. He previously presented a barbarian with multiple epic boons as "merely" 20th level, I believe that he has previously said he houserules to give PCs proficiency in every saving throw, and he's giving benefits in this example that can't possibly all apply (numerous feats and maximum ability scores, or grappling and using a two handed weapon).

Quote from: rawma;1115952I believe that he has previously said he houserules to give PCs proficiency in every saving throw

Not in my current campaign - I did that in my first 5e game with no feats & multiclassing and low magic. My current games use Feats (most are still no Multiclassing) and is pretty much RAW, with a few tweaks like standing from prone gives an opp attack, and I cap d20 die bonus (eg to-hit) at +20, capping target numbers eg AC at 30.

It is not hard to get STR from 16 at 1st to 20>24 at 20th while also having Feats. You get 5 ability score improvements 1-20 so my point buy human Barbarian who started with STR 16 CON 16 at 1st could actually have got to STR 24 CON 24 at 20th and still had room for a Feat! But starting STR 16 CON 14 is more common IME. Anyway CON 24 at 20th is nice for the AC & hp but not vital, I see it in my Featless game, but less when there are Feats.

Level 20 Barbarians have Infinite Rage and can remain raging while 'Held'. In fact Raging while Held kicks in at level 15 Persistent Rage.

Grappling does need a free hand but is a good way to lock down Large & smaller foes. Then hit them with a longsword.

Hold Monster DC 21 3/day does seem like a great way to take out a lone PC without a good WIS save. Because it needs Concentration it is much weaker vs 2 PCs, but great vs solo PCs. I can definitely see the MM Pit Fiend using that and potentially grinding the Barbarian down.

I definitely find that in 5e mind control effects are the Achilles Heel of lone warrior-type PCs. My current group includes a Paladin with the save aura bonus so much less of an issue.

When I was running some solo or nearly solo games with a lone high level berserker barbarian (with magic items), at 19th he defeated an Empyrean with AC 27 and doubled attacks, ca CR 25, though the weapon Stun effect nearly did for him and it was a bit of a fluke. At 20th he defeated a CR 21 Lich, that was a tough battle but there were a lot of minions on both sides too. He then defeated a CR 21 ancient black dragon, which was notably easy since the Fear effect doesn't work on Berserkers. (But I have seen badly built and less effective/impressive Tier IV Barbarian PCs too, this guy was notably effective.)

I have used the CR 23 Kraken several times vs Tier IV  & level 20 parties and it is a bit weak, the last time I used a Kraken with x2 attacks, lightning storm everyone, 400 hp and AC 20, that was a reasonable/moderate encounter. The RAW Kraken only has a DPR of around 146 hp (4 tentacle & 3 lightning storm), spread across several PCs, which is far too low IME. Doubling that makes it a moderate threat to a 4-PC level 20 party without Epic Boons.

Quote from: rawma;1115952Nobody should trust S'mon's estimates of how tough high level characters are in 5e.

I think I'm a pretty typical GM, neither Monty Haul nor Killer GM, and I run a lot of high level 5e. So I think people can trust me to recount my actual play experience and find that it will tally pretty well with what they'll find if they run/play a lot of high level 5e. At any rate they can trust me better than they can trust people who haven't run 5e at Tier IV or level 20.

Quote from: S'mon;1115975It is not hard to get STR from 16 at 1st to 20>24 at 20th while also having Feats. You get 5 ability score improvements 1-20 so my point buy human Barbarian who started with STR 16 CON 16 at 1st could actually have got to STR 24 CON 24 at 20th and still had room for a Feat! But starting STR 16 CON 14 is more common IME. Anyway CON 24 at 20th is nice for the AC & hp but not vital, I see it in my Featless game, but less when there are Feats.

I believe I accurately presented this situation; my barbarian (only tier 2) is at 20 STR, 16 CON and 16 DEX, from point buy as a variant human. A combat monster for his level, aiming for STR 24 and CON 24 and DEX 18, but never going to succeed with those mental saves -- that is what allies are for.

QuoteLevel 20 Barbarians have Infinite Rage and can remain raging while 'Held'. In fact Raging while Held kicks in at level 15 Persistent Rage.

Hmm, that's true; I thought incapacitated ended it but does not. The critical damage is still pretty substantial, but I'm not going to revise the spreadsheet; I'm still pretty sure that the barbarian will never survive three hold persons without having taken the feat to get proficiency in wisdom saves.

QuoteGrappling does need a free hand but is a good way to lock down Large & smaller foes. Then hit them with a longsword.

Choose one strategy before you declare me wrong, then. No great weapon master damage. (I am disturbed to discover that a creature that can easily carry a human barbarian cannot stand up while being grappled after being knocked down; the breaking grapple for free that the Grappler feat originally implied is too much, but you've all but pinned a Large creature without that feat. As I said, Reliable Talent and Indomitable might are fairly broken.)

QuoteHold Monster DC 21 3/day does seem like a great way to take out a lone PC without a good WIS save. Because it needs Concentration it is much weaker vs 2 PCs, but great vs solo PCs. I can definitely see the MM Pit Fiend using that and potentially grinding the Barbarian down.

The discussion was one on one, but I should note that the same barbarian is unlikely to break concentration for a creature with a +13 CON save - either needing a critical or a good roll with great weapon master (to get at least 30 points of damage and give any chance of failing the concentration saving throw).

QuoteI definitely find that in 5e mind control effects are the Achilles Heel of lone warrior-type PCs. My current group includes a Paladin with the save aura bonus so much less of an issue.

I had a large number of Yuan-ti in a 3rd tier module, and they were mostly thwarted by clustering around such paladins. The flanking rogue got feared and near the end the flying wizard was suggested into helping the Yuan-ti escape (necessary for some to escape to set up the next module, as they had to escape with documents). Generally a difficult time if you don't bring along a charismatic paladin at high level.

QuoteWhen I was running some solo or nearly solo games with a lone high level berserker barbarian (with magic items), at 19th he defeated an Empyrean with AC 27 and doubled attacks, ca CR 25, though the weapon Stun effect nearly did for him and it was a bit of a fluke. At 20th he defeated a CR 21 Lich, that was a tough battle but there were a lot of minions on both sides too. He then defeated a CR 21 ancient black dragon, which was notably easy since the Fear effect doesn't work on Berserkers. (But I have seen badly built and less effective/impressive Tier IV Barbarian PCs too, this guy was notably effective.)

I have used the CR 23 Kraken several times vs Tier IV  & level 20 parties and it is a bit weak, the last time I used a Kraken with x2 attacks, lightning storm everyone, 400 hp and AC 20, that was a reasonable/moderate encounter. The RAW Kraken only has a DPR of around 146 hp (4 tentacle & 3 lightning storm), spread across several PCs, which is far too low IME. Doubling that makes it a moderate threat to a 4-PC level 20 party without Epic Boons.

Even running at 2nd and 3rd tier, I've given high CR opponents much higher than average hit points (and always enough minions to sidetrack some of the PCs and assist to give advantage). But magic items can make up for a number of missing levels, and CRs don't seem to be designed with even modest magic items in mind.

Quote from: S'mon;1115976I think I'm a pretty typical GM, neither Monty Haul nor Killer GM, and I run a lot of high level 5e. So I think people can trust me to recount my actual play experience and find that it will tally pretty well with what they'll find if they run/play a lot of high level 5e. At any rate they can trust me better than they can trust people who haven't run 5e at Tier IV or level 20.

I haven't run for any 20th level characters, and I do get some of the details wrong even a lower levels (like grappling rules and unconscious vs incapacitated to end rage, and doubtless many others), yet I observe that my evaluation in this case was more accurate than yours. Go figure.

Quote from: rawma;1116014I haven't run for any 20th level characters, and I do get some of the details wrong even a lower levels (like grappling rules and unconscious vs incapacitated to end rage, and doubtless many others), yet I observe that my evaluation in this case was more accurate than yours. Go figure.

I observe that your observation is probably less valuable than my observation, for the reason stated. :p

So Magic Items as Class Balance is not good. Did we get to that conclusion yet?

Quote from: tenbones;1116076So Magic Items as Class Balance is not good. Did we get to that conclusion yet?

I think this is a self-evident conclusion anyone who's ever played RPGs would inherently know. Except then we have things like HERO...

Quote from: tenbones;1116076So Magic Items as Class Balance is not good. Did we get to that conclusion yet?

That's true, but there's also other reasons why carrying a wheelbarrow of magic items is not actually as fun as people think it is.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1116178That's true, but there's also other reasons why carrying a wheelbarrow of magic items is not actually as fun as people think it is.

Monard has related some of that from playing D&D and Tekumel. Sometimes the group would be waylayed by bandits or militia/revenue types who take all the items they looted. Or a heavy cut of said loot.

Having alot of magic items, depending on the setting, can attract alot of unwanted attention. Collectors, crooks, rivals, challengers, etc. Though in Forgotten Realms or Eberron probably wouldnt draw as much notice as those settings seem much higher on the item proliferation scale.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1116178That's true, but there's also other reasons why carrying a wheelbarrow of magic items is not actually as fun as people think it is.

One of my players years ago created this axiom "You get more magic items adventuring by claiming the loot off of your dead party members than killing Dragons."

You're not wrong. After a long campaign - he counted 42 magic items on his 12th level character, most of which he kept in a Portable Hole (another item he scavenged off the body of another PC).

Yup, party members are a major source of recycling.

Quote from: S'mon;1116016I observe that your observation is probably less valuable than my observation, for the reason stated. :p

You ignored the explanation of why your original observation was incorrect, and repeated your incorrect observation; that's the hallmark of someone whose observations are not valuable, regardless of experience.

Quote from: rawma;1116503You ignored the explanation of why your original observation was incorrect, and repeated your incorrect observation; that's the hallmark of someone whose observations are not valuable, regardless of experience.

Well done, you win! Be sure to reply to this post so you get the last post & thus your triumph will be complete!

Quote from: S'mon;1116512Well done, you win! Be sure to reply to this post so you get the last post & thus your triumph will be complete!

Greetings!

Well said, my friend!:D *Raises mug of coffee in salute*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Omega;1115825I hit on this in another thread. Too many seem to complain about only the numbers, not the actual items. For example in 5e a probably fair chunk of the "magic items" that might be found in the course of a campaign tends to be taken up by potions and scrolls.

I will note here that Decent Into Avernus offers up no less than FOUR Artifacts, in what appears to be a sub-15 level campaign. I'll list them.

The Hand of Vecna
An Orb of Dragonkind
The Sword of Zariel (which is written up in the module, but is totes legit an artifact)
The Shield of the Hidden Lord (which... is actually downgraded from a proper artifact for some reason from prior editions. Note that the players have this one (a sentient fireball spewing shield) by level 3 or 4 or so...).

And aside from the Sword of Zariel, which is the goddamn macguffin of the whole campaign, these artifacts are just randomly placed where-ever.  YOu know, some rando mini-boss with the hand of Vecna, the Orb is just lying around so the players can trade it for a potion (I'm not even kidding...), and as I noted the Shield is unrelated 'extra' treasure/sub-plot bullshit that literally falls into the players lap at the end of the first 'arc' of the campaign... though yes, downgraded.

Out of the Abyss pulls a similar stunt with the Dawnbringer, which is 'called' an artifact level Sun-Sword, but admittedly it IS a bit weak to be a proper artifact, so really just a legendary sentient sun sword (in teh underdark) more or less lying around for sub-fifth level players to find in an unrelated side encounter.

5e is NOT skimping on handing out artifacts and legendary magic items in their published modules. Not by half.