D&D (2024) 2024 needs to end 2014's passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items & other elements from d&d

[Reef]

I really don’t see the lack of Attunement or Slot info on the sheet as an attack on magic items. In fact, I would say it makes it easier to just chuck any magic item limits if that’s what a DM wants. I can’t see how it possibly could be a roadblock to stop a DM from using all the magic items they’ve devoted pages upon pages of descriptions for.

 

[Amrûnril]

Kinda removes any justification for maintaining the kinds of roadblocks for them that were described in the OP eh? They need to do better.

As far as I can tell, the only substantive roadblocks you've described are layout issues with the books and character sheets. There's certainly room to improve these, but describing formatting and editing issues as "passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items" is not a constructive way to start that conversation.

 

[Yaarel]

I find body slots useful. 5e character sheets can list them.


Maybe require assigning a body slot in order to attune a magic item.

Body slots can be:

• Mainhand Arm
• Offhand Arm
• Head (crown, eye, etcetera)
• Torso (necklace, cloak, shirt, broach)
• Belt (belt itself or nearby such as on belt or in belt pouch)
• Legs
• One Anywhere (mainly for a Wondrous Item)

Thus at a higher tier, upto seven magic items are attunable at any one time.

 

[mamba]

2014 includes a lot of passive agressive design choices to place awkward hurdles in the way of using magic items as if there was an effort to pressure away from using them.

saying that they are optional and not required is not passive aggressive.

Not having more detailed encumbrance rules is not limited to magic items, and is not passive aggressive about their use either, since it makes it easier to carry / use them.

 

[Retreater]

The concept of magic items will be one regulated to the dustbins of D&D history. It will be regarded the same as THAC0, thief skills, and percentile Strength. It's as pointless as outfitting your wizard with darts in the era of unlimited cantrips.
This is because you don't "need" magic items. It's not a part of character level progression. Your character already has cool abilities not tied to them. You can run a complete campaign without a single magic item reward or awarding a gold piece of treasure.
The play is the reward. The story is the reward. Adventures that can be played on autopilot while players focus on their solitary character motivations - that's the reward.
It's best to see D&D for the game it is and find something else to fill the niche of what it used to be.

 

[mamba]

The concept of magic items will be one regulated to the dustbins of D&D history. It will be regarded the same as THAC0, thief skills, and percentile Strength.

I doubt that very much, and if they ever do remove them, then D&D will go into that dustbin

 

[Vaalingrade]

You still pretty much need magic items. They just pretended you don't for the people mad at 3e.

 

[mellored]

I'm a little confused about where your getting the idea that magic items are going away.

Just because they removed the "resistance to non-magical weapons"? Seems like a decent change for those who don't use them, but doesn't affect anyone who does use them.

They stated they would add magic items for unarmed strikes and unarmored characters.

 

[payn]

You still pretty much need magic items. They just pretended you don't for the people mad at 3e.

I wouldn't say I'm mad at 3E, PF1 is my preferred fantasy RPG, but I think there are lessons to be learned. Like not building magic item dependency into the system as a matter of function. I think the ground is laid in 5E and BA to work around that issue nicely. It's just a matter of doing the work. Once modularity was given up on, this fell in that bucket unfortunately.

 

[CapnZapp]

No, we prefer to play low / no magic item D&D so I want that to remain. I could see improved guidance for incorporating magic items, but I am really happy with the no need for magic items in 5e

Are you just declaring Badwrongfun to defend poor design rather than actually trying to defend the design itself on whatever merits it might have? Even if fixing the examples of passive aggressive design noted above leads to an additional page in the character sheet and/or a core rulebook I think you will be fine

While I agree with you*, tetra, I can't see anything else than Uni posting their personal opinion here. They even said "we prefer", "I want" and "I am". They don't appear to claim anything about their preferred playstyle.

What I mean is that yes, WotC is trying to both have the cake "magic items not needed" and eat it too ""look at all these juicy magic items". The same as they do with gold.

Except one crucial difference.

Adventures hand out gobs of gold but WotC dropped support for all the campaigns that don't care for purchases that aren't directly useful in the next adventure; campaigns that want and need the selection of purchasable magic items to have balanced pricing.

The need for a functional rather than half-arsed magic item economy is paramount, and probably 5E's biggest flaw.

When it comes to magic items, however... it's actually the truth you don't NEED them. We still WANT them, but that's not the same thing as needing them.

In 3E you actually did need them, since monster stats presumed you added +5 to attacks and AC and saves from weapons (if not more). In 5E this presumption just isn't there, in official material.

All this to say that Uni isn't "defending poor design". They're stating a preference. That the game doesn't "need" magic items is just objective fact.

That WotC is mighty passive-aggressive about it (or the cake thing I explain it as) is also true, but I can't read any Badwrongfunism into their reply. And the gods should know I'm good at reading badwrongfunism into replies.