I'm relatively new to D&D 5th even though I've been Forever DM for all editions past. I heard that 5e runs just fine as-is if I don't hand out a single magic item. Is that true or do I at least have to give a certain amount of magic armor and weapons with bonuses to make sure the martials keep up with the casters?
You need some degree of magic weapons for the martials after about level 6-ish because otherwise enemies will start to get resistant and eventually immune to nonmagic weapons. That's all.
>>44582674
Outside of monsters with DR, no. Feats are much more important than magic items.
>>44582674
Be careful, there're some monsters that are outright immune to non-magical damage, so that kills the martials.
They're also some, more than the previous, monsters with resistance to non-magical damage, that fucks the martials.
>>44582687
>>44582690
So all the players need is like a +1 weapon at that point?
>>44582687
Or he can just not use those monsters, God forbid make his own. You know, like a normal person would.
>Game advertises that you don't need magic items
>Precon campaigns give you more magic items than 3.5
>More monsters than I thought have non-magical resistance or even immunity
Wotc gonna wotc
>>44582717
He seems to be new, new people use what they get from manuals or preconstructed campaigns, if he were a veteran that makes his onw monsters he wouldn't be asking about how necesary are magic items in 5th. Fuck, a veteran GM would know that not even in 4e are necesary if you build encounters thinking on this so the question is rather moot.
>>44582788
Op here: yes I'm going to try to stick to the core manuals so I get a good feel for 5th Ed before I start fucking with house rules and monsters.
>>44582715
Pretty much, yeah. Or even a magic +0 weapon.
>>44582788
>>44582811
I GM-ed for more than five years in multiple systems without a monster manuals (I was poor and most RPGs only had the core rulebook translated to my native language).
In my opinion heavily using one is bad for your creativity and makes you lazier when preparing. Both are terrible for your DMing. Also building monsters forces you to actually know the system inside out which is always a nice thing to have when DMing.
>>44582932
Thanks Anon
>>44582717
Or he could just ignore whatever makes that monster immune from non-magic weapons, which is even easier than making his own.
No need to invent the wheel here.
>>44582979
Yes, but in this case reinventing the wheel makes you a better DM. So I see no good reason why you should not do it. See>>44582951
If he's going to invent shit why the limit on magic items in the first place? players have a +1 extra to attack and damage due magic weapon? just give monsters more HPs and 1 more to AC
You don't like the word "magic"? call it masterwork
>>44582951
Building monsters is a waste of time 99% of the time.
Just pick one that has already been made that fits the basic archetype and difficulty of what you're going for and changing its name/description is easier and has the exact same result as building one from scratch.
There is nothing wrong with being lazy with prep, because more prep is not principally important to running a good game, and too much stifles your flexibility as a GM and stunts improv skills.
>>44582951
Maybe he doesn't have enough spare time to learn the ins and outs of the system and to come up with his own shit, M&M and precons are great for those cases and for beginers.
>>44583008
>Yes, but in this case reinventing the wheel makes you a better DM.
No it doesn't. It just means you're wasting more time than you have to.
>>44583030
>Building monsters is a waste of time 99% of the time.
No, it's not. If you are new to the system it makes you learn it better. If you already know the system well you should make entirely new monsters because as soon as your players figure out which monster you have reskinned it sucks all the wonder out of the world. Also if you can just reskin the monsters to get what you want you are not being creative enough. You should push your limits or you'll never improve as a DM.
>There is nothing wrong with being lazy with prep, because more prep is not principally important to running a good game, and too much stifles your flexibility as a GM and stunts improv skills.
That's bullshit and you know it. No matter how much you prepare the players will find a way you haven't thought about and you'll have to improvise anyway. What stifles your flexibility is herding them back to your carefully planned tracks not having those tracks in the first place.
>>44582811
Well, the change you need to make is very small.
Any monster that Resists nonmagical weapons? Remove that feature.
Any monster that was immune to nonmagical weapons? Make it Resist instead.
Ta-da~!
>>44583128
>If you already know the system well you should make entirely new monsters because as soon as your players figure out which monster you have reskinned it sucks all the wonder out of the world.
*If* they ever figure out, which isn't exactly easy.
>>44583039
If you don't have time to DM, than don't DM. I'd rather not do something if I can't do it to the best of my abilities, because that will only lead to cookie-cutter mediocre sessions and I'd rather have fun.
>>44583041
It would be extremely boring both for me and the players if I just reused the monsters in the manual. This is how a game gets bland and uninteresting. This is how you get players flaking. This is how you get people saying 5e is bland.
Don't be a shit DM.
>>44582712
Fucking this, non magic damage resistance is utter bullshit. God forbid you actually do immunities.
If you're going to do it *at least* throw in the odd monster that is resistance magic attacks only.
>>44583175
Maybe if you play with morons and/or they don't pay attention to the game.
>Oh no, I deal cero damage to this monster!
Woopidy doo, you aren't the center of the game, deal with it
>>44583327
So you're forbidding the fighter to fight?
That'd just be exclusionary.
The wizard wouldn't have much fun walking into antimagic city either.
You can ignore magic items completely, the party just becomes somewhat more dependent on casters for utility functions. But that's not really a new thing.
>>44583128
>If you are new to the system it makes you learn it better.
It makes you waste time that could be better spent elsewhere, such as ACTUALLY LEARNING HOW TO PLAY THE GAME. D&D Monsters are archetypical, they are easy to swap around and reskin or add new tags to completely change them mechanically. You do not have to build the Flatwoods Monster from scratch to have the players fight the Flatwoods Monster, just make a Illithid float or describe a beholder differently.
>Also if you can just reskin the monsters to get what you want you are not being creative enough.
Building a monster is not creative, you are using a pre-existing mechanical framework to create something that already exists. Coming up with an evocative description or concept for the monster is where you should stop, because that is the actual creative component of the activity, the rest is just someone else's maths.
>You should push your limits or you'll never improve as a DM.
Incorrect. Simply learning how to do more with less is a far greater improvement than learning how to do more with more, the law of diminishing marginal returns affects D&D prep time as well. Improving DM skills is not the same as passing your bench press plateau, you don't "push your limit", instead you must find the path of least resistance. It is about efficiency, not incremental successes.
>as soon as your players figure out which monster you have reskinned it sucks all the wonder out of the world
How would they exactly? Where do you draw the line with this? A gnoll, a hobgoblin and an orc are functionally the same monster with a different skin and slightly different stats for example.
>No matter how much you prepare the players will find a way you haven't thought about and you'll have to improvise anyway.
English your first language? How is that NOT a reason for avoiding superfluous prep? Don't agree with me when you're disagreeing with me.
>>44583230
Maybe you're playing with a bunch of unimaginative losers if mechanical similarity reduces their enjoyment of the creature as a fictional entity.
>>44582761
Other than shit like lycanthropes, ghosts, and the like normal weapons work fine.
>>44583449
>D&D Monsters are archetypical
That is exactly my problem. Go make something new that's not a fucking Orc with another paint. If the Flatwood Monster doesn't do anything a floating Illithid or a Beholder doesn't then why aren't you just using a floating Illithid or a Beholder? Fuck your unimaginative ass. I want a skittering eight-legged rhino-headed godling half-mad without his soul*. By the time I modify the Archmage (or anything in the MM really) to fit my vision I've spent as much time as I would have if I made it from scratch.
>Coming up with an evocative description or concept for the monster is where you should stop
You seem to have the idea that a monster described differently or with one or two additional powers is new and creative. It's not.
>Simply learning how to do more with less is a far greater improvement than learning how to do more with more
>you must find the path of least resistance
Maybe if you want a boring as shit campaign.
>Where do you draw the line with this? A gnoll, a hobgoblin and an orc are functionally the same monster with a different skin and slightly different stats for example.
Right there. Hobgoblins shouldn't be a different monster from orcs. Gnolls only if you make them markedly different ie.: they use pack tactics, if you can catch rabies if they bite you etc.
>How is that NOT a reason for avoiding superfluous prep?
It may sound weird but the more I prepare the more comfortable I am with improvising. For example if I meticulously plan three or four ways the players solve a problem I won't be stumped when the players choose the fifth way, because by then I have a pretty good handle on how the world reacts to the players interacting with it.
*And yes, I want it to be able to cast warlock spells, be able to disengage and dash, have a decent climb speed, have a goring attack but still have relatively shitty AC. I don't think that would be an easy refluff.
>>44583483
Maybe you are an unimaginative looser if every single creature you want to use is similar to the ones already in the book.
>>44582715
You could make it a magic weapon that gives adv against hill giants if you wanted to. As long as you classify it as "magical."
>>44583518
And silvered weapons work just fine for that.
>>44583192
So, what kind monsters you've made?
>>44584017
Alright, and what's particularly creative about that monster? It's a warlock that can climb walls pretty well and has a charge attack, wowee.
