Magic items

[JamesT]

So from what I am seeing, magic items are incredibly rare in the 5e universe. At least through HotDQ, they seem no better than +1, outside of a single legendary item.

Do we have an idea of WOTC's intent as far as this goes? Clearly there is no paper doll model any more, and characters are meant to have no more than a handful of magic items in their career. But will there be +3 or higher items?

This will definitely be a different mindset from 4e in which people expect to visit the magic shop and buy or enchant what they need. This is a good thing IMO

[Yorrin]

Armor and Weapons will be capping at +3. The most powerful items will require attunement and a character can only attune 3 items at a time. Only consumables will show up with any degree of regularity.

[JamesT]

Thanks for the info.

Not to change the subject too much, but if these are kept in check, the BM ranger looks more viable to me.

[Shadow]

The mathmatical aspects will be lower (and should be more rare) because of bounded accuracy.
In older versions, a +1 to hit or to a save made very little difference. With bounded accuracy, it makes a pretty significant difference.
This means that bardic inspiration and spells such as bless (and even guidance) are a ton more effective than their small 1d4 would otherwise suggest.

[Giant2005]

The PHB talks about magic items being rare but both of the adventures are pretty well littered with them. I think it is a case of magic items having to be earned rather than bought.

[Doug Lampert]

The PHB talks about magic items being rare but both of the adventures are pretty well littered with them. I think it is a case of magic items having to be earned rather than bought.

Every edition but 3.x and 4th claimed magic items were rare.

Every edition but 4th had random treasure tables that meant if you played BtB you needed a bag of holding to hold all your magical crap by mid-high level, and I gather most modules are the same. (Fourth had no random treasure tables, but you explicitly were supposed to find a fairly large number of items.)

CLAIMING magic items are rare and special, while having a non-negligible chance that random collections of 3 kobolds would have a +1 sword is presumably part of this edition's return to the roots of the game.

[Alefiend]

Every edition but 3.x and 4th claimed magic items were rare.

Every edition but 4th had random treasure tables that meant if you played BtB you needed a bag of holding to hold all your magical crap by mid-high level, and I gather most modules are the same. (Fourth had no random treasure tables, but you explicitly were supposed to find a fairly large number of items.)

CLAIMING magic items are rare and special, while having a non-negligible chance that random collections of 3 kobolds would have a +1 sword is presumably part of this edition's return to the roots of the game.

Hey, Robert E. Howard's Conan stories claimed real magic was exceedingly rare, but Conan ran into it in Every. Single. Story. It's all a matter of perception. The PCs are adventurers, and adventurers are supposed to be rare. Therefore, they find the rare stuff much more regularly than some lucky dirt-farmer with a shovel. If we keep actual adventurers in our worlds rare, the things they find can still be considered things of awe and power.

You're right about the kobolds and their treasure. Maybe the kobold just found the sword and hasn't had a chance to attune it, or to gather followers because of the COOL SHINY THING. It's up to the DM to make sure treasure drops make sense, and that there isn't some dire rat running around with a Hammer of Thunderbolts strapped to its back.

[Telwar]

and that there isn't some dire rat running around with a Hammer of Thunderbolts strapped to its back.

"Holy crap, HOW MUCH DAMAGE DID THAT RAT DO?"

[archaeo]

"Holy crap, HOW MUCH DAMAGE DID THAT RAT DO?"

Heh, ever play Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup? It's unlikely, but it's entirely possible that a kobold will spawn with a weapon that will instantly banish you to the Abyss, an area that is more or less certain doom for a low-level character.

But on-topic: as of right now, in the base game, the only way for a player to get a magic item without the DM or campaign providing it is casting wish. Of course, then the DM has to let you get the item at all. Then you will have to roll to see if you can ever cast the spell again. Hope it was a good item!

[Xetheral]

The mathmatical aspects will be lower (and should be more rare) because of bounded accuracy.
In older versions, a +1 to hit or to a save made very little difference. With bounded accuracy, it makes a pretty significant difference.


I think this is misleading. Because 5th Edition still uses a d20, a +1 still represents the same 5-percentage-point increase in one's chance of success (assuming a target number in the appropriate range). Where 5th Edition differs is that that +1 is no longer required to keep up with ever-increasing monster AC, so it more uniformly represents an increase in a character's capabilities relative to the likely opposition, rather than just staying even.

Note the key word 'likely'. Outside of published modules, gaining any sort of bonus in any edition may prompt the DM to use marginally more difficult foes to achieve their preferred level of challenge for the players.

[Shadow]

I think this is misleading. Because 5th Edition still uses a d20, a +1 still represents the same 5-percentage-point increase in one's chance of success (assuming a target number in the appropriate range). Where 5th Edition differs is that that +1 is no longer required to keep up with ever-increasing monster AC, so it more uniformly represents an increase in a character's capabilities relative to the likely opposition, rather than just staying even.

Note the key word 'likely'. Outside of published modules, gaining any sort of bonus in any edition may prompt the DM to use marginally more difficult foes to achieve their preferred level of challenge for the players.

It's not misleading. +1 is a big bonus with BA.
That's why buff spells such as bless and bardic inspiration wil be a lot more useful than people think they will.
Consider that the average fighter will have 1n 18 Str (or Dex) fairly early in the game. That's +4. With proficiency bonus at, say, level 10 being +4 as well, that's +8 to hit, with no magic.
Now consider that an adult blue dragon has an AC of 19, and has a challenge rating of 16.
So at 10th level, the average fighter has a 45% chance of hitting a CR 16 dragon. With a +1 magic sword, it becomes 50%.
He has a 50% chance of hitting a CR 16 adult blue dragon when its CR is 6 levels above him.

Now take that same scenario and replace 18 Str with 16 Dex. Also replace fighter with wizard.
The wizard has a 45% chance of hitting that same dragon with a dagger, shortbow, quarterstaff, whatever.

When the range of possible results condenses, the bonuses become more significant.

In a different way of looking at it, consider rolling stats. The average difference between 3d6 (avg 10.5) and 4d6b3 (avg about 12) is only an average difference of about 1.5, but because the range is so small that average 1.5 differential makes a HUGE difference in character creation.
The same goes for magic items under bounded accuracy.

[kieza]

It's not misleading. +1 is a big bonus with BA.

+1 is not a big bonus; it increases your chance to hit by 5%, just like in 3.5 and 4e. That's not what I'd call "big."

But +1 is a significant bonus in 5e, because bonuses like it are much harder to get. If you are specifically trying to increase your accuracy, then getting a +1 weapon is great--because that is a rare and useful improvement upon the baseline.

Basically, a +1 bonus doesn't give you a big improvement in raw numbers, but players will sit up and take notice because a +1 bonus is much harder to get in this edition, and having a +1 sword is not an automatic assumption.

[Shadow]

In gaming terms 5% is a HUGE bonus.
Think about your WoW days, or any other MMO for that matter, where people would murder their mothers for a 2 or 3% increase to something.

And with no sliding scale DCs and ACs based on level, 5% better at somerthing means exactly that.
+1 may not have been a "big" bonus in 3.x or 4e, but it certainly is a big bonus in 5e.

[Xetheral]

But +1 is a significant bonus in 5e, because bonuses like it are much harder to get. If you are specifically trying to increase your accuracy, then getting a +1 weapon is great--because that is a rare and useful improvement upon the baseline.

Well put.


When the range of possible results condenses, the bonuses become more significant.

Except that the range of possible results hasn't condensed at all: there are still exactly 20 possible outcomes to each roll. Bounded Accuracy doesn't decrease the range of possible results, rather it means that for any given level a higher proportion of the monsters in the book have AC in a range where the die roll remains significant to the outcome. (e.g. requires between a 2 and a 19 on the d20 in order to hit)


In gaming terms 5% is a HUGE bonus.

+1 may not have been a "big" bonus in 3.x or 4e, but it certainly is a big bonus in 5e.

Since the mechanical impact of a +1 hasn't changed from 3.x and 4, that 5% is exactly the same size bonus as it was before. Given a shortage of ways to get such a +1 in Fifth Edition, however, options that provide such a bonus may be more attractive.

[Shadow]

The possible results have decreased ridiculously.

Let's compare skills from 3.x vs 5e as an example.
A 3.x character with zero ranks and a -1 mod rolls a 1, yielding a 0 result.
A 3.x character with 20 ranks, a +8 mod, +5 (or even +15!!!) magic item, and nothing else (even though there are truckloads of other ways to raise the check) rolls a 20, which yields a 53 (or 63!!!)
That's a range of 64+, and that's being generous.

A 5e character not proficient with a -1 mod rolls a 1, yielding a 0 result.
A 5e character with proficiency (+6), a +5 mod, and the guidance spell (chosen instead of bardic inspiration because I also didn't optimize the 3.x roll) rolls a 20 (and a 4) and yields a 35.
That's a range of 36.

That's almost half the variable range, and you're going to tell me that the range of possible results hasn't condensed at all?
The same concept applies to attack rolls.

[ambartanen]

To put it in a different way, a 3e character specializing in something stacked so many bonuses in that attack/skill/DC/save/AC that the die became almost irrelevant. They either had 95% chance of success or the enemies had a 5% chance of success against them. Adding +1 to either side was negligible and did not change the 95/5 split.

In 5e, the difference between someone who's good at something versus someone who isn't all that great will almost never be 95/5 therefore that +1 will always have an effect.

[Shadow]

To put it in a different way, a 3e character specializing in something stacked so many bonuses in that attack/skill/DC/save/AC that the die became almost irrelevant. They either had 95% chance of success or the enemies had a 5% chance of success against them. Adding +1 to either side was negligible and did not change the 95/5 split.

In 5e, the difference between someone who's good at something versus someone who isn't all that great will almost never be 95/5 therefore that +1 will always have an effect.

Thank you for explaing it more eloquently than I did.
The point is this: If that +1 will always have an effect, it becomes extremely significant. +1 is a big bonus under these rules (or if you want to argue semantics, it becomes extremely significant under these rules).

[Xetheral]

The possible results have decreased ridiculously.

<snip>

That's almost half the variable range, and you're going to tell me that the range of possible results hasn't condensed at all?
The same concept applies to attack rolls.

I definitely agree that the range of possible results across all possible PC's has decreased dramatically. But the mechanical import to a character of a +1 bonus on a roll isn't determined by the possible outcomes across PC's. Rather, it's determined by the possible outcomes of a given die roll made by that PC. On such a roll there are always exactly 20 possible results, and unless the difficulty is either too low or too high for the die roll to matter, a +1 increases the number of those rolls that count as success by 1, which equates to a 5 percentage point increase in success chance.


To put it in a different way, a 3e character specializing in something stacked so many bonuses in that attack/skill/DC/save/AC that the die became almost irrelevant. They either had 95% chance of success or the enemies had a 5% chance of success against them. Adding +1 to either side was negligible and did not change the 95/5 split.

Ahh, yes, if the DC is too low or too high, then a +1 doesn't matter.

In my 3.5 games the DCs for important tasks were (almost) always such that the die roll remained significant, however. So we may just be relying on our differing experiences with 3.5 and may be in agreement on the value of a +1 in Fifth Edition.

[Person_Man]

Minor math quibble: Gaining +1 does not always equal a 5% increase in the chance of success. The benefit gained is variable depending on the target AC or DC or Challenge roll result and whether or not you have Advantage or Disadvantage, though it is typically in the ballpark of 5%.

Edit: I should probably read all the posts before posting something others have basically already said.

[Xetheral]

Minor math quibble: Gaining +1 does not always equal a 5% increase in the chance of success. The benefit gained is variable depending on the target AC or DC or Challenge roll result and whether or not you have Advantage or Disadvantage, though it is typically in the ballpark of 5%.

Good point. I normally think of considering advantage/disadvantage after the net bonus has already been calculated, but you're right that it should be taken into account when considering the potential opportunity cost of forgoing a +1 bonus.

In the case of advantage the marginal increase in the chance of success varies from .25 percentage points to 9.25 percentage points, with a mean of 4.75 percentage points. In the case of disadvantage the marginal increase in the chance of success varies from .75 percentage points to 9.75 percentage points, with a mean of 5.25 percentage points. Since both are linear distributions, however, most values are far from that average. (In both cases, 14 of 19 possible marginal increases are more than 1 full percentage point from the mean.)

Of course, without knowing the preponderance of advantage and disadvantage in a particular game, it's hard to account for them in the abstract. Indeed, it seems likely that a particular DM's style might use advantage/disadvantage to either amplify or dampen the impact of particularly large or small bonuses. The moment advantage/disadvantage are correlated to bonus scale, the means listed above will swing considerably.