List of magic items by rarity

[T.G. Oskar]

Recently, Wizards revealed on their Twitter that they arranged all magic items in the DMG in a nifty list (http://media.wizards.com/2014/downloads/dnd/MagicItemsRarity.pdf), ordered by rarity. Although the information is mostly incomplete unless you own the DMG, it is a nice way to see what crossed over from earlier editions, what's new and how it works.

Amongst that: the Instruments of the Bard (seen in Complete Adventurer, related to the 7 bardic institutions in Greyhawk) are part of the Core rules now. Many minor artifacts are now Legendary Items, alongside the most expensive items in previous editions (so now, a Holy Avenger is in the same range of rarity as a Staff of Might or a Talisman of the Sphere). Many of the previous enchantments are now limited to swords (like Dancing or Wounding). The Belt of Giant Strength, as per the playtest, is divided into all the different kinds of giants, ending with the [Legendary] Belt of Storm Giant Strength, which might grant anyone who wields it a Strength of 29 (eep!). Apparently there's no booster for Dexterity, Wisdom or Charisma, unless the Boots of Speed or the Gloves of Thievery do so (and I highly doubt it); alternatively, the Ioun Stones (spread all over, but the ones I speak of are all at the Very Rare range) might do the work.

At first impression, I felt like seeing a blend of AD&D 2e and 3.x magic items: it felt familiar as with 3.x, but it ended once I saw stuff like Sword of Striking (and how longswords are apparently the easiest items to craft, ever). What are your impressions over it?

[bloodshed343]

Belt of Giant Strength (hill giant) should only grant bonuses to attacks with clubs.

[MaxWilson]

No enchantments are limited to swords--or at least, the DMG encourages you to freely re-fluff items into different types of items without changing the rarity.

[Baptor]

Belts of giant strength ...sigh. didn't all of us universally despise those in the playtest? Why is Strength the only stat that gets to break the rules, and why are we breaking the rules again? At least this might silence the folks that complained about state items going to classes that didn't need them.

On a positive note, it does seem that there is a rhyme and reason to magic weapons and their rarity, and this is exciting for me as a DM as it will aid me in making balanced weapons.

[GiantOctopodes]

It seems nonsensical that there would be items for con str and int, but not for the other stats. And quite frankly, I personally don't like the idea of any magic items going over the 20 stat limit, much less going over it by a crazy and absurd degree. Combine your 29 Str with a +3 weapon and suddenly you're looking at +7 vs if you did not have those. To put that in perspective, that is a *larger* difference than the difference between someone who has 8 Str and someone who has 20 Str. It's actually *much* worse than that, since it actively punishes those who actually put stat increases in their Str, while outshining anyone who did at the same time. Someone with that item would have been far better off going with 8 Str and gaining a free 21 stat points (!), as anything else is leaving advancements on the table that could have gone to other stats. The whole thing is idiotic, and I'll be petitioning my DM to not have them in the game, and to instead include appropriate stat boosters for the missing stats, so you don't have people who are punished because they don't have reliance on the "right" stat.

[Submortimer]

It's actually *much* worse than that, since it actively punishes those who actually put stat increases in their Str, while outshining anyone who did at the same time. Someone with that item would have been far better off going with 8 Str and gaining a free 21 stat points (!), as anything else is leaving advancements on the table that could have gone to other stats. The whole thing is idiotic, and I'll be petitioning my DM to not have them in the game, and to instead include appropriate stat boosters for the missing stats, so you don't have people who are punished because they don't have reliance on the "right" stat.

Oh my god, can we stop complaining about this? Gauntlets of Ogre power are worthless to a warrior with a 20 str, just like the same type of dex boosting item would be worthless to someone who has a 20 dex. Hooray, big freaking deal. it's not that hard, as a DM to say "yep, there is a legendary stat booster out there that gives you a 29 dex". Bam, done, argument over.

There is literally NO WAY to start a game knowing you're gonna get one of those belts. At MOST, you could stat with one of the very rare belts, and that's ONLY if you're playing high magic and ONLY if you're starting at a very high level. Crafting is entirely up to DM discretion, and legendary items cost something like 500k to make. It's a worthless, pointless argument, and it needs to stop.

[Baptor]

One fix would be to make it a requirement to have 20 strength before you can attune to the giant belt. 2e had stuff like that.

Personally I just think its dumb to have an item with that much raw power in a game like this one. It's just an opinion, so take it with salt.

I am coming up with a guide on how DMs can build their own magic weapons based on this rarity chart, ill share it once it's done.

[Vogonjeltz]

It seems nonsensical that there would be items for con str and int, but not for the other stats. And quite frankly, I personally don't like the idea of any magic items going over the 20 stat limit, much less going over it by a crazy and absurd degree. Combine your 29 Str with a +3 weapon and suddenly you're looking at +7 vs if you did not have those. To put that in perspective, that is a *larger* difference than the difference between someone who has 8 Str and someone who has 20 Str. It's actually *much* worse than that, since it actively punishes those who actually put stat increases in their Str, while outshining anyone who did at the same time. Someone with that item would have been far better off going with 8 Str and gaining a free 21 stat points (!), as anything else is leaving advancements on the table that could have gone to other stats. The whole thing is idiotic, and I'll be petitioning my DM to not have them in the game, and to instead include appropriate stat boosters for the missing stats, so you don't have people who are punished because they don't have reliance on the "right" stat.

It's a classic mythical item. A thing that gives you the strength of 10 men or some such. Yeah, you gain less benefit if you're already Charles Atlas or a body builder, but you're still now way stronger than you could ever hope to be.

It's certainly a valid reason for someone who's physically weak to covet these items, but no less reason for someone who is strong given that they exceed normal PC limits.

From a pure min-maxing perspective, it's less optimal for the highest str character in the party to use these, but it's more likely that low str characters don't need that str at all to begin with, and so do not really benefit at all.

[bloodshed343]

A rogue with one of those could swing his dagger with strength and get a major boost.

A wizard with one of these could take polearm master and heavy armor to make their attack cantrips worthless.

A druid with one of these could just attack with a greatclub and be stronger than anything they could wild shape into (excluding multi attacking critters).

There aren't any classes which wouldn't be way better off going strength with one of these belts.

Personally, I would disallow all Stat items. That's one of the reasons I used to love 4e. No Stat items.

[Baptor]

A rogue with one of those could swing his dagger with strength and get a major boost.

A wizard with one of these could take polearm master and heavy armor to make their attack cantrips worthless.

A druid with one of these could just attack with a greatclub and be stronger than anything they could wild shape into (excluding multi attacking critters).

There aren't any classes which wouldn't be way better off going strength with one of these belts.

Personally, I would disallow all Stat items. That's one of the reasons I used to love 4e. No Stat items.

Wow no stat items in 4e? I never got a chance to play that edition (we stopped in 2007 and only just started again, skipped an edition).

I have to agree. Belts like that made sense in 2e when ALL melee damage was adjudicated by Strength and mages had such terrible thacO that they should NEVER attack with weapons. With finesse weapons and bonded accuracy, a belt of giant strength makes anyone into a warrior! :smalltongue:

I love magic items, but some of these are just broken. I mean you can have a 29 AC if you grab +3 armor, +3 shield, a +1 cloak and have Defense. Even some CR 21+ mobs can't touch that. I realize that people keep saying that "magic itemz are rare this edition lol" but the treasure charts I've seen indicate that acquiring a set of +3 gear is not nearly as hard as some would imagine.

Even if it was hard, how does that make it OK? I mean if I told you there is a weapon on the chart that deals +100 damage per hit, but it was really rare, would that matter?

[bloodshed343]

The closest thing to Stat items in 4e are head slot items which give +1 to a particular atrribute's checks, which is effectively a +2 bump, but it doesn't actually increase your modifier. It only increases your effective modifier for checks involving that attribute.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power exist, but they give you a +5 bonus to damage rolls once per encounter.

Belt of Giant Strength exists, but it's terrible compared to the +fortitude belts.

[Baptor]

The closest thing to Stat items in 4e are head slot items which give +1 to a particular atrribute's checks, which is effectively a +2 bump, but it doesn't actually increase your modifier. It only increases your effective modifier for checks involving that attribute.

Gauntlets of Ogre Power exist, but they give you a +5 bonus to damage rolls once per encounter.

Belt of Giant Strength exists, but it's terrible compared to the +fortitude belts.

+5 damage per encounter you say?

I may have found my replacement for BoGS.

Maybe +5, +10, +15 progression?

Belt of Hill Giant Strength
magic item, requires attunement
Once per encounter, you can activate this belt's power, adding +5 bonus damage to the next melee attack you make. (The damage type is the same as the weapon's type.)

[bloodshed343]

+5 damage per encounter you say?

I may have found my replacement for BoGS.

Maybe +5, +10, +15 progression?

Belt of Hill Giant Strength
magic item, requires attunement
Once per encounter, you can activate this belt's power, adding +5 bonus damage to the next melee attack you make. (The damage type is the same as the weapon's type.)

That's really good. A similar change could be made for headband of intellect for spells. Gauntlets of Ogre Power could be a flat +2 bonus to melee damage.

[Baptor]

That's really good. A similar change could be made for headband of intellect for spells. Gauntlets of Ogre Power could be a flat +2 bonus to melee damage.

Intellect
Boosts spell damage?

Health
Increases hit points?

I think you are onto something here.

I've already ruled that armor enhancements increase hit points (stolen from 13th Age), so +1 full plate gives +10 extra hit points, a +3 shield gives +30 hit points, etc.

[bloodshed343]

Intellect
Boosts spell damage?

Health
Increases hit points?

I think you are onto something here.

I've already ruled that armor enhancements increase hit points (stolen from 13th Age), so +1 full plate gives +10 extra hit points, a +3 shield gives +30 hit points, etc.

These are some great rules here.

[Baptor]

These are some great rules here.

Thank you. :smallsmile:

I just don't want their enhancement bonuses in my Bounded Accuracy. :smallmad: We've had such a great time with BA and now that they are getting high level we want magic items without ruining the wonderful system the devs created. Honestly I still don't know what they were smoking when they tossed items like these into the perfect system they made.

[bloodshed343]

And +1 weapons only add to damage. That's a good rule too.

[Baptor]

And +1 weapons only add to damage. That's a good rule too.

Indeed! :smallbiggrin: Should we fold the +1 hit into the damage? So a +1 hit/+1 dam sword is now +2 damage? Or just +1 damage? What do you think?

[bloodshed343]

One damage for a one-handed weapon. Two damage for a two-handed weapon. Three damage for a heavy weapon.

[Baptor]

One damage for a one-handed weapon. Two damage for a two-handed weapon. Three damage for a heavy weapon.

That's like +9 max damage on a maul. You cool with that?

Edit: One of my players has made the same comment, different damage for weapon sizes. Just strikes me odd is all.

[bloodshed343]

That's like +9 max damage on a maul. You cool with that?

If they get a +3 maul, it should hit like a truck being thrown by a bigger truck. It's a LEGENDARY weapon. This ain't a random boulder on a stick. This is Kord's right nut.

[Baptor]

If they get a +3 maul, it should hit like a truck being thrown by a bigger truck. It's a LEGENDARY weapon. This ain't a random boulder on a stick. This is Kord's right nut.

+3 is technically "very rare" without any additional stuff, but yeah you make a good point. Heh, truck thrown by a bigger truck. :smallwink:

[JoeJ]

I love magic items, but some of these are just broken. I mean you can have a 29 AC if you grab +3 armor, +3 shield, a +1 cloak and have Defense. Even some CR 21+ mobs can't touch that. I realize that people keep saying that "magic itemz are rare this edition lol" but the treasure charts I've seen indicate that acquiring a set of +3 gear is not nearly as hard as some would imagine.

Why would you give a character that combination, though? This isn't 3.PF where PCs can simply decide what magic items they're going to get. The DM has to decide which items the party will find. The party can obviously decide to stack all their magic items on to one character to let them fight an otherwise unbeatable monster, but that would be a one-off (and probably epic) situation; I really don't see it happening on a regular basis.

[Baptor]

Why would you give a character that combination, though? This isn't 3.PF where PCs can simply decide what magic items they're going to get. The DM has to decide which items the party will find. The party can obviously decide to stack all their magic items on to one character to let them fight an otherwise unbeatable monster, but that would be a one-off (and probably epic) situation; I really don't see it happening on a regular basis.

I understand what you mean. No I wouldn't, and I'm not. :smallwink: But that's kind of my point. Without DM fiat, the items in the DMG will break the game. You can fudge treasure rolls, ban items and what-not, but all that proves is that there is a problem or you wouldn't be doing that. I'm not saying there is no solution to this, just that there is a problem.

I mean even a player getting an AC of 25 is still broken. BA is good for handling AC's from 10-20, maybe up to 22. Past that and it gets ridiculous for either side. Consider Tiamat, who is a god; she has an AC of 25. That is a god's Armor Class. With half-decent treasure rolls, a player can match that no problem. (+1 full plate, +1 rop, +2 shield, Defense) I got there without even using a single legendary item. :smalleek:

Everyone is free to do as they will. Clearly some of us, at least, think this is a problem and I enjoy bouncing ideas off good chaps like bloodshed343 to build the kind of game we want to play. :smallwink:

What I'd like to see sometime on this board someone show us a game that went into tier 4 using the random table handouts and see how balanced the encounters are at that point. I would be very surprised if a standard party of 4 players between 16-20th level with gear they've rightfully earned through the DMG tables finds CR 20s challenging at all. So far its been a lot of talk with little proof that things like +3 full plate and belts of giant strength don't break the game in any way. I'd like to see how it plays out. :smallcool:

[GiantOctopodes]

One damage for a one-handed weapon. Two damage for a two-handed weapon. Three damage for a heavy weapon.

Now in general I've enjoyed watching this conversation from afar, but I did want to point something out in regards to this specific point. First, all heavy weapons *are* two handed, so that's somewhat of a redundant distinction. Second, with Great Weapon Mastery, heavy weapons *already* provide the best DPR. Though you are of course free to do things however you wish, wouldn't it make sense to try to have the magic weapons balance things out, and provide more diverse choices, rather than exacerbating the issue?

Since dual weapon wielding requires a bonus action to attack with the offhand weapon, and there are plenty of other ways to get bonus attacks, heavy weapons currently provide the best option. This is true even without feats coming into play, but especially true with them- doubly so since all weapons that qualify for Polearm Mastery and Sentinel also qualify for use with Great Weapon fighting.

Obviously this is only an issue situationally- they may not even use great weapons currently, and you always have control over what magic items drop. Still, maybe an alternative?
One damage base for a one handed or two handed weapon. One damage for *each* weapon if held with a weapon of the same type in the other hand. Two damage if held with an empty second hand (for duelists).

That means dual weapon wielders are not punished by having to find twice the magic items to keep up, and duelists have an advantage to offset their lack of second weapon or shield (and reduced base damage vs two handers). Thoughts?

[MaxWilson]

I love magic items, but some of these are just broken. I mean you can have a 29 AC if you grab +3 armor, +3 shield, a +1 cloak and have Defense. Even some CR 21+ mobs can't touch that. I realize that people keep saying that "magic itemz are rare this edition lol" but the treasure charts I've seen indicate that acquiring a set of +3 gear is not nearly as hard as some would imagine.

Let's do the math.

If you use the DMG tables, a Shield +3 has a 2% chance of showing up on Magic Item Table H, and a suit of +3 Plate Armor has a 0.083% (1 in 1200) chance of showing up on Magic Item Table I. Over the course of a campaign, you're expected to average 7 rolls on the CR 0-4 treasure table, 18 rolls on the CR 5-10 table, 12 rolls on the CR 11-16 table, and 8 rolls on the CR 17+ table. CR 0-4 can never roll on table H or I, but CR 5-10 has a 2% chance of getting a roll on table H. CR 11-16 has a 10% chance of getting 1d4 rolls on table H, and 8% chance of getting one roll on table I. CR 17+ has an 8% chance of getting 1d4 rolls on table H, and 20% chance of 1d4 rolls on table I.

Therefore, over the course of a level 1-20 campaign, the DMG gives you 4.96 rolls on table H, and 4.96 rolls on table I. With 5 rolls on H, you have a (1 - 0.98^5 = 9.6%) chance of getting a Shield +3 during the campaign. With 5 rolls on I, you have a (1 - (1199/1200)^5 = 0.416%) chance of getting a suit of Plate Armor +3 during the campaign. If we assume 5 rolls on each, you have a 0.04% chance of getting Plate Armor +3 and a Shield +3.

So if you play 2500 campaigns up to level 20, one of them will eventually give you enough enchanted armor to get AC 26. If you stack Defensive fighting style on top of that (a decent choice, although Duelling and GWF seem more popular on these forums), and also attune a Cloak of Protection +1 (I'll give you that as a freebie because I don't feel like calculating the odds), you'll have AC 28, one shy of the AC 29 you were worried about.

So yes, acquiring an AC of 29 is at least as hard as you would imagine it to be, probably much moreso.

[JoeJ]

I understand what you mean. No I wouldn't, and I'm not. :smallwink: But that's kind of my point. Without DM fiat, the items in the DMG will break the game. You can fudge treasure rolls, ban items and what-not, but all that proves is that there is a problem or you wouldn't be doing that. I'm not saying there is no solution to this, just that there is a problem.

My point was that it doesn't take DM fiat to keep those combinations out of the hands of PCs. Quite the opposite; it takes DM fiat to put them into the hands of PCs.

[Baptor]

Now in general I've enjoyed watching this conversation from afar, but I did want to point something out in regards to this specific point. First, all heavy weapons *are* two handed, so that's somewhat of a redundant distinction. Second, with Great Weapon Mastery, heavy weapons *already* provide the best DPR. Though you are of course free to do things however you wish, wouldn't it make sense to try to have the magic weapons balance things out, and provide more diverse choices, rather than exacerbating the issue?

Since dual weapon wielding requires a bonus action to attack with the offhand weapon, and there are plenty of other ways to get bonus attacks, heavy weapons currently provide the best option. This is true even without feats coming into play, but especially true with them- doubly so since all weapons that qualify for Polearm Mastery and Sentinel also qualify for use with Great Weapon fighting.

Obviously this is only an issue situationally- they may not even use great weapons currently, and you always have control over what magic items drop. Still, maybe an alternative?
One damage base for a one handed or two handed weapon. One damage for *each* weapon if held with a weapon of the same type in the other hand. Two damage if held with an empty second hand (for duelists).

That means dual weapon wielders are not punished by having to find twice the magic items to keep up, and duelists have an advantage to offset their lack of second weapon or shield (and reduced base damage vs two handers). Thoughts?

Wow. I feel you on the two-hander thing. I may just keep it the same bonus across the board. Then it's no better (or worse) than it is currently regarding enhancement bonuses. I'll fold +1hit/+1dam into +2 dam and so on.


So yes, acquiring an AC of 29 is at least as hard as you would imagine it to be, probably much moreso.

I respect the math, I really do, but the numbers are never this clean in actual play sadly. There's a guy on reddit who used the DMG tables to randomly roll up 6 treasure troves per tier and there were plenty of +3 weapons and armor on it. Assuming you seriously use the experience charts provided, you'll be playing long enough to see plenty of +1 items, a good sampling of +2 and a few +3 items. As I've shown in my earlier post, getting AC 29 may indeed be quite difficult, but getting AC 25 is not and that alone is breaky (its the AC of a god for crying out loud). :smalleek:

For me, the argument of how often +3's roll up is almost irrelevant. If there is a chance I can roll the dice a certain way and ruin our game, then we'd rather not take that chance. My players are behind me on this, if they were not, I would have to rethink it of course.

For our group the question remains, if BA is so well balanced (and it is) why would you intentionally wreck that balance, even its "really rare?" For us the answer is, "we don't." We restyle the items to fit BA and move on.

Also, as I said, to each his own. But when everyone's had their crack at a tier 4 game using the DMG as written, I'd like to see how it turns out and what items everyone ended up with. :smallcool:

[Easy_Lee]

For our group the question remains, if BA is so well balanced (and it is) why would you intentionally wreck that balance, even its "really rare?" For us the answer is, "we don't." We restyle the items to fit BA and move on.

How do you handle bonuses like archery within BA? Do you convert it to damage or just leave it as-is?

[Baptor]

How do you handle bonuses like archery within BA? Do you convert it to damage or just leave it as-is?

I assume by "archery" you are referring to some kind of item? I actually don't have the DMG yet so we are editing as we go. What does this item do?

[MaxWilson]

For our group the question remains, if BA is so well balanced (and it is) why would you intentionally wreck that balance, even its "really rare?" For us the answer is, "we don't." We restyle the items to fit BA and move on.

Also, as I said, to each his own. But when everyone's had their crack at a tier 4 game using the DMG as written, I'd like to see how it turns out and what items everyone ended up with. :smallcool:

If you're interested, I'm willing to roll up a few treasure troves and tell you about the items generated. Would that help? It would give you more data points than just the single guy on Reddit. If so, what CR do you want and how many rolls?

(I should mention that +3 Armor is considerably more common than +3 Plate Armor, closer to 1% than 0.083% per roll. But a +3 Chain Shirt is interesting less for the game-breaking AC, which is still less than regular Plate, and more for the fact that it requires only Medium Armor Proficiency. Anyway, I bet your Reddit guy's +3 armor was mostly non-plate.)


I assume by "archery" you are referring to some kind of item? I actually don't have the DMG yet so we are editing as we go. What does this item do?

I think that was a reference to the Archery fighting style that rangers and fighters can choose at 1st level. It gives +2 to ranged weapon attacks.

[Oscredwin]

I assume by "archery" you are referring to some kind of item? I actually don't have the DMG yet so we are editing as we go. What does this item do?

Archery Combat style, which when combined with a +1 bow, gives the same bonus to hit as a +3 sword.

[Easy_Lee]

Archery Combat style, which when combined with a +1 bow, gives the same bonus to hit as a +3 sword.

Right, except the sword would have +2 damage over it, but yeah, basically that. +2 to hit is pretty major in comparison to +1 AC, for instance.

[MaxWilson]

Archery combat style is the single biggest reason for Sharpshooter is a better level 1 feat for Variant Human fighters than GWM is. That +2 bonus is hugely useful.

[Baptor]

Maxwilson,

Feel free if you wish. Like I said, it's not the frequency that particularly troubles me. It's that it's there at all. If you need me to concede that it would take a mathematical miracle to acquire +3 full plate, I will do so. It's not really something I'm passionate about. it's the whole idea of enhancements to hit and AC that bother me. BA is balanced without them. With them it's unbalanced.

Archery feat, OK here goes.

1. My players are a part of this. They really like anything that their character can do in and of themselves, but despise any dependency on MIs. I know in this edition there is no dependency on MIs and I know I could do inherent stuff, but they feel that inherent stuff is just MIs in disguise. So there's that.

2. The Archery feat does give a good bonus to hit, but whether we redact MI enhancements or not doesn't really affect it. You either have the feat and enhancements or the feat without. We'll go with the feat without enhancements.

3. Most importantly, the developers said (for what that's worth) that everything calculated into the PHB was a part of BA, and I assume this includes feats. What wasn't calculated were magic item bonuses. According to the devs, MI bonuses go beyond the scope of BA, making characters better than they should be. Some people find that cool, we find that annoying.

So in short, the Archery feat stays unless we find cause to remove it.

[JoeJ]

Does the DMG indicate that rolling dice for magic items is the default, or is it like 2e where the tables are there to help if the DM is having trouble deciding what to put in?

[Oscredwin]

Maxwilson,

Feel free if you wish. Like I said, it's not the frequency that particularly troubles me. It's that it's there at all. If you need me to concede that it would take a mathematical miracle to acquire +3 full plate, I will do so. It's not really something I'm passionate about. it's the whole idea of enhancements to hit and AC that bother me. BA is balanced without them. With them it's unbalanced.

Archery feat, OK here goes.

1. My players are a part of this. They really like anything that their character can do in and of themselves, but despise any dependency on MIs. I know in this edition there is no dependency on MIs and I know I could do inherent stuff, but they feel that inherent stuff is just MIs in disguise. So there's that.

2. The Archery feat does give a good bonus to hit, but whether we redact MI enhancements or not doesn't really affect it. You either have the feat and enhancements or the feat without. We'll go with the feat without enhancements.

3. Most importantly, the developers said (for what that's worth) that everything calculated into the PHB was a part of BA, and I assume this includes feats. What wasn't calculated were magic item bonuses. According to the devs, MI bonuses go beyond the scope of BA, making characters better than they should be. Some people find that cool, we find that annoying.

So in short, the Archery feat stays unless we find cause to remove it.

The Archery "Feat" is actually the combat style. Martial Characters get to choose one of several combat styles and rangers and fighters have the option of taking "Archery" which is +2 to hit. The Sharpshooter Feat does something else entirely.

[MaxWilson]

Does the DMG indicate that rolling dice for magic items is the default, or is it like 2e where the tables are there to help if the DM is having trouble deciding what to put in?

I wouldn't characterize 2nd edition in those terms, but it seems clear that 5E is as least as forgiving as 2nd in terms of Rule 0 support for treasure distribution.

DMG page 133, "You can hand out as much or as little treasure as you want."

Also page 133, "If a treasure hoard seems too small, you can roll multiple times on the table."

It's quite obvious that, in keeping with other random tables in the DMG, you are free to choose the results directly instead of using random tables. If you want the first encounter that a level 1 group has to be a kobold wielding the Eye of Vecna, and the second encounter is another kobold who has the Hand of Vecna and a +3 Longbow, knock yourself out--of course! Same goes if you want to never hand out any item formulas and restrict items found to Potions of Climbing/Healing and the occasional quiver of Arrows +1: do it!

Would you ever expect a DMG to say that a DM can't run his game however fits his Rule of Cool?

[archaeo]

I just don't want their enhancement bonuses in my Bounded Accuracy. :smallmad: We've had such a great time with BA and now that they are getting high level we want magic items without ruining the wonderful system the devs created. Honestly I still don't know what they were smoking when they tossed items like these into the perfect system they made.

I'm not really sure I'm seeing the system get "broken," especially given the fact that it's not like BA was designed in a vacuum and they later decided, hey, let's throw in all these magic items that will wreck it. By the time the system "expects" you to be able to have really high AC, you're facing things that a) attack other attributes far more easily or b) have a reasonable chance to hit even an extraordinarily high AC. Really, I suspect that attuning a bunch of items to stack up a big AC isn't really all that optimal anyway, since those attunement slots can be used for more useful stuff in all likelihood.

I mean, it sounds like you and your players dislike magic items in general, and it's no big deal if you don't bother with them or a subset of them, but it doesn't "break" 5e if you hand them out even at a relatively high rate.

[Person_Man]

I personally hate magic items that grant bonuses. They skew the math of the game without making it any more fun or interesting. It was particularly bad in 3.5, where a mid-level player could optimize their to-hit to be successful 95%ish of the time and their damage to kill basically anything in 1 turn. I was hoping 5E would stick to its guns on Bounded Accuracy, but this seems to imply otherwise.

[Fwiffo86]

At first impression, I felt like seeing a blend of AD&D 2e and 3.x magic items: it felt familiar as with 3.x, but it ended once I saw stuff like Sword of Striking (and how longswords are apparently the easiest items to craft, ever). What are your impressions over it?

I actually think this stems from the sword at its most basic, is the most easily crafted and effective tool for slaying designed, short of picking up a rock to bash someone's head in. Not to mention fantasy is filled with magical swords, to a much more extensive level than any other weapon.

[Baptor]

There is no way that this:


DMG page 133, "You can hand out as much or as little treasure as you want."

and this:


I'm not really sure I'm seeing the system get "broken," especially given the fact that it's not like BA was designed in a vacuum and they later decided, hey, let's throw in all these magic items that will wreck it. By the time the system "expects" you to be able to have really high AC, you're facing things that a) attack other attributes far more easily or b) have a reasonable chance to hit even an extraordinarily high AC. Really, I suspect that attuning a bunch of items to stack up a big AC isn't really all that optimal anyway, since those attunement slots can be used for more useful stuff in all likelihood.

I mean, it sounds like you and your players dislike magic items in general, and it's no big deal if you don't bother with them or a subset of them, but it doesn't "break" 5e if you hand them out even at a relatively high rate.

are both true about 5e. "BA was designed without magic items, but feel free to give out a lot or none according your preferences and everything will be fine." and "BA was designed to include magic items, but feel free to give out a lot or none according to your preferences and everything will be fine." are both impossible statements. Either BA was made to include them, in which case we should include them, or it was not made to include them and we should not include them. Whichever is true, the inclusion or exclusion of MI cannot be "willy-nilly." They have a very real and significant impact on gameplay.

Now like I said, you can say truthfully that, "BA was designed to include MI, but screw that we aren't using them and darn the consequences." or "BA wasn't designed to include MI, but screw that we are using them and darn the consequences." There is nothing wrong with doing that and to each his own. But it's just silly to say that it doesn't matter at all whether I give out MIs with enhancements, because it does matter, one way or another.


I personally hate magic items that grant bonuses. They skew the math of the game without making it any more fun or interesting. It was particularly bad in 3.5, where a mid-level player could optimize their to-hit to be successful 95%ish of the time and their damage to kill basically anything in 1 turn. I was hoping 5E would stick to its guns on Bounded Accuracy, but this seems to imply otherwise.

Yeah, it's sad really. BA is one of the most ingenius things ever to come out of WotC, but, despite what was said earlier, I happen to think the did just drop the magic items into the game without considering what it would do to their system. It's pretty apparent that MIs were one of the last things to be developed, and for some reason they couldn't drop the sacred cow of (+x) to keep the balance. Disappointing.

On a related note, Person Man, I ran some numbers comparing a fighter with optimized gear in 3.5 versus a CR 20. The fighter, on his own, could kill it in three rounds easily. The first hit each round was 95% (auto-hit). A 5e fighter in optimized gear is about as close in power.

The lesson is, if you give players gear like that in 5e, nothing changes from 3.5. If you don't however, you will get balanced fights that could go one way or another. Some prefer the former, I prefer the latter.

[Nargrakhan]

At what point did getting magic items become a right and not a reward? I remember DM's giving out magic items as a reward for great RP'ing or as needed to successfully complete the campaign. Players would give DM's a wishlist of what they wished they could one day have, and depending on the course of the adventure, grant or deny it (though having a just reason for denying if the player was adamant). PC's trusted the DM wasn't using a lack of magic items -- if such a scenario was in place -- as a weakness to leverage against them.

Now it seems like Players are demanding magic items because it's a gaming given duty to turn a campaign upside down with OP'ing damage rolls and spell saves. I thought DM's gave out as much or as little items, because it made things interesting and kept people engaged. It was a carrot and shiny toy... but not the end all be all things that defined what PC's were based around.

It's like we're having this arms race between PC's and DM's over magic items and enemy encounters. Why? It doesn't have to be this way... and it's so one dimensional when forcefully applied. And yes... I know BA was designed as a solution to this, but we get threads arguing the misconception of what magic item rarity means.

[Baptor]

At what point did getting magic items become a right and not a reward? I remember DM's giving out magic items as a reward for great RP'ing or as needed to successfully complete the campaign. Players would give DM's a wishlist of what they wished they could one day have, and depending on the course of the adventure, grant or deny it (though having a just reason for denying if the player was adamant). PC's trusted the DM wasn't using a lack of magic items -- if such a scenario was in place -- as a weakness to leverage against them.

Now it seems like Players are demanding magic items because it's a gaming given duty to turn a campaign upside down with OP'ing damage rolls and spell saves. I thought DM's gave out as much or as little items, because it made things interesting and kept people engaged. It was a carrot and shiny toy... but not the end all be all things that defined what PC's were based around.

It's like we're having this arms race between PC's and DM's over magic items and enemy encounters. Why? It doesn't have to be this way... and it's so one dimensional when forcefully applied. And yes... I know BA was designed as a solution to this, but we get threads arguing the misconception of what magic item rarity means.

Except in this case my players and I have an open discussion on this. They want balanced items as much as I do. My players find a game where they are OP to be no fun at all.

[Person_Man]

At what point did getting magic items become a right and not a reward?

In 1E/2E, randomly generated treasure/magic items were an assumed part of the default game. In fact, in many ways D&D created/popularized the roguelike dungeon crawl for the explicit purpose of getting more treasure. Many of the early modules published by TSR were nothing more then big dungeon maps filled with monsters, deadly traps, riddles/puzzles, and lists and/or randomly generated charts of treasure, with only the barest of hand wave plots. As D&D grew and matured, more emphasis was placed on roleplaying, plot, realism, world building, etc. The trend away from assumed magic items is a mostly modern gaming phenomenon.

I would also add that most young gamers now start with video game RPG, and then branch out to tabletop RPG. And most modern video game RPGs have lots and lots of treasure. So it would make sense that they would expect it in their tabletop TRP.

Having said that, I fully support the default being no magic items, and think that the optional magic items should provide interesting new abilities, and not +1 to whatever. But I accept that I'm probably the minority opinion.

[Oscredwin]

So aside from using the option of the best in armor to get a +3 Shield, +3 of the armor you are optimized for, and a Cloak (so the bonuses add to +7), a more common distribution on such things is a total bonus of <+5 from a magic free set. Does no one else notice that this is a smaller effect size (in most situations) than using clever tactics to get advantage all the time?

I'm a bit too busy to do it right now, but how much better is a GWM Fighter with a +3 greatsword, +2 plate, and a cloak who stands toe to toe with a monster trading blows vs a GWM Fighter with a magical (but no bonus) sword and plate, who RPs the fight really well and gets advantage 80% of the time (and gets his opponent disadvantage at the same rate) ? The first is getting a lot of complaints here, this edition was lauded on this board for enabling the second.

[bloodshed343]

Advantage works out to about +5 on average, so it's better. It's not as good as having 29 ac though. Or a much higher hit rate (29 str belt with a +3 sword is +7 to hit, so it actually matters more than advantage.)

[Nargrakhan]

And of course, there's nothing stopping that hypothetical PC from still RP'ing to get advantage with all that +X boosted magical gear.

[Oscredwin]

Advantage works out to about +5 on average, so it's better. It's not as good as having 29 ac though. Or a much higher hit rate (29 str belt with a +3 sword is +7 to hit, so it actually matters more than advantage.)

I agree on the 29 STR belt and the defence stacking both being fairly extreme and potentially very bad (although I don't know). The STR belt is the most effective on the fighter (I think) giving him +4 to hit and damage, with is the best on a per attack basis. Although maybe it's better on a rogue where the +4 to hit is a bigger deal.

[MaxWilson]

It is also true that Mobile feat + held action >> +3 to AC when it comes to melee combat. Even a 1 in 20 chance to hit you is worse than 0 in 20, and 5E is really good at enabling mobile combat. (Mobile Monks rule, and so are Eldritch Knights.)

My takeaway from the DMG is, "Sure, go ahead and roll on the treasure tables every once in a while, but if your players all get Decanters of Endless Water and Potions of Climbing instead of Belts of Storm Giant Strength, don't sweat it, they will still have a fun campaign." I was a lot more concerned about game-breaking items when I was looking at lists of magic items by rarity instead of looking at the actual treasure tables.

Edit: this (https://www.dropbox.com/s/vl2kbujnv3kdkqx/Treasure%20Hoard%20Cards.pdf) might be the reddit guy referred to earlier by some other poster. First two pages are treasure hoards for CR 0-4, second two pages are for CR 5-10, then CR 11-16, then CR 17+. If you add up all the hoards on these cards and double the CR 5-10 loot, they'd be a pretty fair representation of the total treasure the average party will find during a whole level 1-20 campaign. A Belt of Cloud Giant Strength (STR 27) makes an appearance, and so does a Breastplate +2 and a Half-Plate +1, but those things are found at CR 17+ and I think you'll agree that they are not game-breaking in and of themselves.

[Baptor]

And of course, there's nothing stopping that hypothetical PC from still RP'ing to get advantage with all that +X boosted magical gear.

This. Also this answers the former question about the Archery style. Just because there are things that add to hit bonuses do not invalidate the issue with enhancements. If anything they exacerbate the problem.

The options in the PHB (Archery, Advantage, etc) were all considered when creating BA. The game is balanced on these principles. So yes, a character can do something clever and grab an effective +5 hit, and that is good. Had they balanced the higher level monsters assuming the PCs had +1 weapons or whatever, then a +1 weapon would be OK also. As it is, such things imbalance the game.

Now of course a +1 is a significant boost, but not gamebreaking at high level. I might have even just let +3 weapons fly even knowing the risks just to avoid more work. But now that I see Belts of Giant Strength floating around in addition to the +3 swords that already bothered me, I am convinced I can't trust the DMG's magic item philosophy.


I was a lot more concerned about game-breaking items when I was looking at lists of magic items by rarity instead of looking at the actual treasure tables.

For this reason only, I'm reserving final judgement until I see the DMG tables. Even then though, I may have to ban or change BoGS. Seriously those things are insane.

[Tvtyrant]

god[/I] for crying out loud). :smalleek:

But a Barbarian can get that by level 20 anyway. +7 Con, +5 Dex, +2 armor, +2 shield. AC 26 without any magic items.

[Baptor]

But a Barbarian can get that by level 20 anyway. +7 Con, +5 Dex, +2 armor, +2 shield. AC 26 without any magic items.

Yes, that's true, but that is a class feature. It's part of what makes the Barbarian work. Everything in the PHB is balanced against BA. It's these pesky items which were dreamed up outside BA that are dangerous. Everything inside is WAI.

Also, as mentioned, that same Barbarian can still pick up + AC items and push that figure even higher.

[MaxWilson]

For this reason only, I'm reserving final judgement until I see the DMG tables. Even then though, I may have to ban or change BoGS. Seriously those things are insane.

I edited my post above to link to some guy on Reddit who rolled up a campaign's worth of treasure in the DMG. There's a Trident +1 and I think a Longbow +2, but of course the Belt of Cloud Giant Strength that you get around level 18 won't help the guy with the Longbow +2. The bulk of the items I see in that campaign are money and one-time items like Potions of Invisibility and Scrolls of Regenerate. I really don't think there's enough treasure there to break the game unless you use it to hire an army of mercenaries (better than skeletons). By this I mean, "I would feel totally comfortable throwing the same encounters at a party who had kept all the magic items in that PDF as at a party who sold all the items and gave the proceeds to charity." I might possibly bump up the difficulty a notch for the magic-keeping party to make it more fun, but if I threw the bumped-up-difficulty encounters at the no-magic party they would triumph too--they might just take short rests a tiny bit more frequently than the magic-keeping party.

[Tvtyrant]

Yes, that's true, but that is a class feature. It's part of what makes the Barbarian work. Everything in the PHB is balanced against BA. It's these pesky items which were dreamed up outside BA that are dangerous. Everything inside is WAI.

Also, as mentioned, that same Barbarian can still pick up + AC items and push that figure even higher.

That is a reasonable response. It also helps that the two classes which can gain the highest AC (Monk and Barbarian) are extremely MAD when they do so. Barbarian archer guy is going to do piddly damage, and wisdom offers little to the Monk.

[Baptor]

By this I mean, "I would feel totally comfortable throwing the same encounters at a party who had kept all the magic items in that PDF as at a party who sold all the items and gave the proceeds to charity." I might possibly bump up the difficulty a notch for the magic-keeping party to make it more fun, but if I threw the bumped-up-difficulty encounters at the no-magic party they would triumph too--they might just take short rests a tiny bit more frequently than the magic-keeping party.

I would love to believe in this. I really would. Maybe it's true. We are still in tier 2 now and only one player has a +0 magic sword, so we really don't know how this works out in media res, so to speak.

Someone on the D&D forums said this about the belts and items like them,


"It's ok that it can make huge character investments totally pointless! You MIGHT never find it, so it only invalidates permanent character choices SOMETIMES!"

The fact that it's rare doesn't invalidate its OPness. So "it's really rare so you probably won't find don't worry!" isn't much of a comfort. But if maxwilson is right, and the impact is only "I'll have 2 balors in this fight instead of one." then I could live with it.

[pwykersotz]

I would love to believe in this. I really would. Maybe it's true. We are still in tier 2 now and only one player has a +0 magic sword, so we really don't know how this works out in media res, so to speak.

Someone on the D&D forums said this about the belts and items like them,

The fact that it's rare doesn't invalidate its OPness. So "it's really rare so you probably won't find don't worry!" isn't much of a comfort. But if maxwilson is right, and the impact is only "I'll have 2 balors in this fight instead of one." then I could live with it.

Are you sure that 'more abilities' and '+x' aren't just the same thing?

Say one sword is +3. Another forces the one you strike to be confronted with the truth, ending all illusions and enchantments. Another one allows you to attune to lightning, firing bolts of energy. All of these provide resources to end an encounter faster than normal. It's true that the +3 does so more reliably, and maybe that's the distinction, but better tools = reduced difficulty unless the DM never puts you against challenges the tools can solve, then you may as well not have them.

I'm just tossing out thoughts here though. I'm tired and I might easily be off base. :smallsmile:

[MaxWilson]

That is a reasonable response. It also helps that the two classes which can gain the highest AC (Monk and Barbarian) are extremely MAD when they do so. Barbarian archer guy is going to do piddly damage, and wisdom offers little to the Monk.


Highest AC actually goes to fighter, not monk. Barbarian can't compete until level 20--in practice this isn't relevant.

Fighter or Paladin with plate armor, shield, and defensive fighting gets AC 21. A Monk only gets AC 20 even if he spends 3-4 feats maxing out Dex and Wis. A Barbarian can likewise get to AC 20 by maxing out Dex and Con (probably forgoing Strength), and then at level 20 goes to AC 22. For most of the game, a full-armor Fighter/Paladin has the best defensive AC you can get, not Monks or Barbarians. If I'm wrong, someone please let me know because my Monk needs some tricks. (Defensive Duelist is under consideration but will have to wait until level 12 or so, which is a long way off.)

[Giant2005]

Highest AC actually goes to fighter, not monk. Barbarian can't compete until level 20--in practice this isn't relevant.

Fighter or Paladin with plate armor, shield, and defensive fighting gets AC 21. A Monk only gets AC 20 even if he spends 3-4 feats maxing out Dex and Wis. A Barbarian can likewise get to AC 20 by maxing out Dex and Con (probably forgoing Strength), and then at level 20 goes to AC 22. For most of the game, a full-armor Fighter/Paladin has the best defensive AC you can get, not Monks or Barbarians. If I'm wrong, someone please let me know because my Monk needs some tricks. (Defensive Duelist is under consideration but will have to wait until level 12 or so, which is a long way off.)

Monks can get the Dual-Wielder feat for an extra point of AC (Equalling the Fighter) if they really want to although I wouldn't advise it. You also forgot that Barbarians can use Shields too which gives them more AC than a Fighter - it isn't even that difficult to get their AC up to those levels if they are Dex based but people are too indoctrinated by the stigma of muscled Barbarians to even consider how powerful their Dex-based counterparts are.

[bloodshed343]

I actually think this stems from the sword at its most basic, is the most easily crafted and effective tool for slaying designed, short of picking up a rock to bash someone's head in. Not to mention fantasy is filled with magical swords, to a much more extensive level than any other weapon.

Way late, but anyway:

Axes, spears, pikes, etc, etc. were all easier to make. In most cases they were more effective too. Spears were the weapon of war. The sword was a sidearm.

The sword was romanticized as a symbol because it was expensive and hard to craft. It was high-tech for its day. It was worn, bejeweled by kings and nobles. It's simply sexier than a spear.

[MaxWilson]

Monks can get the Dual-Wielder feat for an extra point of AC (Equalling the Fighter) if they really want to although I wouldn't advise it. You also forgot that Barbarians can use Shields too which gives them more AC than a Fighter - it isn't even that difficult to get their AC up to those levels if they are Dex based but people are too indoctrinated by the stigma of muscled Barbarians to even consider how powerful their Dex-based counterparts are.

I thought Unarmored Defense didn't work with shields.

[Giant2005]

I thought Unarmored Defense didn't work with shields.

The Monk one doesn't but the Barbarian one does.

[pwykersotz]

It's simply sexier than a spear.

http://new2.fjcdn.com/comments/I+wonder+where+that+skull+on+your+hoody+is+from+_9 f97cec7e81344e3c1665e67e83cc4df.jpg

[T.G. Oskar]

I think the concept of "bounded accuracy" is misconceived. Maybe it's the definition of the boundaries?

5e and its bonuses rarely, if ever, compare to 3.5 with its lots of little +1 bonuses and lack of upper boundaries to all kinds of bonuses. Even with the bonuses from magic items (the +1 from the weapon, the artificial increase to Strength), there is a defined boundary. Getting them early certainly ruins the balance, but not by much; however, if you intend to fight a CR 30 character, might as well fight it on equal terms.

I recall (you may correct me on this) that some people were arguing on how bounded accuracy left you with weaker characters. This argument leads to the opposite: magic items make for too strong characters. Trying to claim this is the folly of "bounded accuracy" doesn't seem to get the main gist behind it: there IS an upper boundary to characters and monsters. It's just that it couldn't be defined until the DMG was released.

Consider someone entirely optimized for Armor Class: let's say a Fighter, going for Defense, wielding a +3 Plate and +3 Shield, and the eponymous Cloak of Protection +1 for good measure. That leaves you with...what, 28 AC, I believe? Note that it hasn't approached AC 30. A Barbarian with Con 24 and Dex 20, a +3 Shield and Cloak of Protection +1 has the same AC; once again, it doesn't approach AC 30; to do so, it needs a Cleric casting Shield of Faith on it, and it only approaches AC 30. You can probably define the boundaries of Armor Class; is there ANY monster that exceeds AC 30? Tiamat, or rather her avatar (I'd consider that her avatar) has an AC of 25, and that's apparently the high-end of monster AC. You can thus safely say that the upper boundary to AC is 30, rather than the 21 that you thought previously (or maybe the 23 AC a Wizard can pull off by constantly spending its Reaction for the Shield spell). You may cry foul when a creature or character exceeds the AC upper boundary of 30; just to note, it devoted its fighting style, its equipment and the resources of a second character to pull that off.

Now, let's consider someone optimized for Attack Bonus: a character with a Belt of Giant Strength (Str 29) and a +3 weapon, at 20th level. That's roughly a +18 to attack rolls, without adding Bless (1 to 4 points of bonus per attack). Alternatively, a character with Dex 20, the Archery fighting style and a +3 Bow at 20th level, with an attack bonus of +16, just 2 points shy of the highest bonus. Monster-wise, the strongest creatures have an attack bonus of +17, which is just 1 point shy of the optimized character's AB. Assuming a Strength/Dexterity of 30 and a CR of 30 (using the Monster Manual rules), the most a monster can aspire to is a +19 (10 from the score, 9 from proficiency bonus; guess what's the Tarrasque's attack bonus with its five attacks?). A +3 item is the equivalent to the proficiency bonus you lack. At most, no character can, on its own, approach an attack bonus above +20, save for using the Bless spell that can lead you to an attack bonus of +23, if getting the best possible bonus. Thus, the official boundary would be somewhere around +23. That's, as far as you can consider, the upper boundary for attack bonuses.

Combining the two, the difference between the lowest attack bonus possible (most likely a -5, for a character without proficiency with the weapon and an ability score of 1) and the highest Armor Class possible (AC 28, without the Shield of Faith bonus) is massive, that said, it compares extremes. Most likely, a character won't end up with an ability score of 1, or even one below 7 unless it gets nerfed, and most likely it'll choose a weapon it is proficient with, so between the -3 from an ability score of 7 and the lowest proficiency bonus (+2), the difference is much lower (a difference of 4 points, to be exact). That means you're comparing a level 1 character with a Challenge 20+ character. Someone moderately optimized (scores over 10, choosing a weapon with proficiency) may end up with, say, a bonus of +3; still well below the range you can succeed, but less so. Note that ALL of these people still have a 1 in 20 chance of succeeding with their attack, since a natural 20 is STILL an auto-hit; you need an attack bonus of +9 to make ends meet, and that isn't so hard to approach (proficiency bonus +4 and maxed Str/Dex, or proficiency bonus +5 and a Str/Dex bonus of 18 or 19). Judging from that, Tiamat's AC is still relevant. In fact, going with Tiamat vs. the Tarrasque, the Big T still has a 30% chance of landing one of its five hits against the Mother of Chromatic Dragons. A Fighter with its 28 AC will have a 55% chance of surviving a Tarrasque's single attack.

Of course, that is comparing extremes (the absolute best and worst), which is where things might fall flat. Kind of a shame that there's no "average AC/attack bonus per Challenge" resource yet like in 3.5, where you can see where the variance goes, but at least you can work something out. I'd say it's a testament of how Shield builds have changed since 3.5, where they were considered poor since their AC bonus was lackluster compared to their damage. Most characters won't have an AC of 28, let alone an AC of 30, without devoting its resources to defense, which leads to shifting resources from damage, so it seems, at first instance, to balance out. Haven't seen Tiamat's actual AC or if she has a spell list, but have you considered that Tiamat's AC might be higher if she happens to have Shield cast-able at-will? She lacks a shield and CoP, which is what makes the Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian AC reach the top.

Personally, I don't worry that much about the +3 items, unless they're released on a bad moment. The boundaries for attack rolls and AC are still visible (AC 5 to AC 30, -5 to +19 attack bonus), which is a lot more different than the lack of boundaries in 3.5 (where you could get stratospheric attack bonuses and Armor Class, and the wild variance made these irrelevant). When speaking about "bounded accuracy", the actual boundaries are important. I worry, though, that the bonuses come at a time where anything that compares is hopelessly outclassed: if anything, the failure of "bounded accuracy" is that you can't assume a boundary for a specific Challenge without additional data and hope it remains balanced when someone twinks.

[Mellack]

My understanding of BA was that it was supposed to allow low level opponents to be a credible threat, although requiring somewhat more of them. Once you can get up to 25-26 AC that is no longer the case. Bandits, wolves, and hobgoblins can only hit you on a natural 20. Same for minotaurs and tigers. That is the same as I remember other editions being. If low level monsters are not supposed to be a threat, then why not allow the higher numbers that make epic characters feel so powerful and do things way out of the reach of commoners.

[Person_Man]

The Monk one doesn't but the Barbarian one does.

Yeah, given the new magic item structure, I'm guessing that Barbarians (or Barbarian multi-class builds) will end up having the highest potential AC in the game at some point. Its only a matter of time before they have magic items that can boost your Dex and Con above 20. And Barbarian AC can be Dex + Con + magical Shield. It's also nifty that Barbarians get medium armor proficiency. It lets you get away with mediocre Str/Dex at low levels, so that you can survive long enough to get the Ability Score boosting magic item(s) at mid-high levels.

[MaxWilson]

My understanding of BA was that it was supposed to allow low level opponents to be a credible threat, although requiring somewhat more of them. Once you can get up to 25-26 AC that is no longer the case. Bandits, wolves, and hobgoblins can only hit you on a natural 20. Same for minotaurs and tigers. That is the same as I remember other editions being. If low level monsters are not supposed to be a threat, then why not allow the higher numbers that make epic characters feel so powerful and do things way out of the reach of commoners.

Getting even one character up to AC 26 is incredibly rare, let alone the whole party. As long as the goblins are threatening 3 of 4 characters with their bows they remain a credible threat.

[MadGrady]

If they get a +3 maul, it should hit like a truck being thrown by a bigger truck. It's a LEGENDARY weapon. This ain't a random boulder on a stick. This is Kord's right nut.

Permission to sig this?

One of the best comments I have ever seen

[bloodshed343]

Permission to sig this?

One of the best comments I have ever seen

Go ahead.

/10char

[Oscredwin]

Yeah, given the new magic item structure, I'm guessing that Barbarians (or Barbarian multi-class builds) will end up having the highest potential AC in the game at some point. Its only a matter of time before they have magic items that can boost your Dex and Con above 20. And Barbarian AC can be Dex + Con + magical Shield. It's also nifty that Barbarians get medium armor proficiency. It lets you get away with mediocre Str/Dex at low levels, so that you can survive long enough to get the Ability Score boosting magic item(s) at mid-high levels.

I think it makes sense for a Barb Character to take a feat, get a 24 Str and a 24 Con and ditch his armor at level 20 (sort of a badass image like Jax from the second Mortal Kombat movie). And maybe you have the +3 to AC bracers. And maybe you're using a +3 shield, and maybe you're getting the, as yet unreleased, 29 dex gloves, and thus a weapon that doesn't require attunement. That'll get you (10 +9 +7 + 2 + 3 +3 =) 32 AC by, again, literally using the best equipment in the world to become untouchable (and also always win init). This is good if you have a duel vs a caster (they can only hit you with a 20 and thus have to rely on saving throws).

The issue is I think the designers might be aware that STR, INT, and CHA are mediocre stats relative to the other three. They might have noticed that you can dump them easier unless you use them to attack. They might have figured out that casters use INT and CHA and only melee uses STR. That a 29 STR is less gamebreaking than a 29 in literally any other stat. And stat boosters that work like that in 2E only worked for STR. I think there's a good chance we don't see any other set stat X to 29 in official books.


PS my spell checker changed combat to kombat up there. that's cool.

[Tvtyrant]

Yeah, given the new magic item structure, I'm guessing that Barbarians (or Barbarian multi-class builds) will end up having the highest potential AC in the game at some point. Its only a matter of time before they have magic items that can boost your Dex and Con above 20. And Barbarian AC can be Dex + Con + magical Shield. It's also nifty that Barbarians get medium armor proficiency. It lets you get away with mediocre Str/Dex at low levels, so that you can survive long enough to get the Ability Score boosting magic item(s) at mid-high levels.

There is a lot to be said for adding a level of Barbarian to the Rogue, for instance. It massively increases their survivability at all levels (resistance and a much higher AC).

[MaxWilson]

And maybe you have the +3 to AC bracers. And maybe you're using a +3 shield

Bracers of Defense are +2 to AC if you are not wearing armor or using a shield. They don't stack with +3 shields even if you manage to find one.

[Vogonjeltz]

That is a reasonable response. It also helps that the two classes which can gain the highest AC (Monk and Barbarian) are extremely MAD when they do so. Barbarian archer guy is going to do piddly damage, and wisdom offers little to the Monk.

Wisdom is important for their saves. So it's kind of important. Given that it also offers AC, I'd probably always put my highest score in wisdom for a monk, second in dex or con and third in dex or con.

[MaxWilson]

Wisdom is important for their saves. So it's kind of important. Given that it also offers AC, I'd probably always put my highest score in wisdom for a monk, second in dex or con and third in dex or con.

To expand on that comment a bit: DC of monk abilities is controlled by Wisdom. If you have a low Wisdom you'll be rubbish at knocking people prone and using Quivering Palm or Fireball.

[Pex]

Why would you give a character that combination, though? This isn't 3.PF where PCs can simply decide what magic items they're going to get. The DM has to decide which items the party will find. The party can obviously decide to stack all their magic items on to one character to let them fight an otherwise unbeatable monster, but that would be a one-off (and probably epic) situation; I really don't see it happening on a regular basis.

In 3E and Pathfinder you can't simply decide what magic items you get either. No magic item exist in any campaign without the DM's permission. Even in 3E and Pathfinder the DM decides what magic items exist in treasure hoards. It is true 3E & Pathfinder are more facilitated for magic shops than 5E, but they don't exist unless the DM wants them to. If a DM for a 5E campaign wants magic shops anyway, he can. The DMG does not forbid them. The DMG even says they're possible. That still doesn't mean a PC can get any item he wants.

Edit: Some people complain the Champion is boring, plain vanilla, not a "fighter", simple, etc. The counterpoint is that there are people who want and enjoy such a character. They don't want to deal with fiddly numbers of dice or spell slots. They just want to hack monsters to bits. The same is true for enhancement items. Whomever you may not like them, but there are people who do. They're happy to have that +1 or +2 on a weapon and armor. They like being given a flat score of 19 or 21 or 23. They'll have to accept the new paradigm of 5E and get such items, if they get such items, at later levels than in previous editions, but when they get them they'll like them. Your disliking of such items should not take away their liking them. They don't have to exist in your campaign, but that doesn't mean they should not exist in the DMG at all to prevent other campaigns from having them.

[Baptor]

Edit: Some people complain the Champion is boring, plain vanilla, not a "fighter", simple, etc. The counterpoint is that there are people who want and enjoy such a character. They don't want to deal with fiddly numbers of dice or spell slots. They just want to hack monsters to bits. The same is true for enhancement items. Whomever you may not like them, but there are people who do. They're happy to have that +1 or +2 on a weapon and armor. They like being given a flat score of 19 or 21 or 23. They'll have to accept the new paradigm of 5E and get such items, if they get such items, at later levels than in previous editions, but when they get them they'll like them. Your disliking of such items should not take away their liking them. They don't have to exist in your campaign, but that doesn't mean they should not exist in the DMG at all to prevent other campaigns from having them.

I agree with this. I also agree that, as long as we're having magic items, its not a sin to make a +1 sword. There is a growing group that believes a +1 sword is boring. But its the best way to represent a sword that's just better than a normal one, and I can add a ton of lore and descriptive properties that can make that +1 sword cooler than the sword of kas.

[Rilak]

I would say the biggest issue is allowing shields to have +1/2/3 bonuses. With BA, it should only have been allowed to give the +2 shield bonus. I probably will just hand out +0 magic shields in my games. AC is high enough as it is.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

"BA was designed without magic items, but feel free to give out a lot or none according your preferences and everything will be fine." and "BA was designed to include magic items, but feel free to give out a lot or none according to your preferences and everything will be fine." are both impossible statements. Either BA was made to include them, in which case we should include them, or it was not made to include them and we should not include them. Whichever is true, the inclusion or exclusion of MI cannot be "willy-nilly." They have a very real and significant impact on gameplay.

There actually is a way for those statements to be compatible: magic items can have only a moderate impact on accuracy, so that it remains bounded. The DMG also suggests that a level 15 character in a "high-magic" setting should start the game with one rare and two uncommon magic items, e.g. a +1 shield, weapon, and armor. If you're anywhere near those guidelines, magic items will only have a small impact on character accuracy and defenses until very high levels.

5e also suggests that rolling for stats is the default chargen method, which means your fighter could start with 14 strength or 20 strength. The system is supposed to be robust enough to handle a range of scores so that the 14str fighter doesn't suck horribly and the 20str fighter doesn't rule the universe. (It's worth noting too that they've gotten rid of bonus spells from high ability scores along with the vast majority of stat prerequisites, so you actually don't get an unplayable character if your stats aren't great.) Why should this be different at high levels? A +3 difference in attack bonus is well within the bounds of BA.

As for stacking AC, I'd note a few things.
1. All AC-boosting items that AREN'T armor and shields seem to require attunement. That's a very real opportunity cost in a high-magic game.
2. Though the rules allow for it, I don't think any DM worth his salt will allow magic shields or armor (or weapons for that matter) higher than maybe +1 that DON'T require attunement.
3. Most of the math people toss around to complain about characters with 35 AC or whatever don't give enough weight to the cost involved. They say stuff like, "just cast Shield every round for an extra +5 AC." Really? So either you're burning a ton of spell slots or you're a level 17+ wizard, and if you've taken 17 levels of wizard your HP and melee attacks stink too much for front-line combat anyway. Plus you're using up your reaction every round, so good luck actually tanking anything with no attacks of opportunity (and no counterspelling either). Likewise, a fighter with Defensive style wearing +3 plate with a +3 shield will have 27 AC. Yikes! But that means he's given up a lot of damage potential to go sword-and-board, he's given up even more by taking +1 AC instead of Protector or Dueling or whatever other fighting style, and he's got a LEGENDARY set of armor (equivalent to a vorpal sword or a staff of the magi). Sure, he won't get hit too often, but that's as it should be; he invested a lot to get that level of defenses.

[Baptor]

There actually is a way for those statements to be compatible: magic items can have only a moderate impact on accuracy, so that it remains bounded. The DMG also suggests that a level 15 character in a "high-magic" setting should start the game with one rare and two uncommon magic items, e.g. a +1 shield, weapon, and armor. If you're anywhere near those guidelines, magic items will only have a small impact on character accuracy and defenses until very high levels.

Well in my estimations, that would be saying that BA did include magic items, because it meant that magic item design was constructed with BA in mind (otherwise the items would not have a moderate but severe impact). It depends on how you look at it really. However, no one has yet made that particular argument, so I tip my hat. Everyone has come down as saying either that MIs break the game or MIs have no particular effect at all. You are the first to claim they have a noticeable but not game breaking effect.

You know, in reality, the starting equipment table is a poor way to gauge the strength of MIs. The table says that even a level 20 should start with those same items, and yet items of very rare and legendary exist in the game. If the table was a tried and true representation of what the players should have, then that means I should never allow them to get very rare or legendary items. We all know that's baloney, because why would those items exist otherwise?

I do have an update to all of this. In our last session (they are level 7), we went through several battles before the main fighter realized he'd calculated his attack bonus wrong and it was +1 higher than it should have been the entire time. At the same time he did not seem to be any more powerful than the martial next to him. He apologized profusely for the error, but I told him I am glad it happened because it showed me an example of what he'd be like with a +1 weapon, and the difference wasn't huge at all.

[Pex]

Since 5E doesn't use wealth by level the chart for magic items when starting games at higher level is 5E's version of it. It is a starting point. Presumably the party will get more magic items as the campaign progresses. If you start at level X > 1 you are not playing wrong if by the time the party is level Y > X the amount of magic items the party has is more than what the chart says had you started at level Y. That in 5E characters don't absolutely need particular magic items to function is not the same thing as characters should not be given any magic items at all.

[MaxWilson]

Well in my estimations, that would be saying that BA did include magic items, because it meant that magic item design was constructed with BA in mind (otherwise the items would not have a moderate but severe impact). It depends on how you look at it really. However, no one has yet made that particular argument, so I tip my hat. Everyone has come down as saying either that MIs break the game or MIs have no particular effect at all. You are the first to claim they have a noticeable but not game breaking effect.

Actually, this argument has been made before, including by the game designers in the very post (http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604) where the term "Bounded Accuracy" was first explained.


The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don't have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

Emphasis added. The game attempts to keep d20 rolls significant by making DCs small enough that they don't fall off the bell curve even if you have no modifiers. There are a couple of places where this falls down in 5E--it is essentially impossible to make the DC 35+ Concentration check required of someone who gets sneak attacked by a 20th level Assassin or hit by a Meteor Swarm--but for the most part, 5E characters can contribute to resolving a conflict even if they have a total +0 bonus: no ability modifiers and no proficiency bonus. Concrete example: a good-aligned wizard in a party facing a Rakshasa can't use his spells, but he can pick up a longbow from a dead hobgoblin, cast Magic Weapon on it, and have a 30% chance per round of hitting it and inflicting 11 points of damage on a hit in spite of having a total to-hit bonus of +1. He's not completely useless in spite of being totally unsuited to the situation.

That is why Bounded Accuracy exists, and it's robust. It's actually not that new (OD&D/AD&D had similar mechanics) but it's the first time the concept has been explicitly identified as a deliberate design principle. This is what makes heterogenous party levels work in 5E, it's what lets you use encounters against parties that are not perfectly calibrated to their CR, it's what lets you use rolled stats or point-buy, and it's also what prevents the lack of magic items from scuttling an adventure.

[ZombieRoboNinja]

You know, in reality, the starting equipment table is a poor way to gauge the strength of MIs. The table says that even a level 20 should start with those same items, and yet items of very rare and legendary exist in the game. If the table was a tried and true representation of what the players should have, then that means I should never allow them to get very rare or legendary items. We all know that's baloney, because why would those items exist otherwise?


My personal feeling is that when I let a player find a legendary item (let alone an artifact), I expect and even hope it to be game-changing. I really don't mind if a fighter with a belt of storm giant strength and a holy avenger greatsword can cut down a cr20 dragon in two rounds, and I certainly don't expect the normal guidelines to remain completely unchanged once I start tossing out those kinds of items.

[Baptor]

Actually, this argument has been made before, including by the game designers in the very post (http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120604) where the term "Bounded Accuracy" was first explained. *snip*

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOh. That makes sense. I am with you now. It would seem that when I first heard about BA and all that, I vastly misinterpreted it. BA isn't balanced fairly at all levels to make perfect encounters, its balanced enough that characters who find magic items are powerful, but not too powerful, and characters who don't are weaker, but not too weak. That makes perfect sense. I think I am on board with you now. Thanks for digging that up and clarifying it! :smallsmile:

[MaxWilson]

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOh. That makes sense. I am with you now. It would seem that when I first heard about BA and all that, I vastly misinterpreted it. BA isn't balanced fairly at all levels to make perfect encounters, its balanced enough that characters who find magic items are powerful, but not too powerful, and characters who don't are weaker, but not too weak. That makes perfect sense. I think I am on board with you now. Thanks for digging that up and clarifying it! :smallsmile:

Happy to help. :) Happy gaming!

[Ghost Nappa]

Keep in mind that Blessings and a couple legendary items do allow mortals to push their stats up to 24, but I do not believe there is anything that dares to go over that.

The highest natural modifier is +5, the highest modifier is +7.

Barbarian (Unarmored Defense): 10 (Base) + 7 (DEX) + 7 (CON) + 6 (+4 Magic Shield) = 30. Keep in mind just how hard is to actually find the things necessary to pull it off, it's the upper threshold of tankiness optimization, and that's dependent on me actually interpreting the meaning of a +4 Magic Shield correctly (incorrectly should be 28).

Let me be clear: if your characters find a +4 Magic Shield, it's because you made it and GAVE IT TO THEM. I do not recall any already made +4 Shields in the book. It's almost guaranteed to be a homebrewed artifact intended for a Level 20 character.

[Man-of-war]

FYI, I had a computer program run a simulation to determine how much advantage boosts a roll. The average on a single d20 roll is 10.5, while the average on a roll with advantage is 13.81. This is a boost of 3.31. With advantage, your chance of rolling a natural 20 is 9.75% compared to 5% normally. Your chance of getting a natural 1 is 5% normally and 0.25% with advantage.

So having advantage is statistically better at hitting than a +3 weapon. However, the +3 weapon does more damage bypasses non-magical weapon resistance/immunity and allows you to hit high AC without rolling a 20.

Of course, a magical weapon doesn't preclude getting advantage.

I personally prefer weapons that give boosts other than +X in my group and preferentially distribute those. However, in a small group (2-3) characters, I will often give +1 or +2 weapons somewhere between levels 8 and 14. Usually not to everyone, but because a small group is disadvantaged in the action economy, they sometimes need simple stat boosts to keep up. Conversely, with a larger group 6+ characters, I distribute almost no permanent magic items that provide combat boosts.

Thoughts anyone?