High Magic Item Setting

[Milo v3]

My 3.P setting was very high magic, with everyone (even level 1 commoner type peoples) have many magic items and nearly everyone has magical powers to some extent, I've heard that while most 5e classes have options for supernatural abilities, that magic items are innately uncommon. Is there any foreseeable issue if I tried to convert my setting over to 5e because of this?

[Ralanr]

My 3.P setting was very high magic, with everyone has many magic items and nearly everyone has magical powers to some extent, I've heard that while most 5e classes have options for supernatural abilities, that magic items are innately uncommon. Is there any foreseeable issue if I tried to convert my setting over to 5e because of this?

*Sees a bunch of arguments that involve magic items not being a real issue in obtaining*

I don't think so.

[Pex]

Magic items are not uncommon in 5E. What happened is some players got all upset that magic items existed and were plentiful in previous editions they snatched onto the Bounded Accuracy theme of 5E to interpret it to mean magic items shouldn't exist at all in 5E. In every game system no magic item existed without the DM's permission. If there was too much in a particular campaign, that's not the fault of the system.

However, it is true that for many monsters of the manual the math behind them highly encouraged PCs to have particular magic items for a decent chance of defeating them. The "Christmas Tree" effect was a thing, meaning PCs glowed bright and colorful if you used Detect Magic. In that sense it's partially the game system's fault if the DM wanted to use those creatures in the campaign. It's not that the DM wanted a lot of magic items in the game, but he felt they were necessary and I won't say that was incorrect. 3E in particular made it easy for PCs to create magic items contributing to the amount if the campaign regularly used the system, so I will then say the system was partially at fault.

The math behind 5E does mean PCs aren't so dependent upon magic items to defeat monsters. The problem is many DMs took the concept of "no need" to the extreme "therefore they don't exist". Contrary to their belief, 5E does not forbid magic items. It is expected PCs will have less magic items in number than in previous editions, but they will/can have them. The game does not fall apart into unplayability brokenness because PCs have magic items, even more than one each not counting a potion or scroll. What you do need to watch out for are items that give a +# to something, such as a weapon +1 or armor +1. A +1 is a big deal in 5E. A +1 item can go along way. +2 and +3 items are powerful in 5E and meant for the higher levels when PCs face "legendary" monsters. 5E also uses "attunement" as a concept. A PC is limited to three attuned items. Items that need attuning are the potent ones. The limitation is there to prevent magic item power overwhelming PC power. PCs with three attuned items are free to use any magic item that does not need attuning, and a PC can change one attuned item for another.

In one sense you're original thought was right. 5E magic item use is less common than in previous editions. Some abilities changed, and the highest +# is 3, but you'll recognize the magic items for what they were in previous editions. It is important to be reminded that less common does not equal non-existent, and there are no D&D police to arrest you if allow for more magic items in your game than some people here would do.

[Milo v3]

I know that they can exist if I want them to exist, it's more whether each person having 10-30 magic items would be an issue when the game assumes much less. Though based on Pex's post, try and stay away from having 20 +1 items.....

[Celcey]

No, but I would definitely consider changing what the magic items do. For example, if you have a +5 boots of sneaking (or a +5 anything), that's not gonna wrk in 5e. I would seriously consider trying to give people items that are useful, but in a mundane way. For example, it may be common for people to have some item that makes laundry wash itself. Or maybe it's like Harry Potter and broomsticks are a common mode of transportation.

But for your PCs, be careful about how many items you give them that are in the DMG. Single use items, like potions, are one thing, but you don't want your players to have 5 different legendary items. And for magic items, I would stick mostly to items that don't effect the characters directly. Things like an Apparatus of Kwalish, Bags of Holding/Portable Holes, a Decanter of Endless Water, Daern's Instant Fortress, and Folding Boats are all excellent examples of items you could (almost definitely) give to your players without breaking the game.

If you also want to give them things that directly effect them, some cool things that give benefits but not actual pluses are things like an animated shield, which is great if your character is a TWF, Cap of Waterbreathing, Ring of Feather Falling, Goggles of Night (especially good if your campaign has lots of humans or dragonborn), and Adamantine or Mithral armor are good choices.

Attunement, of course, takes away a lot of your problems because a character can only attune to three items at once. But I would follow certain basic rules. For example, never give a character an item that can cast a spell if the character would of the appropriate level to cast the spell themselves if they had the right class for it. (For example, before 5th level, no one should get a Necklace of Fireball, because if they were a caster, they would need to be 5th level to cast that spell.) I would recommend following the DMG rarity guidelines for these types of items. The same goes for + items, because they can be a little gamebreaky at the wrong levels.

I would definitely recommend checking out the useless magic items thread, for fluff items that are cool but don't really do much outside of being cool.

TL;DR use the guidelines and be careful giving out +items and things that cast spells, but for a lot of other stuff you should be okay. In order to give your world that high magic feel, use magic items for mundane purposes as opposed to having every commoner on the street having an item out of the DMG. But having a magic/magic item heavy setting is absolutely fine. It may not be the default, but it's still perfectly fine.

[Tenmujiin]

Essentially, give out as many items as you like but avoid anything with +to hit amd keep +damage low. I like to swap 3.x +hit to damage dice (so +1=1d4, +2=1d6, +3=1d8, +4=2d4, +5=2d6)

My setting has magic items fairly common amongst the military (much less so with anyone else) with every guard captain issued a magic longsword and some regular soldiers having family heirlooms but they rarely have anything with more than +1d4 damage, essentially its more of a "this is why they conqured most of the known world" than loot for PCs

[Celcey]

Magic items are not uncommon in 5E. What happened is some players got all upset that magic items existed and were plentiful in previous editions they snatched onto the Bounded Accuracy theme of 5E to interpret it to mean magic items shouldn't exist at all in 5E. In every game system no magic item existed without the DM's permission. If there was too much in a particular campaign, that's not the fault of the system.

I don't think that's quite how it happened. I think it's more that in previous edition, magic items were a necessity to keep up, whereas in 5e they're fun, but not needed. It's just not assumed you'll have them. I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't exist at all, unless it's for a campaign-specific reason.


However, it is true that for many monsters of the manual the math behind them highly encouraged PCs to have particular magic items for a decent chance of defeating them.

I'm assuming you mean 3.x here, because it 5e, not so much. Magic items are, as always, very nice, but there's nothing in the MM that makes you think "oh, if I only had this item I could beat this CR appropriate creature without even breaking a sweat!"


The "Christmas Tree" effect was a thing, meaning PCs glowed bright and colorful if you used Detect Magic. In that sense it's partially the game system's fault if the DM wanted to use those creatures in the campaign. It's not that the DM wanted a lot of magic items in the game, but he felt they were necessary and I won't say that was incorrect. 3E in particular made it easy for PCs to create magic items contributing to the amount if the campaign regularly used the system, so I will then say the system was partially at fault.

Again, from what I understand, in 3.x magic items are a necessity to keep up with CR appropriate challenges, and the assumption that you would have them was built into the system.


I like to swap 3.x +hit to damage dice (so +1=1d4, +2=1d6, +5=1d12)

That's an interesting concept. Have you done that for 5e at all? I'd be curious to see how the math evened out between a flat bonus and a dice roll with high potential for more damage than the bonus. Also, did you change the bonus on the attack roll to an extra die, or just on the damage?

[Inevitability]

If magic items are common, that's okay. It is magic items that give a bonus to rolls 5e can't handle very well.

Sure, peasants can have magic stuff. It'll most likely be peasant stuff, though. Things like self-cleaning clothes, a cupboard that can tell you when food has gone bad... Such things.

If the players meet people with magic swords, those swords need not have an enhancement bonus. They may be swords that just glow, or swords that automatically detect dragons/goblins/undead, or perhaps a sword that constantly threatens all near to it, giving you advantage on intimidate checks. Regardless, there are more than enough flavorful and fun magic items you can use without upsetting game balance. In addition, it'll fix the problem of martials not being able to penetrate a monster's resistance to nonmagical weapons.

[Tenmujiin]

That's an interesting concept. Have you done that for 5e at all? I'd be curious to see how the math evened out between a flat bonus and a dice roll with high potential for more damage than the bonus. Also, did you change the bonus on the attack roll to an extra die, or just on the damage?

I 'designed' it for 5e, I never DMed more than a few sessions of 3.x (I wasn't the groups main DM until after we started playing 5th).

It is just the damage, the idea is that by removing the +to hit it keeps attack rolls within the bounded accuracy of 5e and just have +damage which is far easier to adjust encounter balance for. Note that I have never codified it past "+to hit isn't a thing, +1d4 weapons are commonish, everything else is rareish)

I mostly just throw around d4 damage which is essentially just for any weapon that is significantly superior to a normal blade such as Valyrian steel from a Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones) or the weapons used by the elvish military in my home-brew world. The actual increase is small but noticable, it is about equal to the extra damage of a fairly skilled (14-16 str/dex) user compared to a completely average one (10 str/dex) and the players are happy because they get to roll more dice which makes the bonus feel bigger (since they double the number of dice). A moderately enchanted blade might get 1d6 or 1d8 extra damage and would only be possessed by nobles or military officials (or people of similar standing in different types of hierarchies such as a tribal chief or the upper echelons of a paladin order). A strongly enchanted weapon would get +2d4 or +2d6 and would be a weapon of kings and legends.

In short, compared to normal 5e weapons: +1 = d4, +2 = 1d6/1d8 +3 = 2d4/2d6
Or compared to 3,x weapons: +1 = d4, +2 = d6, +3 = d8, +4 = 2d4, +5 = 2d6
Ignore the numbers on my previous post, they were just numbers I spit-balled while I was waiting for my bus, these ones aren't play-tested past d6 but numerically they are at most +7 average damage (for 2d6).

Note that many powerful enchanted weapons wouldn't even have a bonus to damage but would instead have special abilities (which may include more interesting ways to get the bonus damage than "always on).

TL;DR: +damage is easier to balance than +to hit, especially in a system with bounded accuracy. Also, dice are fun.

[Mara]

You may have an issue with magic items that require attunement. Since people can only be summer to 3 at a time. Aside from that their should not be a big issue with it.

[AbyssStalker]

Make sure to throw in the occasional (or not so occasional) cursed item, for the funsies.

[Milo v3]

Make sure to throw in the occasional (or not so occasional) cursed item, for the funsies.

It's unlikely for cursed items to even exist in the setting.

[AbyssStalker]

It's unlikely for cursed items to even exist in the setting.

Aww, missing out on a fun venue, but that is your choice, good way to spice up a magic item in my opinion though, they don't even have to be debilitating or serious.

Are you planning on having plenty of Artifacts/Sentient Weapons?

[Milo v3]

Aww, missing out on a fun venue, but that is your choice, good way to spice up a magic item in my opinion though, they don't even have to be debilitating or serious.

Are you planning on having plenty of Artifacts/Sentient Weapons?

Every object in the setting is effectively an artefact, and there should be a few sentient items.

[ProphetSword]

I think the golden rule when it comes to 5e is that utility magic is great, but any magic that inflates the math is going to cause issues. Keep any items that add a plus at +1 or +2 unless they are really rare and try to avoid too many things that might stack effects.

[Sigreid]

There won't be any real problems as long as you take the party's magic items into account and up the challenge ratings of the encounters appropriately. +1 or +2 cr should about do it.