Rarity of this Magic Sword

[DracoKnight]

This is for a 5e campaign.

So, it's a rapier that also deals 1d4 fire damage on a hit. Due to the fire damage being extremely commonly resisted, I was thinking that this would be a lower rarity. . . what say the Forum?

EDIT: I'm thinking that it's uncommon, since Flametongue is rare, and adds 2d6 fire damage to it's damage total.

[ad_hoc]

This is for a 5e campaign.

So, it's a rapier that also deals 1d4 fire damage on a hit. Due to the fire damage being extremely commonly resisted, I was thinking that this would be a lower rarity. . . what say the Forum?

EDIT: I'm thinking that it's uncommon, since Flametongue is rare, and adds 2d6 fire damage to it's damage total.

How many of them are in your campaign world?

[DracoKnight]

How many of them are in your campaign world?

I don't know yet. This is kinda just for a ****s-and-giggles campaign. We all agreed we'd start off at level 5, with one uncommon magic item.

[SharkForce]

that's a terrible system. items are not remotely close to being balanced by rarity.

ultimately, it doesn't matter how rare the sword is. it is as rare or as common as the DM wants. it is available when the DM wants it to be available, and unavailable otherwise.

now, normally, i'm not a huge fan of vague "whatever the DM says" rulings, but in this case, it's better than what the book says, so go with that.

for what it's worth, it is probably about as powerful as a +1 sword, give or take. probably slightly less, because attack bonuses are so hard to get.

[Tenmujiin]

it is probably about as powerful as a +1 sword, give or take. probably slightly less, because attack bonuses are so hard to get.

I've replaced +x weapons with +xd4 weapons in my campaigns, they remain useful while being easier account for in encounter balance.

[Joe the Rat]

Go with +1 weapon rarity (uncommon, I think?).

[JackPhoenix]

Uncommon, because the only common items are consumables

[Vogonjeltz]

that's a terrible system. items are not remotely close to being balanced by rarity.

ultimately, it doesn't matter how rare the sword is. it is as rare or as common as the DM wants. it is available when the DM wants it to be available, and unavailable otherwise.

now, normally, i'm not a huge fan of vague "whatever the DM says" rulings, but in this case, it's better than what the book says, so go with that.

for what it's worth, it is probably about as powerful as a +1 sword, give or take. probably slightly less, because attack bonuses are so hard to get.

Well, it does matter for loot distribution using the treasure tables in the DMG or subbing out one item for another; also for crafting costs/times.

[Knaight]

I'd go with uncommon as well, as the minimum non-consumable item rarity.

[SharkForce]

Well, it does matter for loot distribution using the treasure tables in the DMG or subbing out one item for another; also for crafting costs/times.

allow me to clarify my position:

the official rarity system is borked and nobody should use it ever for anything other than pointing out that it is borked.

replacing uncommon items with other uncommon items results in imbalance if you do that with the official rules already. as such, it is pointless to worry about assigning rarity to homebrew items, because the rarity system does a bad job of telling you how comfortable you should be handing out a given item in the first place.