Magic Weapon progression/balance?

[Baptor]

So as everyone knows, the DMG's guide to rarity isn't a great indicator of power. This holds true even with magic weapons. There are some that I'd argue are a better pick from a power standpoint that are a rarity lower than another, and so on.

As a DM, I know I don't have to give out magic items or weapons, but I like to do so. What was neat in 3.5 is that I could build a weapon using the table given in the DMG. So if a player could have a total +5 bonus weapon I could break that down and purchase a +3 icy burst weapon or a +1 vorpal weapon etc. 5e has no such guidelines.

Does anyone have a good suggestion for building items in that way for 5e? I realize the rules are I can do whatever I want, but I am really interested in something structured.

[Kryx]

I, like many others, would recommend not giving +X magic items. Add some cool effects like flaming, but adding to hit can be problematic.

Even then I wouldn't give too much mechanical benefit. Max 1-2d6 extra damage (2d6 shouldn't be til much later).

I focus more on utility or damage against specific creature types.

[Flashy]

Kryx puts it very well.

Magic items in 5e are at their best when they grant crazy powers and fun abilities rather than incremental bonuses (particularly +attack bonus).

[Knaight]

Kryx puts it very well.

Magic items in 5e are at their best when they grant crazy powers and fun abilities rather than incremental bonuses (particularly +attack bonus).

Putting it slightly less delicately, +X items are boring as heck. There's a whole host of interesting options there, and those aren't one of them.

A system where you have points to distribute to abilities can work, and isn't necessarily a bad idea - though you're working against the system a bit, which makes it harder. I'd just recommend avoiding including the +X set at all.

[Spore]

I feel the 'Magic Weapon' spell gives a better insight in how the designers wanted magical weapons to play out. First, only Paladins and Wizards get this spell on 2nd level (so a 3rd Level Wizard and a 5th Level Paladin get access to it) making it far from mandatory. There are many ways to make your weapon count as magic. But even a 15th level character can win its battles with just a regular weapon. 4th & 6th level spell slots make the weapon a +2 and +3 weapon respectively meaning you'd need a 7th Level Wizard or a 13th level Paladin and a 13th Level Wizard for it.

There is no NEED for a specific weapon. But weapons as plot elements are a very good idea nonetheless. Maybe you don't need a Flametongue to combat those Ice Giants but it very much helps. Being an oldschool player I would still expect some kind of cool magic weapon, or armor, or trinket before 10th level. Granted, I'd cherish anything remotely magical.

[Logosloki]

It really depends on the tone of the campaign and the tone of the setting.

My hard and fast rule is, for +x portions at least is the minimum is the tier. That is 0-4 +0 or none, 5-10 +1, 11-15 +2 and 16-20 +3. Hard and fast for spell effects is to open the book to a spell that has a similar effect and nail it to that tier. Armour should lag behind weapons and magic consumables ahead. Magical items are a mix bag but generally combat orientated items I nail with weapon progression and social or exploration orientated items ahead like consumables.

Note: In terms of budget I consider the +X portion to be the equivalent of a 1st (0), 3rd (+1), 5th (+2) and 7th (+3) level spell slot. If I am trying to budget I use spellpoints equivalent to half the character's level of the item as the base budget then assess. So for a level 5 character that would mean a base budget of 14 (round up because I'm generous), +1 to the weapon takes up 5 points so the remainder budget is 9 spell points.

[Flashy]

Note: In terms of budget I consider the +X portion to be the equivalent of a 1st (0), 3rd (+1), 5th (+2) and 7th (+3) level spell slot. If I am trying to budget I use spellpoints equivalent to half the character's level of the item as the base budget then assess. So for a level 5 character that would mean a base budget of 14 (round up because I'm generous), +1 to the weapon takes up 5 points so the remainder budget is 9 spell points.

This seems like it's probably a really good metric.

[Longcat]

My hard and fast rule is, for +x portions at least is the minimum is the tier. That is 0-4 +0 or none, 5-10 +1, 11-15 +2 and 16-20 +3. Hard and fast for spell effects is to open the book to a spell that has a similar effect and nail it to that tier. Armour should lag behind weapons and magic consumables ahead. Magical items are a mix bag but generally combat orientated items I nail with weapon progression and social or exploration orientated items ahead like consumables.

I use a similar metric, with these differences:

Armor progresses at the same rate as regular weapons
Shields and Bows lag a tier behind
Hand Crossbows, Heavy Melee Weapons and Polearms lag 1.5 tiers behind


This prevents feat supported fighting styles from completely dominating the martial landscape.

[Baptor]

Putting it slightly less delicately, +X items are boring as heck. There's a whole host of interesting options there, and those aren't one of them.

A system where you have points to distribute to abilities can work, and isn't necessarily a bad idea - though you're working against the system a bit, which makes it harder. I'd just recommend avoiding including the +X set at all.

Fair enough, and I appreciate that standpoint. But say you are going to make a custom magic weapon to drop into a treasure horde: how do you decide what it does, how powerful it should be? in 3.5 we had guidelines to help us design balanced weapons. In 5e its "whatever the heck you want" which quite frankly doesn't sit well with me. I like safe boundaries I can work in.


It really depends on the tone of the campaign and the tone of the setting.

My hard and fast rule is, for +x portions at least is the minimum is the tier. That is 0-4 +0 or none, 5-10 +1, 11-15 +2 and 16-20 +3. Hard and fast for spell effects is to open the book to a spell that has a similar effect and nail it to that tier. Armour should lag behind weapons and magic consumables ahead. Magical items are a mix bag but generally combat orientated items I nail with weapon progression and social or exploration orientated items ahead like consumables.

So with the +1, +2, +3 thing. If you had a "+2" weapon and wanted to give it fire dice (+1d6 i.e.) instead of bonus to hit and damage, would you use the 3.5 method? For example in 3.5 +1d6 energy damage was equal to a "+1" meaning a level 12 sword under your metrics could be a +1 flaming sword. Is that what you'd do?


Note: In terms of budget I consider the +X portion to be the equivalent of a 1st (0), 3rd (+1), 5th (+2) and 7th (+3) level spell slot. If I am trying to budget I use spellpoints equivalent to half the character's level of the item as the base budget then assess. So for a level 5 character that would mean a base budget of 14 (round up because I'm generous), +1 to the weapon takes up 5 points so the remainder budget is 9 spell points.

This sounds fascinating but I am losing you on the spell points thing. Can you give me a more detailed explanation?

[Zman]

The simple guideline is compare the created item to the items in the DMG. If it is a +X item, then you know what category it fits into, if it is a +X with additional effects it's likely a tier higher.

Personally I feel that +X Weapons and Shields need to be at the same rarity categories as +X armor and he already existing ones get shifted up one or lose their +3 bonus, or some become Artifact rarity. Making use on +0 Magic items is great and enriching.

[Mr.Moron]

If you're going to do this first you need to make a couple decisions:

How much more powerful should items make PCs? That the first step in designing guidelines is to answer the question:

A level X PC with Y magic items, should be roughly on par with a PC of level Z with no magic items.

After that one can work on coming to figure out a guidelines on how power increases map to levels, and you quantify effects in terms or relative level power.

[Baptor]

Making use on +0 Magic items is great and enriching.

What do you mean by this? Are you running/playing games with ONLY +0 magic items that are working well?

[downlobot]

Minor or major downsides can be fun to work with, too, depending on your group. I recently was awarded a +2 shield in al that, when faced with an appropriate situation, urges me to be more selfish and malevolent. It's not exactly cursed (at least not mechanically), but has that quality that adds to characterization and drama.

[Zman]

What do you mean by this? Are you running/playing games with ONLY +0 magic items that are working well?

Not only +0s, but effective use of them can make +X weapons less necessary. I see getting a +1 Weapon for Lvl 7+, getting a 2+ at Lvl 12+ and a +3 at lvl17+. A good +0 weapon can be a viable option for half the game.

Here is an example for a +0 item that was the first one in my IRL game, taken from the still warm hands of an Orc Chief.

Axe of Gruumsch: Magical +0 Greataxe that Grants +2 Strength(Cannot surpass 20), grants disadvantage on perception checks requiring sight(left eye goes blind), and requires attunement.

Yes, this item does grant a bonus to hit and damage via Strength, but it doesn't stack with a lvl8 character that with ASIs hits 20Str. The weapon has good use and character.

Or this item, Lucky Bow, a roll of a 1 is automatically a hit.

Or this, Lucky Arrow, virtually indestructible, always seems to find its way back to its owner, and is fired with advantage on attack rolls. Requires attunement.

[Baptor]

Not only +0s, but effective use of them can make +X weapons less necessary. I see getting a +1 Weapon for Lvl 7+, getting a 2+ at Lvl 12+ and a +3 at lvl17+. A good +0 weapon can be a viable option for half the game.

Here is an example for a +0 item that was the first one in my IRL game, taken from the still warm hands of an Orc Chief.

Axe of Gruumsch: Magical +0 Greataxe that Grants +2 Strength(Cannot surpass 20), grants disadvantage on perception checks requiring sight(left eye goes blind), and requires attunement.

Yes, this item does grant a bonus to hit and damage via Strength, but it doesn't stack with a lvl8 character that with ASIs hits 20Str. The weapon has good use and character.

Or this item, Lucky Bow, a roll of a 1 is automatically a hit.

Or this, Lucky Arrow, virtually indestructible, always seems to find its way back to its owner, and is fired with advantage on attack rolls. Requires attunement.

Cool! I did notice you said "a viable option for half the game." So then do you think "+1" or more weapons are necessary at some point?

[Logosloki]

Fair enough, and I appreciate that standpoint. But say you are going to make a custom magic weapon to drop into a treasure horde: how do you decide what it does, how powerful it should be? in 3.5 we had guidelines to help us design balanced weapons. In 5e its "whatever the heck you want" which quite frankly doesn't sit well with me. I like safe boundaries I can work in.



So with the +1, +2, +3 thing. If you had a "+2" weapon and wanted to give it fire dice (+1d6 i.e.) instead of bonus to hit and damage, would you use the 3.5 method? For example in 3.5 +1d6 energy damage was equal to a "+1" meaning a level 12 sword under your metrics could be a +1 flaming sword. Is that what you'd do?



This sounds fascinating but I am losing you on the spell points thing. Can you give me a more detailed explanation?

Spell points is a spell variant in the DMG, essentially spellpoints is a mana system for D&D. Characters have a certain amount of spell points per level (the table is in the DMG), which they can convert into slots to cast a spell (the amount of spell points required to cast a spell is in a table in the DMG as well). Spell points regenerate completely when you finish a long rest.

As an example of hard and fast budgeting consider the following item. The Staff of Fire is a magical quarterstaff from the Hoard of the Dragon Queen supplement. It is a +0 quarterstaff that gives you resistance to fire and has the spells Burning Hands, Fireball and Wall of Fire. There is a charge system to cast these but that is not completely relevant to the discussion (I am using this item to explain how to budget hard and fast, though to be honest the charge system is there to balance the item).

The encounter it comes from is intended to be medium difficulty for 8th level characters (I think the xp for the fight is close to 950 points each for a party of four), so according to my hard and fast budgeting the item would have a spell point value the equivalent of a 4th level character, which according to the DMG is 17 points. Burning Hands is a 1st level spell, Fireball is a 3rd level spell and Wall of Fire is a 4th level spell. The spell points for each spell are 2, 5 and 6 respectively so 13 points all up. Resistance to fire is similar to protection from energy, which is a 3rd level spell so that is 5 more points (eyeballing because we this is hard and fast). As I said a +0 magic weapon is the equivalent of a 1st level spell so that is 2 more points to give 20 points total.

Hard and Fast budget: 17
Actual: 20

Close enough.

[Zman]

Cool! I did notice you said "a viable option for half the game." So then do you think "+1" or more weapons are necessary at some point?

Necessary? No. But, I do feel the are a great incentive, I mean a 12-15th level character that researches weapons of legend and not and hears about Dorn's Thunder Hammer, and performs a quest to find a magical +1 Maul that when it hits lets out the sound of thunder and deals an additional D6 Thunder Damage is a very viable quest and offers a suffient reward. I don't think characters should normally have access to a +1 weapon prior to 7th level, and every magic item should feel special, and should have a story. They should have names, and history, I mean finding a +1 magic sword is one thing, finding Durin's Blade, the magical shortsword the renouwned assassin used to kill King Thurin, is another all together.