All martials should have magic weapons by level 6 unless the DM is Gygaxian.

[Deathtongue]

I'm aware that the game designers did their monster math with the assumption that martials can operate most of their career without magical weapons. Design philosophy or whatever.

And guess what? The design philosophy is wrong. For example: with magical weapons, the Hill Giant and the Earth Elemental are the same CR and are about the same level of difficulty -- the Hill Giant has a ranged attack and more damaging melee ones, but has fewer hit points, status immunities, and AC. Without magical weapons, the Earth Elemental is a nightmare that punches way above its weight class and will make the martials look small in the pants unless the spellcasters bail them out.

This disparity will get worse as the game goes on. I mostly play wizards and if the DM doesn't drop enough magic weapons then I call shenanigans. Other magical items I can take or leave; I've played a Sorceradin who got to level 10 with no magic item other than a +1 Maul and I've played wizards who got to T3 with NO magical items, not even the chance to copy spells. But the game becomes so lopsided against martials without magical weapons that I'm going to tell design intent to take a hike.

[MaxWilson]

I'm aware that the game designers did their monster math with the assumption that martials can operate most of their career without magical weapons. Design philosophy or whatever.

And guess what? The design philosophy is wrong. For example: with magical weapons, the Hill Giant and the Earth Elemental are the same CR and are about the same level of difficulty -- the Hill Giant has a ranged attack and more damaging melee ones, but has fewer hit points, status immunities, and AC. Without magical weapons, the Earth Elemental is a nightmare that punches way above its weight class and will make the martials look small in the pants unless the spellcasters bail them out.

The CR 5 Earth Elemental has better stats than the CR 7 Earth Elemental Myrmidon. It should probably be CR 7-8.

Also, dropping too many magic weapons is unfair to classes like Arcane Archer and Paladin of Devotion (and EKs who invest an anyschool pick in Magic Weapon) who pay for magic weapons as a class feature.

If you want guaranteed magic weapons, plan for either teamwork (Magic Weapon, Elemental Weapon, Holy Weapon, Artificer infusions) or self-sufficiency (Forge Cleric dip, Sacred Weapon). Otherwise you take your chances on whatever weapons are lying around in forgotten tombs or old legends uncovered by sages you consult. Good luck.

[Dork_Forge]

Not only does handing out magic weapons for all make class features useless (as already mentioned by Max) it also makes nonmagical BPS completely useless besides level gating those monsters at level 6+. If you did this as a DM I think you'd find monsters going down faster than expected and needing to inflate the HP or give them other defenses to compensate.

[Warwick]

I'm aware that the game designers did their monster math with the assumption that martials can operate most of their career without magical weapons. Design philosophy or whatever.


I'm reasonably confident they didn't do the math, monster or otherwise. The entire CR system is a farce, with or without readily available magic weapons.

But yes, the idea that martials are balanced without magic weapons past early levels is a bit of a joke, and expecting that that one of the party casters is expected to burn a slot of concentration so the swordhaver is tall enough to ride is really leaning into the idea that swordhaving is a second rate schtick if you don't also bring your own way to deal magical damage. To that effect, resistance/immunity to non-magic weapons mostly functions as a middle finger to martials past early levels.

[Amechra]

I mean, you definitely don't need magic weapons if, say, the majority of "monsters" are the NPCs in the back, with stuff like Earth Elementals being rare and dangerous (because that's essentially what they are without magic weapons).

[firelistener]

I disagree. D&D is built around having a party of adventurers. It's pefectly fine to have an encounter where only half your party can reliably deal full damage. As DM, I should take into account who's in the party when considering CR. If it's all melee fighters with no means for magical damage, then yeah some lower CR enemies with resistance or immunity to mundane weapon damage will be more difficult to fight. However, the same enemy might be completely trivial to a paladin that can use a divine smite. A fighter that travels with a wizard probably doesn't need to worry about having a magical weapon at all. If they're planning to invade the abyss and fight tons of demons, then yeah maybe they should make sure they can deal magical weapon damage, but there's plenty of ways to do that besides getting magic weapons. A cleric or wizard can help them out just as easily.

That said, the DM's job is to make sure the game stays fun. IMO, people love finding magical weapons so handing them out as special treasure rewards is good to do. Level 6-9 is a good spot to start doing that.

[OldTrees1]

Also, dropping too many magic weapons is unfair to classes like Arcane Archer and Paladin of Devotion (and EKs who invest an anyschool pick in Magic Weapon) who pay for magic weapons as a class feature.

Good point.
One way of handling this is dropping +0 magic weapons.

Arcane Archer needs help anyways so if one is in the Party I would work with the player.
Paladin of Devotion gets a big accuracy bonus from their ability. I didn't remember it made it magical too.
People that take the Magic Weapon spell would be fine with +0 magic weapons being around. Especially if I allow them to cast Magic Weapon on their +0 magic weapon.

[da newt]

Non-magical BPS immune creatures make a non-magic weapon owning martial almost useless (except to grapple, tank, etc), but Non-magical resistant creatures are just a bit harder to damage - not really a game changer, more a bump in difficulty level.

Of note, any magical weapon bypasses non-magical weapon resistance even if it doesn't have a +1 to hit/damage so any magic staff becomes a perfectly good beat stick for example.

Overall - I agree, every martial ought to have at least had a chance to get a magical weapon of some sort by lvl 6 - maybe not the one they want/built for, but something (+1 shortsword etc). A DM who goes out of their way to prevent magic weapons, is either vindictive or running a gritty realism higher level difficulty game (and should have set expectations in session 0).

[Tanarii]

Sure if you want a Monty Haul campaign.

Seriously though, the design principle is the players should find about one magical weapon for the entire party by level 6, and something 2-3 by level 11. Roughly, it's been a while since I crunched the numbers. It's not that there should be none. But it's also definitely not that they should find one per PC in Tier 1 and the first 1-2 Hoards of Tiers 2

I mean do what you want, but you're arguing against a supposed design philosophy that the DMG treasure tables already say is Doing it Wrong(TM)

[JellyPooga]

As someone that primarily plays non-magical martial characters, I disagree. One of the entertaining things, at least for me, about playing such characters is finding solutions to problems that aren't in your usual arsenal. If I had to choose between a backpack of mundane goodies (caltrops, ball bearings, chalk, string, etc.) and a magic weapon, I would take the backpack every. single. time.

Lacking a Magic Weapon doesn't make mundanes useless...it makes them interesting. Overcoming the challenge is what the game is about and the bigger the challenge, the bigger the reward. Using the abilities you have to capitalise the ones that others do is the reason that adventurers band together. D&D is about so much more than doing a bunch of damage and it's a dull game that doesn't realise it.

[Sorinth]

Isn't it normal that some monsters are much tougher against certain types of characters?

The inverse is also true, facing off against Yuanti will make it so the magic users struggle to be relevant but the melee characters whether they have magic weapons or not will shine.

Some monsters are super tough if you don't have ranged options, some are tough if you are bad at certain saves, etc...

The CR is a guideline, but it's expected that certain monsters will hit above/below their weight against certain PCs/parties.

[MaxWilson]

Isn't it normal that some monsters are much tougher against certain types of characters?

The inverse is also true, facing off against Yuanti will make it so the magic users struggle to be relevant but the melee characters whether they have magic weapons or not will shine.

Some monsters are super tough if you don't have ranged options, some are tough if you are bad at certain saves, etc...

The CR is a guideline, but it's expected that certain monsters will hit above/below their weight against certain PCs/parties.

Seconded. All in favor say 'aye'.

It is absolutely fine to have legendary resistance in the game, and monsters like Rakshasas and Tiamat that are immune to almost all spells. The warriors will have to do more work than the wizards against those monsters, and that is fine.

Conversely, it is fine to have flying creatures with reach weapons, like dragons, which melee warriors will struggle to engage effectively. Since they also have legendary resistance, the wizard and melee warrior will have to work together if they want to fight these monsters. (Archer warriors can do it solo.)


That said, the DM's job is to make sure the game stays fun. IMO, people love finding magical weapons so handing them out as special treasure rewards is good to do. Level 6-9 is a good spot to start doing that.

Oh, sure. But it's not guaranteed, and you might find something else instead like a Horn of Valhalla instead of a magic sword.

[da newt]

DMG pg 128-129 describes how a 3rd lvl character can craft a +1 weapon or any uncommon magic item (500 gp and 20 days).

DMG states a typical campaign ought to find treasure hoards equivalent to 7 rolls on the challenge 0-4 tables, 18 rolls on the 5-10 table, ...

The challenge 0-4 hoard includes magic items from tables F and G if you roll 86-00, which list the magic weapons etc, - (I'm sure someone clever can do the math to figure out the odds of getting a magic weapon), and if each level gets 3 rolls of the 5-10 tables which a roll of 81-00 gets you 1d4 rolls on tables F&G or one on table H (which has some top end magic items) ...

[Pex]

If it's a once in a long while thing of fighting a creature resistant to non-magical weapons it sucks for the warrior that particular combat but not a tragedy for the campaign. Nothing exists in the game without the DM's permission. It is irrelevant how many non-magical weapon resistant creatures exist in the Monster Manual. What matters is how many exist in the campaign. If there's a continuous strain of non-magical weapon resistant creatures the party has to fight and the DM absolutely refuses to give the warriors magical weapons then the DM is a donkey cavity.

Magic items exist in 5E. 5E does not forbid players having magic items. The game does not fall apart into an unplayable mess when PCs have permanent magic items that help them in combat. It's absolutely fine 5E is a game where PCs do not need so many magic items as they did in previous incarnations of the game. However, that is NOT the same thing as saying PCs should have no magic items at all.

[Tanarii]

The challenge 0-4 hoard includes magic items from tables F and G if you roll 86-00, which list the magic weapons etc, - (I'm sure someone clever can do the math to figure out the odds of getting a magic weapon), and if each level gets 3 rolls of the 5-10 tables which a roll of 81-00 gets you 1d4 rolls on tables F&G or one on table H (which has some top end magic items) ...
IIrC it's something like 50% chance you'll find one magic weapon by level 5.

Found my last post on the matter in this thread:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?554148-How-often-do-you-give-new-weapons-to-your-party-And-question-about-shops-in-towns


I roll on the tables. But my parties don't expect to get exactly 7 hoards in Tier 1. Because they aren't a single party adventuring together, I had to figure out a different way to distribute them

Still, the chances of finding a magic weapon in Tier 1 is small. On average, it's only about 5% chance to find a magic weapon in a Tier 1 hoard. If you hand out 7 hoards as expected, I think that works out to: a party will expect to find 1 magic weapon about 50% of the time, 2+ about 20% of the time (usually just 2).

That means a typical level 5 party probably has one magic weapon between them, with a smaller chance of two.

Tier 2 the chance of finding a magic weapon in a hoard only goes up to like 8% or so. Of course, since you're looking at a whopping 18 hoards over the span of the Tier the odds are a nice 75% chance you'll find one or more (with still good chances of 2-3 or more).

(Note I'm not counting magic staves. Also numbers are very rough, since I'm working off chance of getting a weapon on a suitable times 2.5 on the 1d4 rolls. That's not precise by any means.)

[Chronos]

Quoth Max Wilson:

It is absolutely fine to have legendary resistance in the game, and monsters like Rakshasas and Tiamat that are immune to almost all spells. The warriors will have to do more work than the wizards against those monsters, and that is fine.
And how exactly will the martials do that work without magic weapons? Those two monsters, the only two in the game that just say no to casters, also happen to be immune to nonmagical weapons. Against monsters with spell resistance or legendary saves, casters can just switch to spells with an attack roll, and even if they use saves, a lot of spells still have partial effect on a save, and neither legendary resistance nor spell resistance are complete protection, anyway.

[Zhorn]

Disagree, throwing around an abundance of magic weapons too early is just setting you up for the power creep problem.
Having mundane weapons and starting to come across creatures with resistances is a good way to give value to class features, reliance of cooperative buffs and spells (spells like Magic Stone and Magic Weapon become a godsend when the party has mundane equipment, but pointless when everyone is kitted out), and encourages players to be proactive in using their loot for something rather than endlessly hoarding it for not real gain (Silvered and Adamantine weapons are an option), and alternative attack methods are a good way to make encounters interesting (acid, oil and torches, holy water, alchemist fire).

[greenstone]

Seconded. All in favor say 'aye'.
Aye.

Spells like "magic weapon" and features like Artisan's BLessing exist for a reason.

Monsters must be be different. There should be some encounters where half the party is struggling, and other encounters where the other half of the party is struggling. If every encounter is the same, combat gets boring fast.

[MaxWilson]

And how exactly will the martials do that work without magic weapons?

Some of them, like the Kensei Monk and Arcane Archer and the Paladin of Devotion, have their own ways of generating magic weapons. The ones that don't will have to work with spellcasters (which could be themselves, e.g. EKs and Paladins can enchant their own weapons), but because spellcasters can't concentrate on two things at once that still leaves warriors doing the bulk of the work (unless the spellcasters take a third way, like summoning Fire Elementals against Rakshasas, which is less reliable than just giving a Good archer a Magic Weapon longbow and letting him kill the thing).


Those two monsters, the only two in the game that just say no to casters, also happen to be immune to nonmagical weapons.

Factoid: not actually true. Zakya Rakshasas (Rising from the Last War) and Mordakhesh also just say no to casters (Zakyas only for first-level spells IIRC, Mordakhesh for spells below 7th level) but are merely weapon-resistant, not immune, and Mordakesh isn't even resistant if they are silver weapons.

Anyway, the point is teamwork: the warrior winds up doing the bulk of the work but that doesn't mean the wizard is useless, just that he doesn't have the spotlight. Even if the warrior does have a magic weapon already the wizard could still help out by e.g. casting Haste.


Against monsters with spell resistance or legendary saves, casters can just switch to spells with an attack roll, and even if they use saves, a lot of spells still have partial effect on a save, and neither legendary resistance nor spell resistance are complete protection, anyway.

Aside: this bit here is why I use a form of old-school magic resistance instead of 5E "Magic Resistance"/"Legendary Resistance" that only works against saving throws. Advantage on saves is too easy to game with spells like Wall of Force and Telekinesis. But it's undeniable that casters lose a lot of power against monsters with legendary resistance, even by RAW. It's usually better to just kill those monsters with weaponry, magical or otherwise.

[Chronos]

Anyway, the point is teamwork: the warrior winds up doing the bulk of the work but that doesn't mean the wizard is useless, just that he doesn't have the spotlight.
As opposed to monsters that need magic weapons that you don't have, which do, in fact, make the martials useless. That's the problem: Almost nothing makes casters useless, but lots of things make martials useless. And you fix that by giving out a few magic weapons.

[Tanarii]

Against monsters with spell resistance or legendary saves, casters can just switch to spells with an attack roll, and even if they use saves, a lot of spells still have partial effect on a save, and neither legendary resistance nor spell resistance are complete protection, anyway.
There aren't very many attack roll spells, and they are generally lower level. You can upcast them of course, but just switching to attack roll spells is easier said than done.

[Pex]

Spells that make weapons magical, except Shillelagh, are almost useless because they are concentration. What good does it help an Eldritch Knight to make his own weapon magical when one hit from the monster could make him lose concentration? Even if the spellcaster cast the spell, they can and sometimes do lose concentration. It's a risk of concentration spells. The problem lies in those spells that make weapons magical should not have been concentration.

Wasn't it a complaint in 3E that spellcasters had to buff warriors? Buffing warriors is a good tactic. It helps to give them a perk, but there's a difference between wanting to buff the warrior and having to buff the warrior. That it requires concentration makes it worse.

[Zalabim]

As opposed to monsters that need magic weapons that you don't have, which do, in fact, make the martials useless. That's the problem: Almost nothing makes casters useless, but lots of things make martials useless. And you fix that by giving out a few magic weapons.
Or you do like Max suggested and switch to Fire. Torches and oil are cheap. Honest to goodness immunity to nonmagical weapons is exceptionally rare. Some of it can be bypassed with silver. Some of it can be bypassed with adamantine. Some of them can still be hurt by fire. A few of them are especially hurt by fire and have low AC, practically begging players to get creative. Almost nothing makes martials actually useless.

[Asisreo1]

Looking at the design of some creatures, I'm a bit interested how they actually work.

We make assumptions that resistances mean the attack is ineffective and vulnerable as the attack is super effective which isn't false, per-se.

However, looking at a creature such as the Quasit which has a CR of 1, it only has 7 hp. If you were to use the "effective hp" from the DMG, it would actually have roughly 14 hp. Because it has magic resistance, it's effective AC goes up by 2. This puts it at CR1/2 offensively. It's CR 1 defensively which makes it CR1, as it is.

But compare that to a goblin boss. It has much higher effective HP and AC. It's HP specifically is 21 but it doesn't have resistances. This means that it is CR 1 because it's effective AC 21, pushing it to CR2 defensively and CR1/2 offensively. So essentially, the quasit has a large amount of resistances that matter but a small amount of hp.

If we remove resistances and use effective HP, the quasit basically has 14 HP. That's all good but since we're using effective HP, we should convert regular non-resisted damage into vulnerability, meaning a nonresisted damage of 2 is actual 4 to it's effective HP.

In a way, then, the quasit is vulnerable to any damage type that isn't nonmagical bps and cold, fire, lightning, and poison. Of course, they're resistant to magic, so taking that into account, the real vulnerabilities are attacks that aren't of those damage types which are forcing them to resist it's effect. So they're vulnerable to smites, certain chromatic orbs, magical weapons, and whatever else attack roll that isn't of the resisted damage type.

This holds true for even higher level enemies. Look at the Nalfeshnee, just a page before the Quasit, he has an effective HP of 230 and cr13 defensively. You can think of him as resistant to all those attack types or you can think him as vulnerable to those he's not resistant or immune to.

When a creature does have a vulnerability, it doesn't affect the challenge rating mostly because it'll be hard to target it or whether the party can target it with an effective attack is unsure. Even a wizard might not have prepared an acid spell. When there's multiple, though, you cut the monster's HP in half since that's effectively what happens to most encounters where your party members might be able to capitalize on at least one of the vulnerabilities.

It's kinda elegant looking at it. It's not perfect but this system seems to be consistent across the monsters and it allows combats to not be about leaving out all but one party member. If a creature takes normal damage to everything but fire, cold, and lightning is a vulnerability, a fighter would need a very specific type of magic sword to target them even though there's multiple damage types. With the system of less vulnerabilities, more resistances, a fighter can easily contribute in a fight with a nondescript magic weapon as much as a wizard can. Even if the magic weapon is flamebrand and they're resistant to fire, magic weapons do additional damage rather than replace damage types with the exception of the sunblade.

So don't grab a sunblade in your anti-celestial campaign.

[Dark.Revenant]

Often, the magic weapons you find aren't the ones you would have specifically wanted, but you'll use them in a pinch because doing half damage in a large portion of encounters sucks. Other times, you'll actually switch build by finding a tempting magic weapon early on in the game. It's a way for the DM to keep things fresh. Simply never giving out interesting weapons to martial characters is robbing them of a part of the fun.

[Jerrykhor]

Also, dropping too many magic weapons is unfair to classes like Arcane Archer and Paladin of Devotion (and EKs who invest an anyschool pick in Magic Weapon) who pay for magic weapons as a class feature.


What is this nonsense. If anything, those classes only get better with magic weapons. I've yet to hear players complain about this 'devaluing' rubbish constantly thrown around by theorists on the internet. The one subclass that gets devalue the most is Kensai monk's Sharpen the Blade, where the bonuses does not stack with any bonuses from magic weapons. Still, they can use any other magic weapon that are powerful but without the bonuses.

Also, i have yet to play at a campaign where magic items isnt common. Most DMs i play with do run magic shops that sell magic items, potions and scrolls too.

[MaxWilson]

As opposed to monsters that need magic weapons that you don't have, which do, in fact, make the martials useless.

(1) No they don't.
(2) There are very monsters anyway that require magical weapons to damage, mostly at CR 15-30.


That's the problem: Almost nothing makes casters useless, but lots of things make martials useless. And you fix that by giving out a few magic weapons.

Is this another Heisenwizard claim, with the perfect spell for every situation that comes up in an Internet thread? In actual play as opposed to Heisentheory, there are plenty of things that make lots of particular casters "useless" (e.g. heavy obscurement, enemies more than 150' away), or at least worse than a fighter without a magical weapon. You can make a wizard with a broad array of options even against things that would stymie the typical PC wizard, but it's even easier to make a warrior which has options against everything.

Yes, you can give out magic weapons as one form of reward for achievement, but the system in no way assumes that you will or must.


Spells that make weapons magical, except Shillelagh, are almost useless because they are concentration. What good does it help an Eldritch Knight to make his own weapon magical when one hit from the monster could make him lose concentration?

Easier said than done. The monster needs to get close enough to him to hit, and beat his AC, and beat his Shield spell if he casts one, then beat his concentration save, then beat Indomitable (and maybe Warcaster too, especially on a melee EK), then prevent the fighter from simply recasting it if the fight isn't already almost over.

It's not impossible to lose concentration, but "could make him lose concentration" isn't the end of the world--doubling your damage for as long as your concentration lasts is worth it. (But yeah, if you get magic weapons some other easy that's great too. It's one of the nice things about Kensei, Forge Clerics, Arcane Archers, and Artificers--they all get automatic double damage against certain monsters, or in some cases can grant it to others.)

[Asisreo1]

I do believe, however, that magic items should be given to adventurers by around level 6. I'm a stingy dungeon master when it comes to magic items and the latest I'll introduce them is level 3 because they tend to spice the game up. It's also fun for players to just earn something.

[Pex]

Easier said than done. The monster needs to get close enough to him to hit, and beat his AC, and beat his Shield spell if he casts one, then beat his concentration save, then beat Indomitable (and maybe Warcaster too, especially on a melee EK), then prevent the fighter from simply recasting it if the fight isn't already almost over.

It's not impossible to lose concentration, but "could make him lose concentration" isn't the end of the world--doubling your damage for as long as your concentration lasts is worth it. (But yeah, if you get magic weapons some other easy that's great too. It's one of the nice things about Kensei, Forge Clerics, Arcane Archers, and Artificers--they all get automatic double damage against certain monsters, or in some cases can grant it to others.)

Melee warriors want to be in melee. The monster will be close enough by the player's choice. It can beat the AC because no one has AC You Can't Touch This. Shield spell is great. It can save a round. Next round not so much. A fighter is proficient in Constitution saves, so that helps. Indomitable is 9th level. What about before then? At 9th level it's one time use. It competes against rerolling for a save or suck effect.

[DarknessEternal]

I find it laughable that so many people are touting the "but the DMG says so" when so few actually have 6-8 encounters per day as it also states. Usually they have one.

[DrKerosene]

Seconded. All in favor say 'aye'. Aye.


I find it laughable that so many people are touting the "but the DMG says so" when so few actually have 6-8 encounters per day as it also states. Usually they have one. If we’re talking specifically about combat focused encounters, that applies to me. But I’m not including any event where I can get a spell slot to be spent, or deal HP damage, before the single intended combat-focused encounter.

Though, if I understand the XGtE tables, a single level 4 PC should have 2 “minor items” and 0.5 “major items”. I feel a silvered weapon, or moontouched sword, would be easy enough to swap with a basic healing potion.

[Tes]

I'm aware that the game designers did their monster math with the assumption that martials can operate most of their career without magical weapons. Design philosophy or whatever.

And guess what? The design philosophy is wrong. For example: with magical weapons, the Hill Giant and the Earth Elemental are the same CR and are about the same level of difficulty -- the Hill Giant has a ranged attack and more damaging melee ones, but has fewer hit points, status immunities, and AC. Without magical weapons, the Earth Elemental is a nightmare that punches way above its weight class and will make the martials look small in the pants unless the spellcasters bail them out.

This disparity will get worse as the game goes on. I mostly play wizards and if the DM doesn't drop enough magic weapons then I call shenanigans. Other magical items I can take or leave; I've played a Sorceradin who got to level 10 with no magic item other than a +1 Maul and I've played wizards who got to T3 with NO magical items, not even the chance to copy spells. But the game becomes so lopsided against martials without magical weapons that I'm going to tell design intent to take a hike.

In all honesty, what's the angle here?

When would that even matter?
If DM is deliberately throwing a monster immune to nonmagical BPS at your 50% mundane party the very second it becomes available as a deadly encounter?

Having a low magic campaign with monsters that benefit from lack of things that can hurt them is just an option for the DM who wants it.

LVL6:
Martials just got a massive boost at 5 thanks to extra attack. Heavy armor martials have Plate around the corner. Rogue got Uncanny Dodge to take half damage 1/turn. Rogue and Fighter got another ASI to spend on something bonkers like Crossbow Master/Sharpshooter/ GWM. Casters just got another 3rd level slot to throw another Fireball/Spirit Guardian in the mix.

Doesn't look like the right place to double down on Player progression and hand out another massive upgrade, tailored to suite for everyone.
I'm not against handing out magic items or weapons, actually had about the same discussion yesterday. But this is the chance to do something interesting like hand out a Dagger that screams when unsheathed, a glowy axe that bounces off trees like it hit rubber or one of the fun cursed weapons.
Your PCs could get a good hint it's cursed, giving them the choice to pick up that cursed longsword since it will be better than his greatsword in that Specter infested mausoleum the party is about to enter. Which means the party has to deal with the curse for a while and needs to figure out a way to get rid of it after.

Abusing how much of an upgrade a magic weapon can be makes for a golden opportunity as a DM. Hand out unusual weapons never used otherwise, play with fun effects or make that fun encounter you wanted to run more challenging by temporarily messing with the guy using a min maxed Sharpshooter/GWM build. Give them a Returning Dagger or Longsword of Grins. Throw them into a few Medium or Easy fights where the Resistance matters, give the party a chance to pick up your sidegrade/cursed weapon and then hit them with something more challenging. They're going to feel awesome overcoming Resistance for the big one.
The easiest solution of all is to simply mix monsters with a Resistance and monsters without in an encounter. The Fighter can beat on the bruiser in front and roll all his dice unimpaired while the Sorcerer gets to take out the stuff resistant to nonmagical BPS.
Challenging or specifically rewarding the players on their home turf once in a while can be fun, I'd throw in the occasional cramped tunnel (no Fireballs), enemy Abjuration Wizard dedicated to Counterspell, antimagic zone, flying opponent or horde encounter (yay Fireballs) over the course of an adventure to encourage the party to think on their feet.

The point is not to make someone feel useless, it never is. It's always about creating a fun experience in a more interesting way than "Roll Initiative - hit things with glowy metal thing for 3 rounds" for the fighty men, have the Wizard think about a combat scenario other than throwing Fireballs around and in general having the party work together instead of using their ressources and abilities only on themselves.
Encourage the Hexblade to hand his Pact Weapon to the Barbarian and switch to Eldritch Blast. Get the Cleric to buff someone rather than casting Spirit Guardians once in a while. Let the Vengeance Pally figure out he can do other stuff than Haste, Hunters Mark and Smite with his Spellslots.

[Pex]

The point is not to make someone feel useless, it never is. It's always about creating a fun experience in a more interesting way than "Roll Initiative - hit things with glowy metal thing for 3 rounds" for the fighty men, have the Wizard think about a combat scenario other than throwing Fireballs around and in general having the party work together instead of using their ressources and abilities only on themselves.
Encourage the Hexblade to hand his Pact Weapon to the Barbarian and switch to Eldritch Blast. Get the Cleric to buff someone rather than casting Spirit Guardians once in a while. Let the Vengeance Pally figure out he can do other stuff than Haste, Hunters Mark and Smite with his Spellslots.

The wizard would like to cast Haste on the warrior for his 3rd level spell slot and concentration. A warlock cannot hand over his pact weapon to anyone. The cleric would like to cast Bless and buff three party members. For the third level spell slot of Spirit Guardian he can Bless 5 party members which is often the whole party unless it's a large group. Spellcasters are not being selfish. They want to buff warriors. They don't want to have to, even more so with an inferior spell than what they could be buffing.

[Zalabim]

The wizard would like to cast Haste on the warrior for his 3rd level spell slot and concentration. A warlock cannot hand over his pact weapon to anyone. The cleric would like to cast Bless and buff three party members. For the third level spell slot of Spirit Guardian he can Bless 5 party members which is often the whole party unless it's a large group. Spellcasters are not being selfish. They want to buff warriors. They don't want to have to, even more so with an inferior spell than what they could be buffing.
The warlock actually can hand over his pact weapon. It just takes a specific set of circumstances for it to be a practical benefit. The warlock has to have something else to do and the other character has to be better with weapons than the warlock. A lot of the time, especially around mid-levels, the pact weapon is by far the warlock's best tool and the barbarian can do well enough swinging around something else.

It's hard to call effectively double damage for a lower level slot inferior spells. Plus it's not for something that'll happen all the time. It seems to me the difficulty is having the spell prepared when it's most useful.

[Sigreid]

Short answer is maybe, maybe not. It depends entirely on how the campaign is set up. If you're going to constantly have the party facing enemies where the martial characters can't do jack because of immunities and resistances, absolutely. If that's not the case and you want to have creatures with these immunities and resistances be a special challenge in creative problem solving, absolutely not. Most campaigns probably fall somewhere in the middle.

[Pex]

The warlock actually can hand over his pact weapon. It just takes a specific set of circumstances for it to be a practical benefit. The warlock has to have something else to do and the other character has to be better with weapons than the warlock. A lot of the time, especially around mid-levels, the pact weapon is by far the warlock's best tool and the barbarian can do well enough swinging around something else.

It's hard to call effectively double damage for a lower level slot inferior spells. Plus it's not for something that'll happen all the time. It seems to me the difficulty is having the spell prepared when it's most useful.

It's only technically possible if the barbarian remains within 5 ft of the warlock the entire time. It's not 100% never possible but typically not happening nor would the warlock be casting Eldritch Blast instead because 1) he's likely attacking with disadvantage for being in melee, again not 100% because of positioning but typically not happening in this scenario and 2) as a Bladelock he wants to be, is entitled to, and is not being selfish for attacking with his own weapon in melee as that's the point of playing a Bladelock. If the stingy DM would only give the barbarian a magic weapon already this convolution of circumstances wouldn't even be necessary because it's definitely not standard operating procedure.

[OldTrees1]

When would that even matter?
If DM is deliberately throwing a monster immune to nonmagical BPS at your 50% mundane party the very second it becomes available as a deadly encounter?

Less paranoid conspiracy example:

They are playing an elemental campaign. They have encountered some elemental cultists and some minor elementals (mephits). They leveled up recently. The DM notices regular elementals, by their CR, are now reasonable challenges. So some elementals are included.

Or animal themed campaign, and lycanthropes becoming reasonable challenges, by CR.

Or ... themed campaign , and ... becoming reasonable challenges according to CR.

Or an anecdote: We were playing Princes of the Apocalypse, and the DM rolled a Wereboar (CR 4) on a random wilderness encounter. In this case the DM noticed the creature was immune to most of the party and could easily cause a TPK. They chose to reroll the encounter.

[Tes]

The wizard would like to cast Haste on the warrior for his 3rd level spell slot and concentration. A warlock cannot hand over his pact weapon to anyone. The cleric would like to cast Bless and buff three party members. For the third level spell slot of Spirit Guardian he can Bless 5 party members which is often the whole party unless it's a large group. Spellcasters are not being selfish. They want to buff warriors. They don't want to have to, even more so with an inferior spell than what they could be buffing.
The Bladelock can hand over his weapon for a minute before it disappears.
RAW you could argue every time he gets within 5 ft of his Pact Weapon within that minute, the timer resets. Worst case he hands the weapon over and has to walk next to the other guy till combat starts and then we have the same duration as Bless.

If all Spellcasters in your party spend their first round on buffing Martials, the Martials aren't going to feel behind anyway if you half their damage once in a while for a few levels, no?
Otherwise go by the spirit of what I said instead of twisting the examples.
If the casters only buff all the time, might be time to give them a pat on the back and remind them they could fix that problem with nonmagical BPS resistance by doing something more efficient rather then "the usual" for once?

[Zalabim]

It's only technically possible if the barbarian remains within 5 ft of the warlock the entire time. It's not 100% never possible but typically not happening nor would the warlock be casting Eldritch Blast instead because 1) he's likely attacking with disadvantage for being in melee, again not 100% because of positioning but typically not happening in this scenario and 2) as a Bladelock he wants to be, is entitled to, and is not being selfish for attacking with his own weapon in melee as that's the point of playing a Bladelock. If the stingy DM would only give the barbarian a magic weapon already this convolution of circumstances wouldn't even be necessary because it's definitely not standard operating procedure.
1) Read pact of the blade again.
2) It's perfectly reasonable for this to be a case where the bladelock gets to shine.
3) It's not stingy for the barbarian to not have a magic weapon between level 3 (when the pact weapon is first available) and something like level 6 (when monks get magic unarmed strikes) or level 11 (when more kinds of magic weapons become much more common), or at least not have the exact magic weapon they want.
4) The barbarian actually starts the game with an answer for many of the possible resistant or immune creatures in the game: An explorer's pack.

It may not be standard operating procedure for players/parties/DMs, but the game designers clearly put back ups in place.

[Warwick]

I find it laughable that so many people are touting the "but the DMG says so" when so few actually have 6-8 encounters per day as it also states. Usually they have one.

5e has a problem where it is 'designed' for a set of assumptions that are so wildly divergent from how people are actually likely to play that even much of the guidance that isn't prima facie terrible is rendered useless. The expectations laid out around magic items stand out as a particularly bizarre example to me.


The wizard would like to cast Haste on the warrior for his 3rd level spell slot and concentration. A warlock cannot hand over his pact weapon to anyone. The cleric would like to cast Bless and buff three party members. For the third level spell slot of Spirit Guardian he can Bless 5 party members which is often the whole party unless it's a large group. Spellcasters are not being selfish. They want to buff warriors. They don't want to have to, even more so with an inferior spell than what they could be buffing.


Indeed. All of this runs into the same issue - without having an inbuilt ability to add the 'magical' tag to your attacks, you're implicitly imposing a tax on your teammates by forcing them to spend scarce resources so that you can measure up. If it were just a level 2 spell slot that wouldn't be so big a deal, but it's also a concentration effect, and if your party conforms to the traditional 4-man D&D group you're probably stuck leaving one character without a way to deal magic damage. Moreover, while full casters usually have a decent number of suitable alternative actions if directly throwing spells at something is out (buffs, summons, etc...), martials usually don't.

In any event, nonmagic weapon resistance makes far more sense as a height check/protection from plebs ability than it does as part of a game of damage type RPS (something which D&D is not particularly well designed for).

[MaxWilson]

I do believe, however, that magic items should be given to adventurers by around level 6. I'm a stingy dungeon master when it comes to magic items and the latest I'll introduce them is level 3 because they tend to spice the game up. It's also fun for players to just earn something.

Sometimes I like giving out powerful magic items (including backstories and minor properties) very early on, so they can become iconic in a PC's development if the player runs with it. A Robe of the Archmagi isn't necessarily that much of a power boost, frankly, but if you inherited it from your predecessor as Court Wizard, if you lose it you'll probably never see another one. Also, something like a Horn of Valhalla is usable only 1/week and serves as anti-TPK insurance without affecting most encounters. Someday I'd like to stay a PC off with a Cloak of Invisibility that stops working whenever the moon is visible in the sky (because the moon has a grudge against Anansi).

Magic items are an opportunity to make a campaign more interesting and I do use them.
But I don't promise anything in particular at the start of a campaign, and it might not be a weapon.



In any event, nonmagic weapon resistance makes far more sense as a height check/protection from plebs ability than it does as part of a game of damage type RPS (something which D&D is not particularly well designed for).

True only of immunity, and if you want to use it as a height check, why is there only one level (magic vs. nonmagic)? Why does 1st level Forge Cleric pass the height check to fight Demogorgon? If you want to use it as a height check, Iron Golems should be immune to magic and require +3 weapons to damage, and a Demon Lords should also require +2 weapons to damage. But 5E doesn't do that--in most cases even nonmagical weapons can kill even powerful monsters--because it isn't a height check at all, in 5E.

AD&D does height checks. 5E doesn't for weapons, only for spells (against Tiamat and Rakshasas).


I find it laughable that so many people are touting the "but the DMG says so" when so few actually have 6-8 encounters per day as it also states. Usually they have one.

Reread your DMG. That's not the guidance it gives.

[Zarrgon]

Technically Gygaxian would give you a +3 long sword, flame tongue, plate +2, bracers of defense, ring of protection, and multiple potions by level 6.

Yea, this. Gygaxian is a high magic world.

The vast majority of D&D games are run very low on the magic scale. So you don't "need" magic weapons.

[elyktsorb]

I dunno I like magic weapons, sure helps people like me who multiclass and might not have magic attacks yet. Goodness knows id be pretty f'ed in my avernus game right now if I hadn't been given a magic stick. Though I'd still be f'ed cause I'm in hell and my multiclass is barbarian3/monk2 and monks don't even get magic attack till lvl 6

[jas61292]

If the main point of the assertion that martials should get magic weapons by level 6 is that that is when resistance to non magic weapons starts being common, then no. I disagree. If the point of non-magic weapon resistance was for the players to ignore it, it would not exist in the first place. It should exist and be relevant. So if you are giving out weapons the moment such creatures start comming up, that is avoiding a crucial tool in the DM toolbox for challenging players.

Now, of course, that does not mean never give out magic weapons. And it also does not mean that the moment you do give out magic weapons the resistance has to become irrelevant. And if you have been using some such creatures before level 6, then I would have no issue giving an upgrade at that time. But, I think it is equally important to remember that giving a magic weapon to help with resistances, starting around level 6, does not mean anything more than exactly that. That is to say, while I would generally agree that the first half of tier 2 is when magic weapons should stat to come into play, that can, and often, in my opinion, should, mean daggers, sickles, light crossbows and greatclubs, not necessarily rapiers, halberds, longbows and greatswords. Having the ability to overcome resistances is important. Having that ability with your ideal weapon that you intended to use forever is not. That's not to say that you should not ever give out such items, but to me, that is not something that should be expected until tier 3. Choosing to use a polearm does not mean a magic one should fall into your lap the moment your attacks start being resisted. What it should mean is that when resistances start coming up, you have a choice between continuing to operate with all your cool abilities, but perhaps having your attacks resisted, or saying screw it, and charging in with the +1 war pick you found.

[Sigreid]

If the main point of the assertion that martials should get magic weapons by level 6 is that that is when resistance to non magic weapons starts being common, then no. I disagree. If the point of non-magic weapon resistance was for the players to ignore it, it would not exist in the first place. It should exist and be relevant. So if you are giving out weapons the moment such creatures start comming up, that is avoiding a crucial tool in the DM toolbox for challenging players.

Now, of course, that does not mean never give out magic weapons. And it also does not mean that the moment you do give out magic weapons the resistance has to become irrelevant. And if you have been using some such creatures before level 6, then I would have no issue giving an upgrade at that time. But, I think it is equally important to remember that giving a magic weapon to help with resistances, starting around level 6, does not mean anything more than exactly that. That is to say, while I would generally agree that the first half of tier 2 is when magic weapons should stat to come into play, that can, and often, in my opinion, should, mean daggers, sickles, light crossbows and greatclubs, not necessarily rapiers, halberds, longbows and greatswords. Having the ability to overcome resistances is important. Having that ability with your ideal weapon that you intended to use forever is not. That's not to say that you should not ever give out such items, but to me, that is not something that should be expected until tier 3. Choosing to use a polearm does not mean a magic one should fall into your lap the moment your attacks start being resisted. What it should mean is that when resistances start coming up, you have a choice between continuing to operate with all your cool abilities, but perhaps having your attacks resisted, or saying screw it, and charging in with the +1 war pick you found.

Not necessarily, the resistances and immunities also provide a handy explanation on why these magical heroes are needed to deal with the issue. The militia can't deal with a pack of werewolves, no matter how many soldiers you have.

[Asisreo1]

Not necessarily, the resistances and immunities also provide a handy explanation on why these magical heroes are needed to deal with the issue. The militia can't deal with a pack of werewolves, no matter how many soldiers you have.
Eh, technically they can do the tried and true "kill it with fire!"

[Dark.Revenant]

I generally defer to the random tables for items (for loot and for back alley sales) until it becomes clear that a party member is struggling or a player is justifiably frustrated. This allows a good mix of reward and anticipation whilst remaining unpredictable. On average this means at least one magic weapon of some sort will drop in the middle of tier 2, though it’s possible to roll one in tier 1 if you’re lucky.

However, typically by mid tier 3 I just let my players buy the specific magic items they want (at a steep markup), since if it exists somewhere in the world, they have the tools and connections to track down where it is and broker a deal. Legendaries are still off limits and, in a practical sense, Very Rare is unaffordable; this is just in case someone’s character requires a particular Uncommon or Rare item for mechanical or flavor reasons.

[Guy Lombard-O]

If you're going to constantly have the party facing enemies where the martial characters can't do jack because of immunities and resistances, absolutely. If that's not the case and you want to have creatures with these immunities and resistances be a special challenge in creative problem solving, absolutely not. Most campaigns probably fall somewhere in the middle.

I feel like this duality is part of the problem. It's either that these enemies are common enough that a martial is ineffectively built if he isn't given a magic weapon (or can magicalize a weapon on his own) so the game is therefore no fun if the DM withholds them. Or these resistances & immunities are uncommon enough that nobody's bothering to use up precious spells known/prepared on an otherwise-useless (and boring) spell like Magic Weapon or Elemental Weapon.

If you're stuck in a game where these R&I are common, but magic weapons are nowhere to be found, then you're basically playing an anchor of a character. There's something wrong if you constantly require somebody else's intervention to make your character viable in combat. Because at the cost those spells come with, their just too pricey to want to use (spell prepared, spell slot, concentration) and they're also no fun for the caster.

I'm sure there's games where these spells are actually seeing use. But I'd never take or prepare them myself. Nor would I expect somebody else to pay my freight in such an unexciting way if I'm the martial. For the level those spells are at, there's almost always something better and more effective to spend those resources on.

I think PCs should expect to run into a magic weapon or two by 6th level. If I'm a martial PC, there's no magic weapons, and R or I creatures are popping out of the woodwork with any real frequency? I'm retiring that character and rolling up a caster.

[cZak]

Yea, this. Gygaxian is a high magic world.

The vast majority of D&D games are run very low on the magic scale. So you don't "need" magic weapons.

And you get the Giant slayer sword from the horde of the Hill Giant or the acid resistance potion looting the lair of the black dragon you just killed

[MaxWilson]

Not necessarily, the resistances and immunities also provide a handy explanation on why these magical heroes are needed to deal with the issue. The militia can't deal with a pack of werewolves, no matter how many soldiers you have.

Silver weapons. Classic.

[Tanarii]

I find it laughable that so many people are touting the "but the DMG says so" when so few actually have 6-8 encounters per day as it also states. Usually they have one.
Prove it.

Official play is a huge part of what they designed the game for, and it's definitely not "usually they have one".

[Asisreo1]

Prove it.

Official play is a huge part of what they designed the game for, and it's definitely not "usually they have one".
I believe the burden of proof falls to you. You're claiming that there is a statement while he's claiming that no such statement exist. Rather than finding a statement that negates your claim that a statement doesn't exist, it's far more reasonable for you to find a statement in which your claim is affirmed.

But here's a relevant paragraph about the adventuring day:


Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.

Notice how it never claims that 6-8 encounters is actually a full adventuring day. It really only gives the upper limit to the amount of encounters a party can typically handle under adventuring conditions. If you wanted to make a whole adventuring day of hard encounters, your party could really only handle around 4.

If you weren't particularly interested in pushing your players to their limits, you can easily have 2-3 encounters in an adventuring day and it would be perfectly valid.

[Tanarii]

I believe the burden of proof falls to you. You're claiming that there is a statement while he's claiming that no such statement exist. Rather than finding a statement that negates your claim that a statement doesn't exist, it's far more reasonable for you to find a statement in which your claim is affirmed.
Im not the one claiming that usually games have one encounter per day. A statement that far out there inherently requires the burden to prove it,

[Pex]

If the main point of the assertion that martials should get magic weapons by level 6 is that that is when resistance to non magic weapons starts being common, then no. I disagree. If the point of non-magic weapon resistance was for the players to ignore it, it would not exist in the first place. It should exist and be relevant. So if you are giving out weapons the moment such creatures start comming up, that is avoiding a crucial tool in the DM toolbox for challenging players.

Now, of course, that does not mean never give out magic weapons. And it also does not mean that the moment you do give out magic weapons the resistance has to become irrelevant. And if you have been using some such creatures before level 6, then I would have no issue giving an upgrade at that time. But, I think it is equally important to remember that giving a magic weapon to help with resistances, starting around level 6, does not mean anything more than exactly that. That is to say, while I would generally agree that the first half of tier 2 is when magic weapons should stat to come into play, that can, and often, in my opinion, should, mean daggers, sickles, light crossbows and greatclubs, not necessarily rapiers, halberds, longbows and greatswords. Having the ability to overcome resistances is important. Having that ability with your ideal weapon that you intended to use forever is not. That's not to say that you should not ever give out such items, but to me, that is not something that should be expected until tier 3. Choosing to use a polearm does not mean a magic one should fall into your lap the moment your attacks start being resisted. What it should mean is that when resistances start coming up, you have a choice between continuing to operate with all your cool abilities, but perhaps having your attacks resisted, or saying screw it, and charging in with the +1 war pick you found.

I agree with the first paragraph, disagree with the second.

I do not advocate a magic weapon must appear by level 6. I can't give an exact level of should appear. I might be suspect if none exist by level 10, but what about level 9? 8? 7? It's subjective but also relevant to the campaign circumstances. I only advocate that warriors should be getting a magic weapon. The when is up in the air but not too high.

If the warrior has been using his favorite weapon type since level one, possibly applying game resources to using it such as feats and/or class features, you give him the magic weapon of that type. If he took great weapon master feat you do not give him a magic sickle. If his fighting style is dueling using a long sword you do not give him a magic halberd. If he has Pole Arm Master and Sentinel you do not give him a magic dagger. It is not the DM's purpose to force a player to play the game he wants him to play. No magic item exists without the DM's permission. It's not the player's fault nor is he having badwrongfun because he wants to use a great sword so the DM says tough luck deal with it by giving out magical daggers and short swords. Give the player a magical great sword.

[DarknessEternal]

Im not the one claiming that usually games have one encounter per day. A statement that far out there inherently requires the burden to prove it,
Look here:
https://forums.giantitp.com/forumdisplay.php?63-D-amp-D-5e-Next

[Yora]

My eight players have a +1 dagger, a staff of the adder, and eyes of charming at 3rd level (and probably an elemental gem soon).

And I thought I was being stingy and running a low-magic campaign.

[Dork_Forge]

My eight players have a +1 dagger, a staff of the adder, and eyes of charming at 3rd level (and probably an elemental gem soon).

And I thought I was being stingy and running a low-magic campaign.

I'd say that was a lot of items for a 3rd level party, but with 8 players that kind of levels out I guess? If you're giving out items so steadily do you ever worry about down the line when all 8 players have magic items to choose from?

[Pex]

5E does have a correction method for those who worry about giving out too many magic items - attunement. Even some magic weapons can require it. Players can decide for themselves which are more important to them. If players never have to choose that means you aren't giving out too many. If they do have to choose, maybe it's too many or maybe it's a consequence of high level play accumulation, but either way the increase in power level is curtailed.

[Azuresun]

Anyway, the point is teamwork: the warrior winds up doing the bulk of the work but that doesn't mean the wizard is useless, just that he doesn't have the spotlight. Even if the warrior does have a magic weapon already the wizard could still help out by e.g. casting Haste.

Teamwork does seem to be something missing from these whiteroom discussions where everyone is just blasting away at the enemy, and seemingly barely aware that their own allies exist. They're also places where martials and casters are two rival gangs that can never work together due to their perpetual Rod of Lordly Might measuring contests, and confront each other in dance-offs, West Side Story style.

[Chronos]

There's a false dichotomy between "don't give out magic weapons and the martials are crippled against certain monsters" and "give out magic weapons and monster resistances/immunities (and class features that neutralize them) are pointless". There's a very large middle ground where the players have magic weapons, but not the kinds of magic weapons they'd prefer.

My first 5th edition campaign went from 1st level all the way to 14 or 15 (I think we technically hit 15, but that was the point when we retired the characters, so it didn't matter). The first magic item we found was at around level 3, a magic greataxe. That's what the barbarian was using anyway, and she had the greatest need for a magic weapon, so naturally she got it. This might have been a deliberate DM boon, because she's not very good at optimizing, compared to some of the party.

Around level 5, we got a magic staff. Neither my rogue nor the paladin was particularly interested in it as a weapon, because we were both dex-based and staves aren't finesse, but I took it because I liked the spells on it, and it was at least an option for things I couldn't damage any other way (though I never ended up using it that way).

Shortly after that, we found a magic rapier, that dealt extra damage to fiends and undead. Both the rogue and the paladin were interested in that, but the paladin is more reliant on his weapon, so he got that.

At around 7ish, we got a Mace of Disruption. That would have been right up the cleric's alley, but by this time, he had so many spells that it was almost never worthwhile for him to swing a weapon. The bard ended up carrying it, but she only ended up using it in one fight, because she was almost always casting spells, too. We also got a tentacle rod, which my rogue ended up carrying because it was a better if-all-else-fails than the staff, but never ended up using.

At level 8ish, we got a Sun Sword. That went to the paladin, for the same reason that the rapier had, but now it meant the rapier got handed down to my rogue. Finally, I had a magic weapon I could Sneak Attack with, but only in melee. We also got an Oathbow, which I would have loved, except rogues aren't proficient with longbows, so that also ended up on the paladin, because even though he couldn't smite through it, he was the only one who could use it effectively at all.

It was maybe 10th level that the barbarian got a magic harpoon, and so finally a decent magical ranged weapon (though of course, she still preferred melee).

And it wasn't until 14th that we found a magic shortbow for my rogue.

So to sum up, even though we found our first magic weapon at level 3, before any resistant monsters ever showed up, resistance to magic weapons was still at least somewhat relevant for the next ten levels.

[MaxWilson]

My eight players have a +1 dagger, a staff of the adder, and eyes of charming at 3rd level (and probably an elemental gem soon).

And I thought I was being stingy and running a low-magic campaign.

If you want to be stingy and low-magic, give out consumables with an expiration date, like a Potion of Heroism that has a 1 in 6 chance to expire every week (or every game session of you want to simplify).

That way you can still dangle treasure as motivators, but it doesn't snowball.