I feel like +X items do more harm than good, especially in bounded accuracy

[Ralanr]

So this has been something that's been in my head for a while.

I don't like +X weapons. I don't like them because they provide only damage and accuracy (which is basically damage since more accuracy means more hits). But no martial character is going to turn down a +X weapon (especially if it's stronger than their current one) in favor of an item that gives them more options.

Why? Well, most of the time it's better to attack than to use another option. When your only tool is a hammer, everything becomes a nail. Granted, it's not their only tool, but it's their strongest by such a wide margin that it makes the others rather useless. So a +X weapon is great, fantastic even, for amping your consistency and DPR as any martial character. But it doesn't really provide options like magical items meant for casters.

Obviously, this is by design. Caster's thrive on having options. Warlocks love their pact keeper rods (which is another +X item) and a ring of spell storing is useful.

Now, in theory, a +X weapon could help in place of not increasing your ability score, allowing you to get more feats. Except that it really doesn't before a +2, and it only makes it easier if you decide to increase your ability scores. You are rewarded with more consistency. And consistency is good, people want it, but it can also get boring. And thanks to bound accuracy, it makes hitting creatures pretty easy after a point. Is this intended? Probably (I'm not a game designer and have no studied game design). After all, a lot of monsters have resistance to nonmagical weapons and big pools of health. They're designed to be hit a lot.

But let's say at level 5 you get a +1 weapon. You finally have your chance to really hurt monsters. Combine this with your main attack stat (let's say 16, you chose a feat at level 4), and you have a +7 to hit (3 mod, 3 prof, +1 weapon). That's pretty big IMO (but it might not be, I'm also bad at math). Now let's say at level 10 you get a +2 weapon. That's a +9 to hit. How many monsters have such a high enough AC that rolling an 11 with this won't hit them? There's plenty, but I don't think that's enough and they're probably out of your CR range (and hey, I'm probably wrong here).

I don't feel this is necessary. I feel like it might be more interesting to have magical weapons that provided more options than just flat bonuses. And it's not like we don't have those already. Take the dwarven thrower for example (which is indeed a +3 weapon, but that's not why I like it). This weapon always returns to you when you throw it. If you're a strength based martial character, you don't have many good ranged options. It's either javelins (which I as a player always find difficult to justify lugging around), or handaxes (and I guess knives) for throwing, which cut your damage and have a poor range. A dex character doesn't really suffer as much damage drop off because they could draw a bow or something. The dwarven thrower allows strength characters to have an extra option in combat, though I will admit it's not perfect (it still has the poor range).

And then there's recent changes, like the revamped breath weapon in the upcoming Fizban's, which allows dragonborn of those types to replace one attack action with an AoE. Does it scale as good as their attacks? Not really, but it allows them to hit multiple targets at once when properly lined up (though the cone is better in my experience).

It's not impossible to give martial characters interesting magical items. Though there are other problems with this. Like how players don't have control over what items they get. That's up to the DM, and I'm of mixed feelings on that (I see both positives and negatives of it). Personally, I feel that +X items aren't a treat, they are a requirement and once you get your +1 sword, you're gonna want to get that +2 soon.

That's just my thoughts on the matter. I don't expect WOTC to change it, and, again, it's likely my observations are simply wrong and can be disproven with math. But it's something I wanted to share.

[loki_ragnarock]

First Thought:

You know what? Pumpkin Spice is fine. Bud Light is fine. Champion fighters are fine.

Why are people always dumping on things for being basic? Jeeze.

Second Thought:

You know, if you build your character to just hit things, probably a +X magic item is boring; you've already spent your resources trying to be the best at hitting things, already. No real gains to be had.

If you build your character to do lots of things, a +x magic item is great. If, say, you're playing a fighter who just happens to also be good at talking to people and invested a bunch of points in charisma? Huzzah! +X magic item lets you continue to be pretty good at the fighting part! You aren't needlessly punished for branching out!


+X magic items are fine. People building characters like they have to be hyperspecialized in the first place? Also fine.

[Amnestic]

From a DM perspective I find basic +X stuff boring, and would always look to add something to the weapon, even if it's minor, to make it different. I'm not overly concerned about +X weapons giving attack bonuses. At 10th level, you're probably rocking +8-9 baseline (+4-5 stat, +4 prof bonus), changing it to +9-10 isn't going to drastically change things. Monster AC just doesn't scale all that much, because they made the choice to make enemies big HP sponges instead of harder to hit. I've not seen Fizban's dragons to check out their statblocks but ancient dragons at the moment cap out at 22AC I believe, the Tarrasque (and the previously printed Aspect of Tiamat) have 25AC. None of the big bosses in Minsc+Boo's recent book have an AC above 21, with the questionable exception of Mephistopheles who has baseline 21 but can also cast Shield pretty consistently, so he's probably 26 on most turns (unless counterspelled or whatever).

From a player perspective, I like +X stuff, even if it's boring. I'm quite excited to be upgrading my Shadow Monk/Rogue's Eldritch Claw Tattoo from +1 to +2.

In short, I don't think +X weapons do more harm than good - their impact on bounded accuracy is minimal and easily accounted for, and as a player I like them, because even if the DM does adjust HP numbers behind the screen chances are I'll never know and it makes me feel powerful.

With regards to spellcaster +X things that boost spell DCs though, I can see why those are a little less great from a DM perspective. Monster getting hit by a +3 Sword as opposed to being missed by a +0 sword? That's like 20 hit points difference. Monster failing their saving throw due to a +3 Rod of Pwnage? That can end encounters. Player perspective, still desirable of course, but DM perspective harder to account for, without giving creatures Legendary Resistances or more save proficiencies (which inevitably will probably end up in Wisdom).

[jas61292]

I strongly agree. I despise +X items, and I don't think I have ever given one out as a DM of 5e, except when running a published adventure. This edition is built around bounded accuracy, and static hit bonuses are insanely good because of it. It doesn't matter if a competing item has far more varied and cool powers, the +X item will be hard to pass up because its just so strong.

What's more the balance of the game in 5e does not depend on your magic items. You are not expected to have a +1 weapon by level 6 and a +3 by level 17. You are not expected to have a +1 ever. Heck, you are not expected to necessarily have any particular magic item ever. That's not to say the game entirely is designed around not having magic items at all, but rather that magic items are largely designed to be a bonus. Something special that pushes you beyond the base expectations. So, with that in mind, having that bonus be a boring numbers boost, instead of something legitimately cool an interesting is just not fun. And I'm not even saying that items need to be there for utility and giving new options. Some people like simple things and that's not bad. But I'd give out a hundred Flametongues before I'd ever give out a +1 longsword, because the former is flashy and fun, while the latter is flavorless and boring.

And yes, I know that you can flavor any weapon however you like, but mechanics should back up the flavor, and as the mechanics of +X items are boring, the flavor would either not back up the mechanics, or would be equally boring. And also, while I know you can have multiple properties on a weapon, so that a +X weapon can also be something else more fun, when I am deciding what magic items to give out, I am taking into account the total power those items have. +X is such a huge part of an items power budget that simply knowing that by giving it out I am not using that part of my power budge on something more fun makes me never want to do it.

To put it simply, no character ever needs a +X weapon in 5e, and other items are infinitely more fun and flavorful. Its not that +X items are wrong, but that, with all the other options that I could give out, why would I ever choose to give one of those?

[Boci]

+X magic items are fine. People building characters like they have to be hyperspecialized in the first place? Also fine.

I'm not sure that a fighter who focuses on hitting things is hyperspecialized. Presumably even a fighter who wants to aim to be charismatic too, will still be maxing out strength at some point.

[RandomPeasant]

+X magic items have always been and will always be a bad idea. "Your bonus is big enough" is not an interesting ability to have. "Your bonus is too big" is not a balanced thing to have happen. "I traded my magic sword for a slightly more magical sword" is not an interesting game event. Magic items should feel interesting, and +X items do not.

[Valmark]

I kinda disagree, kinda agree. There's nothing majorly interesting about the +X, that's true, but it's still exciting to get your new magical weapon.

As far as not having other interesting magical properties... That's kinda on the DM, not on the +X. You can give them additional magical properties, so the fact that a weapon is only +X with nothing else is pointless- if the DM doesn't like them there won't be any.

Bounded Accuracy doesn't truly have any impact IMO- unless you are giving said bonuses only to a part of the party, you can just increase the ACs of the monsters. And if you are giving bonuses to only a part of the party, I think the problem is another one.

[Boci]

Bounded Accuracy doesn't truly have any impact IMO- unless you are giving said bonuses only to a part of the party, you can just increase the ACs of the monsters. And if you are giving bonuses to only a part of the party, I think the problem is another one.

So then wouldn't it be simpler to just not give a better weapon than +1, rather than giving them a +3 item and then increasing all the monsters AC by 2?

[Valmark]

So then wouldn't it be simpler to just not give a better weapon than +1, rather than giving them a +3 item and then increasing all the monsters AC by 2?

I guess? It still doesn't make a difference between bounded and unbounded accuracy as far as +X weapons are concerned. You could as well just lower monster ACs by 1 with that line of thought.

[Boci]

I guess? It still doesn't make a difference between bounded and unbounded accuracy as far as +X weapons are concerned. You could as well just lower monster ACs by 1 with that line of thought.

You don't need to lower monsters AC by 1. If your players are prioritising their primary stat, they will hit fine without any bonuses to attack rolls from equipment.

I dislike the "illusion of power" from giving players bonuses and then giving monsters bonuses to negate this. I dislike it as a DM and hate it as a player.

[Amnestic]

You don't need to lower monsters AC by 1. If your players are prioritising their primary stat, they will hit fine without any bonuses to attack rolls from equipment.

I dislike the "illusion of power" from giving players bonuses and then giving monsters bonuses to negate this. I dislike it as a DM and hate it as a player.

I don't think DMs should up AC to counteract +X weapons, but I also don't think that if they did so it's identical to the situation without the weapon - after all, it's unlikely that the entire party is running with the same +X quality weapon, especially if you have spellcasters (already mentioned my concern with +X focuses earlier).

As noted, AC seem to cap out for monsters at around ~22, maybe 25 in certain rare cases, with even demon lords hovering around the ~19-21 mark (Theros' mythic creatures are 17-22). You should probably try not to go out of whack with that as a DM, and instead look to shore up resistances elsewhere - more health being obvious, because if they survive an extra turn that's an extra turn to do something deadly, and it's not something that solely weapons deal with. Spells or other save effects can deal with it just the same.

Game's meant to be power fantasy, and that comes with some "stomp" fights and some challenges. If a +X weapon helps the feel powerful for a stomp fight, then tune up the challenge fights, so that they're not stomping everything.

[Boci]

I don't think DMs should up AC to counteract +X weapons, but I also don't think that if they did so it's identical to the situation without the weapon - after all, it's unlikely that the entire party is running with the same +X quality weapon, especially if you have spellcasters (already mentioned my concern with +X focuses earlier).

Yeah, but that's not much better. One by one the party finds +2 weapons, to replace their +1s, which make those who find them a little more accurate, until the last party member finds one and suddenly all the monsters AC is increased to negate this bon us and the last party member barely ever got to genuine enjoy any benefit to the increased attack modifier. It not the same as never handing out +2 weapons, but its not good.

[sithlordnergal]

Personally, I prefer +X items over complicated magic items as a DM and as a Player. As a DM, they allow me to hand out a decent magic item that are simple to work around. Players won't be able to just nulify encounters with a +X weapon like they might with a Weapon of Warning.

As a player, I tend to find them more handy then a magic item with a special effect. Give me a +2 Shield over some Shield that can be thrown for 1d6 damage and returns to me. I don't need the 1d6 ranged attack, but I do need the +2 to AC.

[strangebloke]

I hate +X weapons and +X casting implements.

Love +X armor and shields though.

Mostly because attacks outscales defenses too fast IMO.

[Amnestic]

Yeah, but that's not much better. One by one the party finds +2 weapons, to replace their +1s, which make those who find them a little more accurate, until the last party member finds one and suddenly all the monsters AC is increased to negate this bon us and the last party member barely ever got to genuine enjoy any benefit to the increased attack modifier. It not the same as never handing out +2 weapons, but its not good.

Yeah, thanks, I'm aware. That's why I went on to say you should probably look to boosting HP instead of AC.

[ad_hoc]

Have fewer magic items.

[PhoenixPhyre]

People value +X more than they do more "interesting" abilities. Why? In part because the benefit is constant and obvious and they don't require attunement. This means there's an incentive (psychological if nothing else) to take the blandest items.

+X weapons and armor (and especially +X to Save DC items) distort the game more than any other thing. More damage? That's fine, has little effect (because overkill is a thing and because HP has a wide spectrum). If the DM can't hit you with anything other than the top-tier monsters (+X to AC) or you can hit anything on a 2 unless it has the highest AC (+X weapons) or if the monsters can't save against your spells (+X to save DC), then that removes whole swaths of monsters from play. And that's not a good thing.

I'll say that Tasha's plague of "+X spellbooks and other implements" is exactly what the game doesn't need. In fact, I'd much prefer if all +X effects were removed from items. No item boosts AC or accuracy or save DCs except by altering the ability scores. Period. +X weapons can give +2X to damage. +X armor can give a (stacking with HAM) -X to damage taken. Or have other effects entirely.

[dafrca]

But I'd give out a hundred Flametongues before I'd ever give out a +1 longsword, because the former is flashy and fun, while the latter is flavorless and boring.
I had a GM once who gave out the Flame Tongue and it was a shock how many fire resist and and fire immune monsters we began to run into. So really all our fighter received was a super cool sounding torch. Maybe flashy, but in the end not fun and in fact he felt cheated once it was obvious the deck was being stacked against his new toy. The +1 Short Sword my rogue received was much more fun in that party.

So in my opinion: I think there has to be an overall adjustment of the thinking if a GM wants to ignore the +X items, not just refuse to hand them out. If you want to offer the flashy and more complex items, then there needs to be opportunity to use them in a fun and flashy way. Otherwise all they really turns into is notes on a character sheet. :smallsmile:

[jas61292]

I had a GM once who gave out the Flame Tongue and it was a shock how many fire resist and and fire immune monsters we began to run into. So really all our fighter received was a super cool sounding torch. Maybe flashy, but in the end not fun and in fact he felt cheated once it was obvious the deck was being stacked against his new toy. The +1 Short Sword my rogue received was much more fun in that party.

The question here is, did you face all those fire resistant and immune foes because fire resistance and immunity just happens to be a relatively common one? Or did you face so much of it because the DM intentionally did so to negate the benefit of the item. If its the former, well yeah, that can happen. It is what it is. That's why sometimes I would give a cold or lightning weapon with a similar effect, rather than just always fire. If its the latter, however, and the way you worded it makes me feel like it was, then that has nothing to do with the item and everything to do with the DM. Its the exact same thing as the DM handing out a +1 sword and then giving every monster +1 AC and a couple more HP. The only difference is that it is not as obvious. But if a DM is just going to make an item useless, they should never hand it out in the first place.

For what its worth, I have myself played a character that received a flametongue, and yes, fire resistance was not uncommon, but it was not omnipresent, and whenever it was not there, it felt awesome. Far more awesome than any +X weapon I have ever had, and I have had many.

[dafrca]

Or did you face so much of it because the DM intentionally did so to negate the benefit of the item.
The fact the volume of monsters faced from the resistant and immune list jumped sure made it feel like it was by design. Could we ever really prove it, not really. :smallfrown:



For what its worth, I have myself played a character that received a flametongue, and yes, fire resistance was not uncommon, but it was not omnipresent, and whenever it was not there, it felt awesome. Far more awesome than any +X weapon I have ever had, and I have had many.
I am not saying the other options can't be fun, sorry if that is how my post came across. I had one character receive a defender weapon and almost never took it off AC bonus and had a blast. Named it "Gods Shield" and with that GM even came up with a description of the engravings on it etc. Was a prized possession of that character to the end of the campaign. So I do understand the idea of fun and different being able to go hand in hand. :smallsmile:

[EggKookoo]

I don't go above +1 with weapons, at least most of the time. A +2 weapon is pretty freaking rare in my setting. +3 weapons are artifacts. If you get your hands on one and actually use it, you're going to draw attention to yourself and be set upon by all kinds of high-power entities who feel like they should own it.

[Ralanr]

Personally, I prefer +X items over complicated magic items as a DM and as a Player. As a DM, they allow me to hand out a decent magic item that are simple to work around. Players won't be able to just nulify encounters with a +X weapon like they might with a Weapon of Warning.

As a player, I tend to find them more handy then a magic item with a special effect. Give me a +2 Shield over some Shield that can be thrown for 1d6 damage and returns to me. I don't need the 1d6 ranged attack, but I do need the +2 to AC.

As a player, I can get that. Though I'd be hard-pressed to say that the shield you can throw for 1d6 doesn't also function as an actual shield.

[Boci]

I don't go above +1 with weapons, at least most of the time. A +2 weapon is pretty freaking rare in my setting. +3 weapons are artifacts. If you get your hands on one and actually use it, you're going to draw attention to yourself and be set upon by all kinds of high-power entities who feel like they should own it.

Whilst I like the idea of +3 weapons being artefacts, I'm not sure how what you describe works, since +3 to attack rolls and damage whilst powerful, doesn't seem flashy enough to draw attention, unless they also have an obvious aethetic to them, or perhaps divination magic is involved.

[EggKookoo]

Whilst I like the idea of +3 weapons being artefacts, I'm not sure how what you describe works, since +3 to attack rolls and damage whilst powerful, doesn't seem flashy enough to draw attention, unless they also have an obvious aethetic to them, or perhaps divination magic is involved.

I guess to clarify, yes, a +3 weapon is going to have other attributes. I don't allow stock +3 weapons, with no other bonus. Well, I might allow it -- at first. It would turn out to have more qualities that get unlocked/exposed as its used. Not a cursed item, per se. Just like an "artifact in disguise" if that makes sense.

In fact, the Battle Smith in my current party picked up the Sword of Zariel at 3rd level. He (including the player) doesn't know what it is, and it doesn't function fully, like it's partially dormant. To him, it's just a cool magic sword. I retconned it to being her sword after he got it and the idea came to me, so unfortunately it does extra damage to fiends despite the actual SoZ not doing that, but I can manage that (I think her sword deals extra damage to evil creatures, so maybe it hurting fiends is just an initial phase of it).

[sithlordnergal]

As a player, I can get that. Though I'd be hard-pressed to say that the shield you can throw for 1d6 doesn't also function as an actual shield.

I mean, it does function as a shield, my dm handed it out as a fun item, and while it was a neat idea I never ended up using the thrown portion of it. I just used it as a standard shield because I never really found any point in throwing it as a weapon.

[EggKookoo]

I mean, it does function as a shield, my dm handed it out as a fun item, and while it was a neat idea I never ended up using the thrown portion of it. I just used it as a standard shield because I never really found any point in throwing it as a weapon.

The flaw there, I think, is that you likely needed to use your action to throw it. What if you could use a bonus action or even a reaction to using it defensively (e.g. when someone makes an attack against you and misses)?

It's less that there's no value in throwing a returning shield and more that it costs too much to throw the shield.

[Ralanr]

I mean, it does function as a shield, my dm handed it out as a fun item, and while it was a neat idea I never ended up using the thrown portion of it. I just used it as a standard shield because I never really found any point in throwing it as a weapon.


The flaw there, I think, is that you likely needed to use your action to throw it. What if you could use a bonus action or even a reaction to using it defensively (e.g. when someone makes an attack against you and misses)?

It's less that there's no value in throwing a returning shield and more that it costs too much to throw the shield.

Yeah that's the kicker. When the cool things require actions, it's often just better to attack than use the action.

At lower levels this isn't as big an issue because you could be sacrificing your action to do the thing. But when you get multiattack, it becomes a bad idea. So if the actions could be cut from your attacks, I think it'd work better.

[Segev]

A good use of +X weapons in a party that will cooperate is to shore up a lagging character.


Alternatively, consider "the lucky weapon." Whenever you roll with advantage or disadvantage to hit with it, roll 1d6 and add it to the lower d20 before determining whichne to keep.

[stoutstien]

People value +X more than they do more "interesting" abilities. Why? In part because the benefit is constant and obvious and they don't require attunement. This means there's an incentive (psychological if nothing else) to take the blandest items.

+X weapons and armor (and especially +X to Save DC items) distort the game more than any other thing. More damage? That's fine, has little effect (because overkill is a thing and because HP has a wide spectrum). If the DM can't hit you with anything other than the top-tier monsters (+X to AC) or you can hit anything on a 2 unless it has the highest AC (+X weapons) or if the monsters can't save against your spells (+X to save DC), then that removes whole swaths of monsters from play. And that's not a good thing.

I'll say that Tasha's plague of "+X spellbooks and other implements" is exactly what the game doesn't need. In fact, I'd much prefer if all +X effects were removed from items. No item boosts AC or accuracy or save DCs except by altering the ability scores. Period. +X weapons can give +2X to damage. +X armor can give a (stacking with HAM) -X to damage taken. Or have other effects entirely.

Agreed with the caveat for ones created or otherwise supplied by PC options.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed with the caveat for ones created or otherwise supplied by PC options.

I don't think the caveat is needed. There is no need for such PC options to give flat, stacking bonuses to accuracy or AC. So yes, I'd rewrite shield. And the Forge Cleric (and Improved Pact Weapon) abilities should change to something other than giving +X to an item. I'm totally ok with mage armor and other "set your AC to (formula)". Because those don't stack with anything and leave the end result well inside the normal region.

[Pex]

The question here is, did you face all those fire resistant and immune foes because fire resistance and immunity just happens to be a relatively common one? Or did you face so much of it because the DM intentionally did so to negate the benefit of the item. If its the former, well yeah, that can happen. It is what it is. That's why sometimes I would give a cold or lightning weapon with a similar effect, rather than just always fire. If its the latter, however, and the way you worded it makes me feel like it was, then that has nothing to do with the item and everything to do with the DM. Its the exact same thing as the DM handing out a +1 sword and then giving every monster +1 AC and a couple more HP. The only difference is that it is not as obvious. But if a DM is just going to make an item useless, they should never hand it out in the first place.

For what its worth, I have myself played a character that received a flametongue, and yes, fire resistance was not uncommon, but it was not omnipresent, and whenever it was not there, it felt awesome. Far more awesome than any +X weapon I have ever had, and I have had many.

Not one single monster exists in the campaign without the DM's permission. A DM always purposely places a monster where it is the party encounters. Doesn't matter if it's a module. Doesn't matter if it's random dice. The DM controls the world. He has the final say on what exists. The DM is absolutely responsible for giving a PC a magic weapon he never gets to benefit because everything is immune or resistant to it.

+X weapons are fine. They do not make the game an unplayable mess. What you call boring I call passive, and that is not an inherently bad thing. It should not bother the DM at all a PC hits bad guys that much more often because of the +X. What, he wants the PCs to lose? PCs will still miss on their attacks from time to time as they've always done. The combat ends one round sooner because the PC hits when he would have missed because of that +X. Why should that give a DM a conniption fit?

The math of the game does matter. We can ignore sarcasm of giving 1st level characters +3 weapons. The math does not break when the 8th level character has a +1 weapon. The game functions when the weapon is +1 and does something else. +0 and does something cool weapons are fine with me, but I'm not doing it wrong for wanting and liking a +1 and does something cool weapon.

[stoutstien]

I don't think the caveat is needed. There is no need for such PC options to give flat, stacking bonuses to accuracy or AC. So yes, I'd rewrite shield. And the Forge Cleric (and Improved Pact Weapon) abilities should change to something other than giving +X to an item. I'm totally ok with mage armor and other "set your AC to (formula)". Because those don't stack with anything and leave the end result well inside the normal region.

I can get that. I personally don't have a problem with those because once you remove the other ones out of the game it actually gives them a interesting niche and by themselves aren't really that bad. You don't really have to worry about stacking a bunch of bonuses if you remove the other cases that can be stacked. Also removing certain magic items for the game is really easy in my part but going through and trying to find adequate replacements for those options for those sub classes is major surgery. The artificer with its party wide ability to shift those numbers around is built into its balance. I'm not saying it's impossible to come up with enough replacement infusions to make it worthwhile it just would be a lot of work.

I agree with shield (spell) and also have changed it to works as well. Though I think AE is actually low key the stronger of the reaction based defensive lv 1 spells.

[jas61292]

The math of the game does matter. We can ignore sarcasm of giving 1st level characters +3 weapons. The math does not break when the 8th level character has a +1 weapon. The game functions when the weapon is +1 and does something else. +0 and does something cool weapons are fine with me, but I'm not doing it wrong for wanting and liking a +1 and does something cool weapon.

I'm not saying that anyone who uses +1 weapons is doing something wrong. Its not my preference, but that doesn't make it wrong. As you say, the game math does not break from having a +1 at an appropriate level. But the game math also does not require it. It, as with all magic items in 5e, take characters above the baseline power level. Not inappropriately, but still above. I like every part of my magic items to be functionally interesting, and as I do not consider basic +X to be interesting, I do not like to include that. But that doesn't mean it is wrong for other people to do so. Different tastes. The game will no more break from not having them than it would from having them.

All that said, if the point of a magic weapon is to improve combat ability, any property that is not a +x needs to either function as part of a normal attack, or has to be strong enough to be worthwhile instead of a normal attack routine. I have seen a number of magic weapons that have cool sounding abilities, but are situational enough that actually using them over just attacking almost never happens. That is not good magic weapon design, and even if I dislike them, I'd rather see a +1 sword than, say, one that lets you do a small and relatively weak AoE as an entire action. The only thing worse, to me, than a boring magic weapon, is a bad one.

[Witty Username]

What's more the balance of the game in 5e does not depend on your magic items. You are not expected to have a +1 weapon by level 6 and a +3 by level 17. You are not expected to have a +1 ever. Heck, you are not expected to necessarily have any particular magic item ever. That's not to say the game entirely is designed around not having magic items at all, but rather that magic items are largely designed to be a bonus.

Kinda, higher CR monster design often includes resistance and/or immunity to non-magic weapons. most martial characters will have a frustrating time if you use these and they aren't given some means of dealing with it. I would say to worry about that more at CR 7ish, by my gut reckoning.

[Mastikator]

Considering that artificers can get +1 weapons at level 2 and warlocks can get +1 weapons at level 3 I think it's fair to say that the "appropriate level" is somewhere around level 2. Not level 6. Especially considering that there are monsters at 1/2 CR with resistance to non-magical slashing/bludgeoning/piercing.

A single +1 short sword looted from the first quest that launched the PCs into level 2 is perfectly fine and good.

[Segev]

It's worth noting that a trident of fish command is a magic weapon. As in, it will affect a lycanthrope just as well as a silver weapon or a +1 weapon.

Level 6 is also more of a "latest that you should be getting the ability to hurt things that need magic to hurt them" than a threshold of "earliest you should be getting magic weapons."

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's worth noting that a trident of fish command is a magic weapon. As in, it will affect a lycanthrope just as well as a silver weapon or a +1 weapon.

Level 6 is also more of a "latest that you should be getting the ability to hurt things that need magic to hurt them" than a threshold of "earliest you should be getting magic weapons."

I disagree. You don't ever need magic weapons. The sidebar in Xanathar's is definitive on that matter. You can go a whole campaign without having significant numbers of resistant enemies. If everyone gets magic weapons by level 6, then monks and moon druids get tax features, not actual benefits and never get to feel cool.

[Morty]

I don't see a particularly compelling reason for enemies who are resistant to non-magical weapons to begin with. Resistance to physical weapons period, sure - but all resistance to non-magical ones accomplishes is add a requirement of obtaining them to a game that isn't supposed to have one.

[Segev]

I disagree. You don't ever need magic weapons. The sidebar in Xanathar's is definitive on that matter. You can go a whole campaign without having significant numbers of resistant enemies. If everyone gets magic weapons by level 6, then monks and moon druids get tax features, not actual benefits and never get to feel cool.

Yes and no. Some campaign modules written by WotC themselves are impossible if you don't have a source of magic damage.

Note that I didn't say "a magic weapon." I said, "a source of magic damage."

Just try to play Tomb of Annihilation without any source of magical damage, though. I don't think that module is nearly as hard as some people make it out to be, but once you get to the eponymous dungeon, so many things are immune to nonmagical b/p/s that you're in trouble if that's all you've got.

Note, too, that even the fighter can have sources of damage that will work, without necessarily finding a magical weapon.



That said, the monk and druid features ARE kind-of ribbons in most campaigns, because most campaigns ARE going to hand out magic weapons. Maybe not like candy, but they'll be common enough that this really just lets the monk and druid not need to sigh and never use their unarmed/natural attacks again.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't see a particularly compelling reason for enemies who are resistant to non-magical weapons to begin with. Resistance to physical weapons period, sure - but all resistance to non-magical ones accomplishes is add a requirement of obtaining them to a game that isn't supposed to have one.

No? It's there to provide the "only the special things can hurt this one" effect. And (contrary to what people think), it's pretty uncommon. Basically unless you're fighting fiends or constructs (and only the bigger ones at that), there just aren't that many non-magic resistant creatures out there. And even fiends can be gotten around using silver. At higher levels, there's magic weapon (including from scrolls), various forms of bypass (such as monks, paladin's improved divine smite), etc.

If the expectation was you'd get magic weapons at level 6, then non-magic damage resistance wouldn't count as effective HP well into T3. It's expected to have an effect. Doubling effective HP through level 10 or so, then 1.5x until level 17. It's only in T4 where it provides no benefit.

[Segev]

No? It's there to provide the "only the special things can hurt this one" effect. And (contrary to what people think), it's pretty uncommon. Basically unless you're fighting fiends or constructs (and only the bigger ones at that), there just aren't that many non-magic resistant creatures out there. And even fiends can be gotten around using silver. At higher levels, there's magic weapon (including from scrolls), various forms of bypass (such as monks, paladin's improved divine smite), etc.

If the expectation was you'd get magic weapons at level 6, then non-magic damage resistance wouldn't count as effective HP well into T3. It's expected to have an effect. Doubling effective HP through level 10 or so, then 1.5x until level 17. It's only in T4 where it provides no benefit.

There's a difference between, "You're expected to have access to something other than non-magical b/p/s by level 6" and "you're expected to have a magic weapon by level 6."

[jas61292]

I disagree. You don't ever need magic weapons. The sidebar in Xanathar's is definitive on that matter. You can go a whole campaign without having significant numbers of resistant enemies. If everyone gets magic weapons by level 6, then monks and moon druids get tax features, not actual benefits and never get to feel cool.

I agree with this. While I typically will give out magic weapons at some point, you never need them. Only if your party is entirely of certain martial classes (and only certain subclasses of them), will a party lack the ability to take on non-magic resistant monsters. And that kind of resistance (or even immunity) does not simply exist to mean "you must be this level or higher to fight." Players can find ways to deal with those resistances and immunities, and simply giving out magic weapons the minute such enemies become relevant undermines the entire point of those resistances existing in the first place.

Now, to me personally, I tend to prefer to give out magic weapons at a relatively normal level, but without giving "optimal" magic weapons. Daggers and Shortswords and Scimitars and Shortbows. Not Greatswords, Glaives and Rapiers. That's not to say I will never give out those weapons early, especially if it makes sense from an in world perspective. But I like to have the decisions and strategies regarding resistances matter, at least for a while. Sure, when you are first facing non-magic resistant creatures on a regular basis, you can have magic weapons, but it comes with a choice. Use that magic flail you found, or use your greatsword at half damage, or convince a caster to use magic weapon. I want it to be a decision.

When you are higher level, I have no issue getting rid of that issue and giving weapons more suited to the character (though it depends on the campaign, and whether I'm planning all loot or doing things more randomly). A single kind of decision can only remain interesting for so many levels. But I do like it to be there for at least a few.

[Ralanr]

I don't see a particularly compelling reason for enemies who are resistant to non-magical weapons to begin with. Resistance to physical weapons period, sure - but all resistance to non-magical ones accomplishes is add a requirement of obtaining them to a game that isn't supposed to have one.

It's honestly rather silly. Heck, ghosts apparently have resistance to non-magical weapons.

Ghosts...

Apparently, you can beat back an apparition with a chair.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's a difference between, "You're expected to have access to something other than non-magical b/p/s by level 6" and "you're expected to have a magic weapon by level 6."

As a party? Certainly. The sidebar in Xanathar's even mentions that parties without
a) a spell caster
b) a monk
c) allies who can cast magic weapon

are in a difficult place and either need magic weapons OR the DM needs to avoid using that type of monster.

But note the expectation. One spell caster in the party is enough. Because every spell caster has either a) a buff that can give magic damage or b) a way to deal magic damage themselves. One monk is enough. An ally who can provide magic weapon is enough.

This is an incredibly low threshold. And very different from the idea that level 6 is the place where everyone should have a magic weapon of their choosing (which I know isn't your position, but has been the implication throughout this thread).

All of this operates at the party level. An encounter against a lycanthrope can be the caster's time to shine; an encounter against a golem might be the monk's chance (mostly immune to normal weapons and most magic). Etc. This falls apart when DMs decide that the only proper way is to have a never-ending stream of fights against resistant monsters. Almost all the low-level fiends can be bypassed with silver. If everyone's rocking magic weapons by T2, then silver really has no place.

[Amnestic]

I agree with this. While I typically will give out magic weapons at some point, you never need them. Only if your party is entirely of certain martial classes (and only certain subclasses of them), will a party lack the ability to take on non-magic resistant monsters. And that kind of resistance (or even immunity) does not simply exist to mean "you must be this level or higher to fight." Players can find ways to deal with those resistances and immunities, and simply giving out magic weapons the minute such enemies become relevant undermines the entire point of those resistances existing in the first place.

Do you also drastically expand a creature's magic resistances so that, instead of solely being resistant to Fire for instance, they're resistant to everything except Cold? You know, so that the players can "find ways to deal with the resistances" and all that.

[KorvinStarmast]

Why are people always dumping on things for being basic? Jeeze. My answer to that might get me banned, so I won't.

+X magic items are fine. People building characters like they have to be hyperspecialized in the first place? Also fine. Yeah, there a big tent we can all enjoy the gam ein.


From a DM perspective I find basic +X stuff boring Then make / offer stuff like the Frostbrand, or the nice little Moon Touched Sword (My bard has a rapier) which is still magical.

From a player perspective, I like +X stuff, even if it's boring. Yeah.

In short, I don't think +X weapons do more harm than good - their impact on bounded accuracy is minimal On the same page with you.

I strongly agree. I despise +X items See above. (And "despise" is a pretty strong term. Really?)
+X magic items have always been and will always be a bad idea. Nope. This kind of broad overgeneralization is already dead in the water, but I'll point to the "have always been" as being just plain wrong. You might want to familiarize yourself with the pre WoTC editions of the game.
So then wouldn't it be simpler to just not give a better weapon than +1, rather than giving them a +3 item and then increasing all the monsters AC by 2? There's no need to. That's adding fiddly bits that are not necessary.

I dislike the "illusion of power" from giving players bonuses and then giving monsters bonuses to negate this. I dislike it as a DM and hate it as a player. It's also not necessary. Hitting a little more often still won't help the Fighter make the INT save versus the Mind Flayer's psionic blast. :smallwink:

I don't think DMs should up AC to counteract +X weapons,
There are better things to do with DM time.

Game's meant to be power fantasy, and that comes with some "stomp" fights and some challenges. If a +X weapon helps the feel powerful for a stomp fight, then tune up the challenge fights, so that they're not stomping everything. That's OK, I think that folks who kvetch about +X weapons are just engaging in latent hostility to fighters/martials, and may not even realize it.
For the OP:

I feel like +X items do more harm than good, especially in bounded accuracy
Why do you feel this way?
Do you DM a lot?
Do you have encounter design problems?
Do you read too many posts on internet discussion boards?

[Segev]

All of this operates at the party level. An encounter against a lycanthrope can be the caster's time to shine; an encounter against a golem might be the monk's chance (mostly immune to normal weapons and most magic). Etc. This falls apart when DMs decide that the only proper way is to have a never-ending stream of fights against resistant monsters. Almost all the low-level fiends can be bypassed with silver. If everyone's rocking magic weapons by T2, then silver really has no place.

To be fair, casters rarely are said to lack "chances to shine." I am not one of those who gets all huffy over caster/martial disparity, but I just feel the need to point out that the idea of a caster needing a "chance to shine" is going to fall on deaf ears around here, most likely.


That said, I think an interesting examination might be given to turning the lens around: in a game where magic weapons are handed out fairly liberally, such that everyone in the party who needs one has one (or maybe literally everyone in the party has one), you're right about the druid and monk abilities feeling a little lackluster. Yes, they mean the monk and druid can still do magic damage when using martial arts/flurry of blows or while in beast forms, but not only do they now maybe feel like they're doing less than if htey could use their magic weapons...but a game where "almost" everyone has a magic weapon will tend to make their class feature work against them by making them the last choice to give a magic weapon to!

So, under the assumption it would only be used in a game where magic weapons are plentiful-enough that the monk and druid aren't feeling "special" for being able to damage creatures immune to nonmagical b/p/s, what might a good alternate class feature to their "do magic damage with unarmed strikes/natural weapons" features be?


Maybe the monk, with "ki-infused strikes," can, once on each of his turns, gain a temporary ki point when he connects with an unarmed strike. The ki point lasts until the end of his turn.

Maybe the druid can expend a spell slot once as or during any wild shape to give his natural attacks +x where X is the level of the spell slot expended. Max +3.

[jas61292]

Do you also drastically expand a creature's magic resistances so that, instead of solely being resistant to Fire for instance, they're resistant to everything except Cold? You know, so that the players can "find ways to deal with the resistances" and all that.

No, and I don't really see a good reason to. Resisting fire means that the wizard/sorcerer can't freely use Fireball or fall back on their Fire Bolt cantrip. Those are the main things effected by that resistance, and so are the main things I want to see the players deal with. If that means they just use a different damaging spell, then so be it. But resistances like these are interesting because of what they deny, not because of what they force.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think the caveat is needed. There is no need for such PC options to give flat, stacking bonuses to accuracy or AC. So yes, I'd rewrite shield. And the Forge Cleric (and Improved Pact Weapon) abilities should change to something other than giving +X to an item. I'm totally ok with mage armor and other "set your AC to (formula)". Because those don't stack with anything and leave the end result well inside the normal region. They did limit the ceiling on + to 3, which was a nice accomodation for weapons, but I totally concur with your gripe on Tasha's "+ to spell save DC" items. I am happy for the only class to have that being warlock with 'rod of the pact keeper' - (they have way fewer spells, so an item that makes each one a touch more effective is a nice complement to that).
Since most items are placed by the DM in a campaign, any DM can choose to not have those if, like you, they are not keen on them.

I mildly disagree with your bit on + armor and shields, since there needs to be a place in the game for a no kidding "Tank" (It's a genre staple, and by that I mean D&D as its own weird genre). The basic abilities don't really get you there past Act II. I learned this from playing a fighter/champion deep in to Tier 3.

[Ralanr]

Why do you feel this way?
Do you DM a lot?
Do you have encounter design problems?
Do you read too many posts on internet discussion boards?


1. It's been something that's been nagging at me for awhile as a player. I like playing martial characters. I like being big barbarians that hit things hard. But sometimes I wish I had more options, and I tend to overthink ideas in homebrew items sometimes. Now I don't normally have these problems in game, but that's because I haven't even gotten past T2 (thanks to modules), so I haven't fully explored how T3 stuff fairs.

I've played in one level 20 combat arena one shot. So I know for certain that fighters don't slouch on damage at that level (and I assume neither do other martial classes). But that was a combat run, so I didn't really get to explore other aspects of level 20 play.

2. I don't DM a lot. I've been slowly getting back into DMing though. But my observations are from a player perspective mostly.
3. I've been running modules so I can't really say yes or no here.
4. I do but that's due to boredom.


Edit: I would like to add that, as a player, I've never been disappointed in getting a +X item. I've just been wondering recently how magic martial weapons could be designed if they didn't rely on +X, and if that'd be more interesting mechanically.

[dafrca]

Do you read too many posts on internet discussion boards?
Why yes, yes I do. But I also learn a lot in doing so. :smallsmile:

<dafrca returns to reading the arguments being posted>

[Boci]

That's adding fiddly bits that are not necessary.

I know its unnecessary, that's what I was arguing, since other posters were advocating doing just that.


It's also not necessary. Hitting a little more often still won't help the Fighter make the INT save versus the Mind Flayer's psionic blast. :smallwink:

Right, but not every fight is going to be against a mindflayer or enemies with similar abilities. Even without +X weapons I'm already noticing the martial characters at level 9 with maxed out primary stats tend to not care that much about disadvantage because they frequently hit with all attacks regardless. Often times all it does it negate crits.

[Amnestic]

No, and I don't really see a good reason to. Resisting fire means that the wizard/sorcerer can't freely use Fireball or fall back on their Fire Bolt cantrip. Those are the main things effected by that resistance, and so are the main things I want to see the players deal with. If that means they just use a different damaging spell, then so be it. But resistances like these are interesting because of what they deny, not because of what they force.

So you think it's good that martials have to scrounge for methods to deal damage by limiting their magic weapon availability - even going so far as to deliberately offer suboptimal weapons - but you don't think it'd good for casters to have to scrounge for damage types in the same way? I mean isn't it more interesting, by the same logic, if suddenly a wizard can't damage a monster effectively because none of their spells deal the one energy type they need? Doesn't that provoke the exact same interesting gameplay that you're directing on the martials where they have to find "alternate solutions"?

[Boci]

So you think it's good that martials have to scrounge for methods to deal damage by limiting their magic weapon availability - even going so far as to deliberately offer suboptimal weapons - but you don't think it'd good for casters to have to scrounge for damage types in the same way? I mean isn't it more interesting, by the same logic, if suddenly a wizard can't damage a monster effectively because none of their spells deal the one energy type they need? Doesn't that provoke the exact same interesting gameplay that you're directing on the martials where they have to find "alternate solutions"?

In my next session the group is going to face a fey who is immune to all magical damage, weapon or spell, so the monk and warlock will struggle in that encounter and the ranger will need to do most of the work for the encounter.

[Amnestic]

In my next session the group is going to face a fey who is immune to all magical damage, weapon or spell, so the monk and warlock will struggle in that encounter and the ranger will need to do most of the work for the encounter.

Neat. Heralds back to the old magic golems from yesteryear.

[sithlordnergal]

I disagree. You don't ever need magic weapons. The sidebar in Xanathar's is definitive on that matter. You can go a whole campaign without having significant numbers of resistant enemies. If everyone gets magic weapons by level 6, then monks and moon druids get tax features, not actual benefits and never get to feel cool.

I feel WotC thinks you can play a game from level 1 to 20 with no magic weapons. But the reality is they made a game where if you don't have magic weapons and you're a martial, then you're essentially useless at high levels. In fact, they seem to have realized they made a game where you need a magical weapon f you're a Martial in T2. IF they really didn't think martials need magical weapon damage by T2, then you wouldn't have abilities like:


The Monk's Ki-Empowered Strikes, which makes their unarmed strikes deal magical damage
One with the Blade, which automatically makes all Kensei Weapons magical
Exceptional Training, which was changed in an errata to make the Animal Companion's attacks magical
Moon Druid's Primal Strike, which makes your Wild Shape attacks magical
Mighty Summoner, creatures summoned by the Sheppard Druid are treated as having magical damage


That's 5 class abilities right there that give you magical damage. You'll notice a running theme with those abilities:

1) They're all found on classes that do the same thing as other martial classes, but don't use standard weapons. Monks use their fists, Druids use their wild shapes or summons, and the beastmaster uses their animal companions. None of those use standard weapons, and none of them can really benefit from the Magic Weapon spell

2) All of those abilities are gained at levels 6-7.

If WotC didn't feel that you need magical weapons at all, then those abilities wouldn't exist. But clearly they felt those abilities were important enough to give to players right after you get Extra Attack. And if you look at NPC resistances and immunities, you'll find that resistance to B/P/S is one of the most common resistances in the game, right up there with Fire.

Now, technically that resistance part does depend on your campaign, but your options are heavily limited. Most undead, all fiends and celestials, all constructs, I believe all elementals, several Fey, certain types of Beasts*, a few Humanoids**, some Monstrosities, and I think there are even some Aberrations that have resistance to non-magical B/P/S. That's a pretty big chunk of the game right there that can halve the damage of martial classes.

The heavy reliance on resistance to B/P/S forces martials to either have a magical weapon, or they have to rely on a spell caster to concentrate on Magic Weapon. Which only makes the Caster/Martial divide worse because now the Martial literally can't be effective unless they ask the Caster for help.

So yeah, while WotC thinks they made a game where you don't need magical weapons to be effective, try playing a regular 5e game as a Martial without magical weapons. Not one where the DM takes your lack of magical weapons into account, by the way. I mean one where you'd normally get a magical weapon, but instead have no magical weapons. See how well it goes. You're gonna find that your character is rendered useless when compared to all the Casters, unless you have some way to make your own weapons magical.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I feel WotC thinks you can play a game from level 1 to 20 with no magic weapons. But the reality is they made a game where if you don't have magic weapons and you're a martial, then you're essentially useless at high levels. In fact, they seem to have realized they made a game where you need a magical weapon f you're a Martial in T2. IF they really didn't think martials need magical weapon damage by T2, then you wouldn't have abilities like:


The Monk's Ki-Empowered Strikes, which makes their unarmed strikes deal magical damage
One with the Blade, which automatically makes all Kensei Weapons magical
Exceptional Training, which was changed in an errata to make the Animal Companion's attacks magical
Moon Druid's Primal Strike, which makes your Wild Shape attacks magical
Mighty Summoner, creatures summoned by the Sheppard Druid are treated as having magical damage


That's 5 class abilities right there that give you magical damage. You'll notice a running theme with those abilities:

1) They're all found on classes that do the same thing as other martial classes, but don't use standard weapons. Monks use their fists, Druids use their wild shapes or summons, and the beastmaster uses their animal companions. None of those use standard weapons, and none of them can really benefit from the Magic Weapon spell

2) All of those abilities are gained at levels 6-7.

If WotC didn't feel that you need magical weapons at all, then those abilities wouldn't exist. But clearly they felt those abilities were important enough to give to players right after you get Extra Attack. And if you look at NPC resistances and immunities, you'll find that resistance to B/P/S is one of the most common resistances in the game, right up there with Fire.

Now, technically that resistance part does depend on your campaign, but your options are heavily limited. Most undead, all fiends and celestials, all constructs, I believe all elementals, several Fey, certain types of Beasts*, a few Humanoids**, some Monstrosities, and I think there are even some Aberrations that have resistance to non-magical B/P/S. That's a pretty big chunk of the game right there that can halve the damage of martial classes.

The heavy reliance on resistance to B/P/S forces martials to either have a magical weapon, or they have to rely on a spell caster to concentrate on Magic Weapon. Which only makes the Caster/Martial divide worse because now the Martial literally can't be effective unless they ask the Caster for help.

So yeah, while WotC thinks they made a game where you don't need magical weapons to be effective, try playing a regular 5e game as a Martial without magical weapons. Not one where the DM takes your lack of magical weapons into account, by the way. I mean one where you'd normally get a magical weapon, but instead have no magical weapons. See how well it goes. You're gonna find that your character is rendered useless when compared to all the Casters, unless you have some way to make your own weapons magical.

You missed the entire point of that sidebar. Which isn't that you don't (in the abstract) need magic weapons. You only need them if
a) you have no casters, no monk, and no allies who can cast magic weapon
b) AND you routinely fight things that are resistant or immune to non-magic damage.

Either one of those being invalid means that the whole thing goes away. And it's not nearly as dire as you think:

https://www.admiralbenbo.org/images/misc/resistancesbytype.png

Aberrations: 14% resistant, no immunity
Beasts: 0% either
Celestials: 25% immune, 38% resistant. Out of a very very tiny number of creatures in this category.
Constructs: 38% immune (but pierceable by adamantine), 17% resistant
Dragons: 0%
Elementals: 58% resistant, no immunity
Fey: 18% resistant, no immunity
Fiend: 11% immune, 67% resistant. About half of those pierceable by silver.
Giants: 4% immune, 7% resistant. That's about one immune and 2 resistant monsters.
Humanoids: 4% immune, 7% resistant. Basically, that's a couple spell casters with particular spells assumed to be up.
Monstrosity: 4% immune, 6% resistant
Ooze: 0% immune, 13% resistant (and that's to slashing only)
Plant 0/0
undead: 9% immune, 51% resistant.

You can go entire 1-20 campaigns with only seeing it once or twice.

[Carlobrand]

Wow. Just - wow. There's a lot of hate on here for the lowly hammer.

I am not a fan of Monty Haul games. I've had a gamemaster who liked to shovel out the magic until it became hard for him to challenge us, then he'd scrap the game and make us roll up new characters. Not fun.

On the other hand, it's possible to go to the other extreme. A +1 weapon is not a game changer - unless you're sending out a lot of monsters that are resistant or immune to mundane weapons, in which case why are you handing the party nails while depriving them of a hammer? Practically speaking, though, +1 is just one additional hit out of 20 rolls and one more point of damage when you do hit. On the other, other hand, after 5 or more levels of gaming, it can feel like quite the nice little Christmas present when it does appear. Maybe some of us have forgotten what it feels like to be a player and finally find such a prize in a game where magic is actually rare.

If a +1 weapon is all it takes to turn your players into murderhobos, it's not the magic that's the problem. You've got a player problem going on, and it's going to take both the carrot and the stick to turn them around. If they're hauling around killing NPCs they should be interacting with, maybe it's time to play their game. Let the wanted posters go up and see how they like living life as wanted fugitives. Or, let them get wind that there's a price on their head and let them have a few episodes of dealing with hit-men ambushing their camp or breaking into their rooms at night or attacking in the tavern of some out-of-the-way little village. Then maybe they find the magical Sword of Diplomacy that gives them a bonus to Persuasion and - only if the other guy attacks first - a +1 to combat. Or maybe have them find the magical Shield of the Olive Branch, that allows them to extricate themselves from an encounter without fighting, provided no one has actually attacked and the party hasn't made any Intimidation attempts or otherwise made threats of violence.

You can make magic do pretty much whatever you want it to do, but you really need to identify the problem correctly if you're going to try to solve a problem.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know its unnecessary, that's what I was arguing, since other posters were advocating doing just that. OK, I may have mistaken the flow of the conversation.

But the reality is they made a game where if you don't have magic weapons and you're a martial, then you're essentially useless at high levels. While not useless, significantly gimped.

If WotC didn't feel that you need magical weapons at all, Snipped a buncha good points (and I tend to agree).

Of course, they are wizards of the coast, not warriors of the coast, so perhaps this discrepancy is baked in. (Hello, sorcerer lovers, :smallbiggrin: I borrowed your sorc vs wizards love meme)

[sithlordnergal]

You missed the entire point of that sidebar. Which isn't that you don't (in the abstract) need magic weapons. You only need them if
a) you have no casters, no monk, and no allies who can cast magic weapon
b) AND you routinely fight things that are resistant or immune to non-magic damage.

Either one of those being invalid means that the whole thing goes away. And it's not nearly as dire as you think:

Aberrations: 14% resistant, no immunity
Beasts: 0% either
Celestials: 25% immune, 38% resistant. Out of a very very tiny number of creatures in this category.
Constructs: 38% immune (but pierceable by adamantine), 17% resistant
Dragons: 0%
Elementals: 58% resistant, no immunity
Fey: 18% resistant, no immunity
Fiend: 11% immune, 67% resistant. About half of those pierceable by silver.
Giants: 4% immune, 7% resistant. That's about one immune and 2 resistant monsters.
Humanoids: 4% immune, 7% resistant. Basically, that's a couple spell casters with particular spells assumed to be up.
Monstrosity: 4% immune, 6% resistant
Ooze: 0% immune, 13% resistant (and that's to slashing only)
Plant 0/0
undead: 9% immune, 51% resistant.

You can go entire 1-20 campaigns with only seeing it once or twice.


A small correction to your list, though I'm not sure if its worth mentioning since it feels like cheating, Swarms of Beasts technically count as Beasts, and they are resistant. But again, I feel like that's cheating since its a Swarm and they're one of the few creatures that resist Magical and Non-magical B/P/S, and they only make up 7.8% of all Beasts in the game.

That said though, I'd say you still need a magical weapon unless you're a Monk. That's a pretty big chunk of creatures that are resistant to non-magical B/P/S, so unless your DM is basically throwing really boring creatures at you, you're going to need it. Saying that you don't need a magical weapon unless "you routinely run into creatures with those resistances and have no casters" is similar to saying "you don't need a caster as long as you never run into a situation that requires magic to solve".

Is it possible? Technically it is.

Is it viable to go through an entire campaign without running into those creatures? Not really, no. They're general a massive staple in games for a reason.

Also, bringing up Magical Weapon is a very poor argument, since I find its just even more proof that the designers realized martials need a magical weapon in order to stay relevant. Otherwise it wouldn't be a spell. Not to mention, I can't think of any spell caster I've ever played with, including myself, that would cast Magical Weapon. Because Magical Weapon is a Concentration spell, and casters have far better, more effective things to Concentrate on.

[stoutstien]

A small correction to your list, though I'm not sure if its worth mentioning since it feels like cheating, Swarms of Beasts technically count as Beasts, and they are resistant. But again, I feel like that's cheating since its a Swarm and they're one of the few creatures that resist Magical and Non-magical B/P/S, and they only make up 7.8% of all Beasts in the game.

That said though, I'd say you still need a magical weapon unless you're a Monk. That's a pretty big chunk of creatures that are resistant to non-magical B/P/S, so unless your DM is basically throwing really boring creatures at you, you're going to need it. Saying that you don't need a magical weapon unless "you routinely run into creatures with those resistances and have no casters" is similar to saying "you don't need a caster as long as you never run into a situation that requires magic to solve".

Is it possible? Technically it is.

Is it viable to go through an entire campaign without running into those creatures? Not really, no. They're general a massive staple in games for a reason.

Also, bringing up Magical Weapon is a very poor argument, since I find its just even more proof that the designers realized martials need a magical weapon in order to stay relevant. Otherwise it wouldn't be a spell. Not to mention, I can't think of any spell caster I've ever played with, including myself, that would cast Magical Weapon. Because Magical Weapon is a Concentration spell, and casters have far better, more effective things to Concentrate on.

But doesn't that form a paradox? If they added the spell because they thought that magical weapons are necessary then magical weapons would already be considered in the balance so the spell would become unnecessary. On the other hand if magical weapons aren't necessary then the spell is again not really that useful or at least not worth preparing.

Now if you split the difference and come from the angle that sometimes magical weapons are useful and sometimes they make no real difference then the spell has a niche as do the magical weapons. You might have a magical longbow but have some underwater exploring to do so maybe having picking up a crossbow and using the spell will be a solid plan especially if the caster has no plans to even get in the water.

[sithlordnergal]

But doesn't that form a paradox? If they added the spell because they thought that magical weapons are necessary then magical weapons would already be considered in the balance so the spell would become unnecessary. On the other hand if magical weapons aren't necessary then the spell is again not really that useful or at least not worth preparing.

Now if you split the difference and come from the angle that sometimes magical weapons are useful and sometimes they make no real difference then the spell has a niche as do the magical weapons. You might have a magical longbow but have some underwater exploring to do so maybe having picking up a crossbow and using the spell will be a solid plan especially if the caster has no plans to even get in the water.

I mean, its not much of a paradox. The fact that they added it to the game does mean they feel martials need magical weapons of some kind, and they do take magical weapons into consideration when balancing things. While Magic Weapon does have some extremely niche uses, I wouldn't use it as a supporting argument for the idea that 5e Martials can be played effectively from levels 1 to 20 with no magic weapons.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Also, bringing up Magical Weapon is a very poor argument, since I find its just even more proof that the designers realized martials need a magical weapon in order to stay relevant. Otherwise it wouldn't be a spell. Not to mention, I can't think of any spell caster I've ever played with, including myself, that would cast Magical Weapon. Because Magical Weapon is a Concentration spell, and casters have far better, more effective things to Concentrate on.

They have more effective things to concentrate on if and only if magic weapons are assumed to be the default. In which case yes, the spell sucks. But its existence (and the existence of the monk feature) makes the case that the designers
a) wanted resistance to actually impose costs
b) gave ways to pay those costs

Assuming that you'll always have a magic weapon means that
a) resistance and immunity to non-magical damage is a dead letter (only affecting summoned creatures, and many people assume you can always find magic weapons for your skellies as well)
b) magic weapon is a waste of space
c) the monk ability is at best keeping them at par, rather than being an actual meaningful feature
d) they were flat out lying both in the DMG, where it assumes that resistance is fully biting (provides 2x effective HP) throughout T2 and still mostly effective into T3 (1.5x effective HP) and in Xanathars, where they say you only need magic items if you don't have any casters, monks, or allies who can cast the spell.

Which one is more plausible?

Edit: I'll also note that a 50% damage buff to one ally is is huge. In a world where magic weapons aren't the default, that's just about the best thing you can hand to your ally. It's also on a bunch of lists, including people who may not have anything better to concentrate on (ie paladins).

[Pixel_Kitsune]

So then wouldn't it be simpler to just not give a better weapon than +1, rather than giving them a +3 item and then increasing all the monsters AC by 2?

Simpler, yes. More satisfying to the players? Nope

Real life facts and story. Retail rarely lists the actual price of something. Instead they mark it up a bunch, then offer a "Sale" price putting it back down where they want. IE a $20 pair of levis will not show $20. It'll show $40 with a $20 off sale.

A while back, JC Penny had a CEO who set a whole marketing campaign on getting rid of that. No more sales, honest prices, trust the consumer to value not being lied to. It nearly killed the company.

Turns out people are MUCH more excited for a "Deal" even if they know it's fake.

Comparison here. What's more fun for a player? No +X and fighting a Monster with a 19 AC? Or a +1 cool magical sword and the monster had a 20 AC?

[Boci]

Comparison here. What's more fun for a player? No +X and fighting a Monster with a 19 AC? Or a +1 cool magical sword and the monster had a 20 AC?

For me? No +X sword fighting a monster with a 19 AC. Then finding a magic sword can be a special event, not something that always happens and pretends to make me more powerful without actually doing so.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

For me? No +X sword fighting a monster with a 19 AC. Then finding a magic sword can be a special event, not something that always happens and pretends to make me more powerful without actually doing so.

Then you are part of a minority. The statistics don't lie. More people are happy with perceived benefit than with acknowledging that they're alright as is.

Also, the rest of your statement, finding a magical weapon being special or not is dependent on the DM and the frequency of magical items. Not on rather or not a weapon is a +1 or something else.

Fantasy stories abound with weapons that are likely just +X, but their history and their coolness isn't an issue. Sure, Sting glows blue when Goblins are near. But Narsil/Andruil, Glamdrig, etc? Just +1 or +2 weapons really. No special side effects.

In Wheel of Time (Coming in a month on Prime if you didn't read the books) There are at least 3 very important weapons that their only function is essentially being +1's. There's a 4th that has one extra effect but no one, including the wielder, ever knows about it until the very end.

A weapon being a big deal is on the DM and the player's, not on how many mechanical boosts it has or doesn't have.

[Pex]

I disagree. You don't ever need magic weapons. The sidebar in Xanathar's is definitive on that matter. You can go a whole campaign without having significant numbers of resistant enemies. If everyone gets magic weapons by level 6, then monks and moon druids get tax features, not actual benefits and never get to feel cool.

Not necessarily. It just means they don't need to have magic weapons and can get other cool magic items instead. Let the fighter have the Frostbrand. The monk will take the Winged Boots.

[Boci]

Then you are part of a minority. The statistics don't lie. More people are happy with perceived benefit than with acknowledging that they're alright as is.

That seems like a massive assumption. Statistics don't don't lie per se, but there are often multiple ways to interpret them, and nor is it always valid to transplant their findings from one area to another. How people respond to prices and offers when shopping may not correspond to how they perceive loot and bonuses in a D&D game, and if you have statistics for the later on any notable scale I'd love to see them.

[Pex]

No? It's there to provide the "only the special things can hurt this one" effect. And (contrary to what people think), it's pretty uncommon. Basically unless you're fighting fiends or constructs (and only the bigger ones at that), there just aren't that many non-magic resistant creatures out there. And even fiends can be gotten around using silver. At higher levels, there's magic weapon (including from scrolls), various forms of bypass (such as monks, paladin's improved divine smite), etc.

If the expectation was you'd get magic weapons at level 6, then non-magic damage resistance wouldn't count as effective HP well into T3. It's expected to have an effect. Doubling effective HP through level 10 or so, then 1.5x until level 17. It's only in T4 where it provides no benefit.

Magic Weapon is a concentration spell. There are much betters spells for the spellcaster to be concentrating on. I'll take the magic weapon magic item.

[Amnestic]

Also as a monk, I really appreciate the addition of the Eldritch Claw Tattoo from Tasha's. It's a +1/+1 (or higher, if you can upgrade it or get better versions, but as printed it's only +1/+1 because monks lol!!!) on unarmed strikes that also does something neat, even if I am absolutely bonus action starved.

Having ECT doesn't make me feel like I'm losing out on a feature, because if I ever get to swap out that attunement slot for a Staff of Thunder and Lightning my fists+feet are still magic, but I'd rather the opportunity for ECT be there than not be there "because I already have magic fists".

[PhoenixPhyre]

Magic Weapon is a concentration spell. There are much betters spells for the spellcaster to be concentrating on. I'll take the magic weapon magic item.

Again, you're making the assumption that that's always an option. The core system says "it's perfectly fine not to have them as long as you've got any of the following[1]". And it's not lying. And I'd say that a 50% damage buff on a team-mate is better than just about any other concentration spell.

It's a team game. Not a game about comparing DPS meters. Sometimes that means using your concentration to assist a party member rather than pumping your own personal ego-numbers.

Personally, if we were to make the assumption that magic weapons are mandatory, I'd much prefer to just flat remove that resistance line entirely across the board or give everybody a feature like the monks (and if everyone has a feature, then it should be part of the basic universal kit). Bake basic capabilities straight into the class as mandatory things, don't hide them off-camera in items or other things. That was the lesson learned in 4e, where if you didn't take certain feats and didn't have specific magic items at each level, you were well below the curve. And that meant that those things were just flat taxes. And worse, fallible taxes. Not knowing you needed Weapon Focus in your preferred weapon meant your character was effectively worthless past level 3-4. 5e went the path of baking most of those core competencies into the class (via proficiency bonus).

If magic weapons are optional, getting one can be special. If they're mandatory, they're taxes and not special. And it severely limits the options for actually getting cool things. Nope, can't use grandfather's sword. Because it's not magic. No matter how in character, I need to upgrade to this +1 Super Slaying Sword of Boring Numbers, because otherwise I can't keep up.

[1] a spellcaster or a monk or any ally who can cast magic weapon.

[Pex]

Simpler, yes. More satisfying to the players? Nope

Real life facts and story. Retail rarely lists the actual price of something. Instead they mark it up a bunch, then offer a "Sale" price putting it back down where they want. IE a $20 pair of levis will not show $20. It'll show $40 with a $20 off sale.

A while back, JC Penny had a CEO who set a whole marketing campaign on getting rid of that. No more sales, honest prices, trust the consumer to value not being lied to. It nearly killed the company.

Turns out people are MUCH more excited for a "Deal" even if they know it's fake.

Comparison here. What's more fun for a player? No +X and fighting a Monster with a 19 AC? Or a +1 cool magical sword and the monster had a 20 AC?


For me? No +X sword fighting a monster with a 19 AC. Then finding a magic sword can be a special event, not something that always happens and pretends to make me more powerful without actually doing so.

The +1 weapon fighting the 20 AC monster is better because you still do +1 more damage per hit.

[Boci]

The +1 weapon fighting the 20 AC monster is better because you still do +1 more damage per hit.

Yep, and yet I'd still prefer no +X weapon and 19 AC, because it means I'm not playing in a game world where finding a +1 weapon someone effects the AC of all future monsters I encounter, which is worth way more to me than +1 damage.

[Pex]

Again, you're making the assumption that that's always an option. The core system says "it's perfectly fine not to have them as long as you've got any of the following[1]". And it's not lying. And I'd say that a 50% damage buff on a team-mate is better than just about any other concentration spell.

It's a team game. Not a game about comparing DPS meters. Sometimes that means using your concentration to assist a party member rather than pumping your own personal ego-numbers.

Personally, if we were to make the assumption that magic weapons are mandatory, I'd much prefer to just flat remove that resistance line entirely across the board or give everybody a feature like the monks (and if everyone has a feature, then it should be part of the basic universal kit). Bake basic capabilities straight into the class as mandatory things, don't hide them off-camera in items or other things. That was the lesson learned in 4e, where if you didn't take certain feats and didn't have specific magic items at each level, you were well below the curve. And that meant that those things were just flat taxes. And worse, fallible taxes. Not knowing you needed Weapon Focus in your preferred weapon meant your character was effectively worthless past level 3-4. 5e went the path of baking most of those core competencies into the class (via proficiency bonus).

If magic weapons are optional, getting one can be special. If they're mandatory, they're taxes and not special. And it severely limits the options for actually getting cool things. Nope, can't use grandfather's sword. Because it's not magic. No matter how in character, I need to upgrade to this +1 Super Slaying Sword of Boring Numbers, because otherwise I can't keep up.

[1] a spellcaster or a monk or any ally who can cast magic weapon.

Magic weapons are just fun to have to play the game, not a tax. It's part of the fantasy.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

That seems like a massive assumption. Statistics don't don't lie per se, but there are often multiple ways to interpret them, and nor is it always valid to transplant their findings from one area to another. How people respond to prices and offers when shopping may not correspond to how they perceive loot and bonuses in a D&D game, and if you have statistics for the later on any notable scale I'd love to see them.

Honestly, I'd recommend some research on "Customer Perceived Value".

For what it's worth, I'm not taking findings of one area and applying them to another. The reality is that a "Customer" is not automatically a person spending money for goods or services. A "Customer" is the target your efforts are serving.

Sure, at a store, the Customer is the person giving money for an item.

At a college? The Customers are the future employers. The students are the product and it is absolutely seen that way in the industry.

In a D&D game, the players are the Customer that the DM is inviting to enjoy the game and achieve a solid story (Or whatever motives the game has).

It's not that simple a line and there's all kinds of nuance. But when I say "Customers on the average prefer what is perceived as the bigger value, even if two items are functionally the same." I'm not meaning just retail.

This shows in the rest of my post. The Value and coolness of a new magical item is in the perceived value, not in the functional usefulness. Even you are in that bracket, though on a different level. You see a +2 Mace as boring but perceive more value in, say, a Mace of Disruption?

But as a DM, if I put that Mace of Disruption in play, I'm also planning undead encounters in the future and will even likely throw in some things that are a bit above curve on CR. Because that means the person with that weapon gets to shine and feel powerful. Where as the person happy to have found a +2 mace, I'm going to use critters with higher AC, or maybe Damage resistance to non-magic S/P/B

It's the exact same thing, but you perceive one as valuable and the other as not. In the end, it's all about how I present it. For example, neither the MoD or the +2 Mace would be described as that. In game they might be something like "You lift a mace, seemingly untouched by the passage of time. (History Check) you recognize the symbols on the weapon, it once was wielded by the Noble Paladin (Insert) in defense of the Kingdom of (Insert) in the (insert war). With more detail or less depending on their history check.

The weapon ends up a cool piece of history with either magical enhancement.

[Boci]

It's not that simple a line and there's all kinds of nuance. But when I say "Customers on the average prefer what is perceived as the bigger value, even if two items are functionally the same." I'm not meaning just retail.

This seems to be the crux of the problem. You're acknowledging the problem, but then the next sentence implies you think they barely matter. I'd advise you research this too, because from where I'm standing, you're either massively overstating the certainly of your stance, or actively misinformed, thinking you completely understand an incredibly complex subject with a level of completeness that is laughable unobtainable.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

This seems to be the crux of the problem. You're acknowledging the problem, but then the next sentence implies you think they barely matter. I'd advise you research this too, because from where I'm standing, you're either massively overstating the certainly of your stance, or actively misinformed, thinking you completely understand an incredibly complex subject with a level of completeness that is laughable unobtainable.

Actually, once you have a big enough sample (like, say, the population) then a sample of 300 or less will still give you accuracy of around 90% (Specifically 95% with a +/- 5% variable). So my numbers are relatively sound.

I'll also point out that twice now I have addressed something in simple then expounded on it in depth where in you then ignored the indepth piece to stick to your argument. Gives the appearance that you're not really interested in the topic so much as arguing how applicable Perceived value is. If that's the case cool, but not really interested in continuing. :)

[Boci]

Actually, once you have a big enough sample (like, say, the population) then a sample of 300 or less will still give you accuracy of around 90% (Specifically 95% with a +/- 5% variable). So my numbers are relatively sound.

I'll also point out that twice now I have addressed something in simple then expounded on it in depth where in you then ignored the indepth piece to stick to your argument. Gives the appearance that you're not really interested in the topic so much as arguing how applicable Perceived value is. If that's the case cool, but not really interested in continuing. :)

I'm very interested in how discussing how Perceived value relates to D&D, but you don't statistics for that. Which is fine, but you also seem reluctant to acknowledge that therefor this is just your opinion with little academic weight behind it, and that particular discussion interest me much less.

For example, I would love to see a source cited for your claim that a sample of 300 or less yields an accuracy rate of about 90%.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'm very interested in how discussing how Perceived value relates to D&D, but you don't statistics for that. Which is fine, but you also seem reluctant to acknowledge that therefor this is just your opinion with little academic weight behind it, and that particular discussion interest me much less.

For example, I would love to see a source cited for your claim that a sample of 300 or less yields an accuracy rate of about 90%.

Oddly enough, none touch on the issue, but sure, numbers are fun.

Second question first. Took me a bit to find a calculator that wasn't part of my work.
https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#two
Select Confidence level (95% or 99%), select confidence interval (How far off it can be, my original post said a 5% variable). Then a population. (I used the population of the US set at 329.5 million).

I was off when I said below 300, since I was just spitballing from memory. The sample size needed to be 95% accurate with a 5% variable on a population of 329.5 million is 384.

Now, to the other question, the actual percentage of people who are victim to Perceived value. I'm not and wasn't quote a flat %. Because it's irrelevent. Everyone is subject to perceived value. We just gave the example with you. A Mace of Disruption is more desirable than a +2 Mace, but ultimately they don't impact the plot or the difficulty, only your perceived enjoyment.

Likewise, the Perception of a huge discount nearly drove JC Penny to bankruptcy.

Everyday Advil outsells Up&Up Ibuprofin despite being identical products. Because one is name brand and thus perceived as more dependable.

You show it yourself, though in a different way than my initial point. You insist that you aren't victim to it, because you find +X boring and something extra cool. but again, either results in the DM planning encounters around that increased power, so it's all the same and also no different from no reward. The only thing that changes is how you, the player, feel about the issue.

Honestly, is Narsil a cool sword or a boring sword? Is it more or less significant than Sting? How about Glamdrig?

"The Sword of Elendil was forged anew by Elvish smiths, and on its blade was traced a device of seven stars set between the crescent Moon and the rayed Sun, and about them was written many runes; for Aragorn son of Arathorn was going to war upon the marches of Mordor. Very bright was that sword when it was made whole again; the light of the sun shone redly in it, and the light of the moon shone cold, and its edge was hard and keen. And Aragorn gave it a new name and called it Andúril, Flame of the West."

Is the sword less cool because it never does anything and is likely just a +x?

[Boci]

Oddly enough, none touch on the issue, but sure, numbers are fun.

Second question first. Took me a bit to find a calculator that wasn't part of my work.
https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#two
Select Confidence level (95% or 99%), select confidence interval (How far off it can be, my original post said a 5% variable). Then a population. (I used the population of the US set at 329.5 million).

I was off when I said below 300, since I was just spitballing from memory. The sample size needed to be 95% accurate with a 5% variable on a population of 329.5 million is 384.

I'm not sure that's entirely that's true. Its noted that "Population size is only likely to be a factor when you work with a relatively small and known group of people (e.g., the members of an association).", so it may just be that you are applying this on a scale it was never meant to be. Any number larger than 40k claims 381 is necessary, so unless you're claiming I can find out the preference of the world's population on a subject with 381 randomly selected members of the human race, I've think we've long moved on what this calculator can be used for.


We just gave the example with you. A Mace of Disruption is more desirable than a +2 Mace, but ultimately they don't impact the plot or the difficulty, only your perceived enjoyment.

I never said that, and that's not true. A mace of disruption is not more desirable to me than a +2 mace, if the +2 mace does something. The correct comparison here would be a mace of disruption with all enemy HP values adjusted to account for the average damage and the enemies never failing their save, in which case, no I do not value a mace of disruption more than a +2 mace, I find them both equally boring. I'm unsure why you feel you can confidently make these prediction about me.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I'm not sure that's entirely that's true. Its noted that "Population size is only likely to be a factor when you work with a relatively small and known group of people (e.g., the members of an association).", so it may just be that you are applying this on a scale it was never meant to be. Any number larger than 40k claims 381 is necessary, so unless you're claiming I can find out the preference of the world's population on a subject with 381 randomly selected members of the human race, I've think we've long moved on what this calculator can be used for.

You can question as you wish, but that calculator is essentially the one used for LEAN analysis. Essentially I got that training while working for a very large bank as a Compliance Analyst. The math is sound, but far more than either of us would likely want to get into here. (If you are interested I'd say Google LEAN Six Sigma, there's more than one place that offers the courses). But to answer your last question, yes, the math is saying that in a sample size of 381 randomly selected members of the human race, you will likely be 95% accurate with a variable of 5%.




I never said that, and that's not true. A mace of disruption is not more desirable to me than a +2 mace, if the +2 mace does something. The correct comparison here would be a mace of disruption with all enemy HP values adjusted to account for the average damage and the enemies never failing their save, in which case, no I do not value a mace of disruption more than a +2 mace, I find them both equally boring. I'm unsure why you feel you can confidently make these prediction about me.

I used a Mace +2 and a MoD as stand ins for what was originally a +X and a Weapon that does something else. If you're valuing a +2 weapon more than one with extra features that suggests you do value +X, but that there's a certain line it has to cross. As for the rest of your point, you don't know and can't confirm that, but it is safe to assume that in all situations a magic item being dropped means that future encounters will have a purpose for it.

PS, I'm not making predictions about you, I'm making example statements based on what you're telling me. You told me you would find a +X more boring than a weapon that does something. So I picked a +X weapon and a weapon that does something and stated, per your premise, that one would be more desirable. You're now saying that is wrong, alright, then your original premise is not a valid statement and needs to be revised.

By all means, please provide a +X weapon and a Weapon that does something where you would rate them the way you originally said, I'm more than happy to speak to specifics.

[Boci]

You're now saying that is wrong, alright, then your original premise is not a valid statement and needs to be revised.

No, you misread my original statement. I don't need to revise anything, it's still valid. I'm not interesting in debating with someone who refuses to admit error when they incorrectly try and infer another's preference.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

No, you misread my original statement. I don't need to revise anything, it's still valid. I'm not interesting in debating with someone who refuses to admit error when they incorrectly try and infer another's preference.

Actually, I do see my error, I thought you were talking +X vs effects, you weren't. You said you would prefer no +X and lower AC vs a +X and higher AC.

The reality is, that's not a choice you get unless you're the DM putting the rules in place.

The reality is, any and every magic item you get is now a tool you have that most DMs will take into account as an ability you have. It's the same as my noting that 2 members of the party have Healing magic, so I can have encounters deal more damage without overwhelming or forcing a ton of down time. It's the same as my Throwing in more waves of smaller enemies once the Sorcerer has Fireball, so that they have a good reason to use Fireball and have it be cool.

The fact is, you don't actually have a choice. You are always going to deal with encounters the DM picked to hopefully challenge you and the tools you have are the things the DM uses to build around. Finding that +X weapon, from a mechanics and balance standpoint, is no different than getting to that next spell slot level, or that new Sub-Class feature. It's now a factor of your abilities and so I challenge accordingly.

But if you allow yourself to immerse in the game, you never notice. Because the story you're telling is where the fun is, and in the story, your character just found an awesome magical item that's going to help you.

[sithlordnergal]

They have more effective things to concentrate on if and only if magic weapons are assumed to be the default. In which case yes, the spell sucks. But its existence (and the existence of the monk feature) makes the case that the designers
a) wanted resistance to actually impose costs
b) gave ways to pay those costs

Edit: I'll also note that a 50% damage buff to one ally is is huge. In a world where magic weapons aren't the default, that's just about the best thing you can hand to your ally. It's also on a bunch of lists, including people who may not have anything better to concentrate on (ie paladins).

They're really not ways that impose a cost to bypass resistance though, most of them are basic class abilities that are always on. Unless you consider playing a Monk or Druid a cost of some kind. Heck, even Blade Pact at level 3 just gives you a magical weapon to use whenever you like. Once again, 0 cost there, especially with Hexblade existing to make Bladepacts viable.

And I'd say no, even in a world where there are no Magic Weapons to be found, the spell Magic Weapon is a terrible choice. Sure it gives one party member a 50% damage boost, but compare that to the rest of the Concentration spells. Is 50% more damage really just as strong as granting party members immunity to different conditions, resistance to certain damage types, flat out removing enemies from combat with a single spell, denying spell casters 90% of their spell list, reshaping the entire battlefield in whatever way you see fit, and more? I don't think so. I'd still be casting Hold Person, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Hypnotic Pattern, Fear, Banishment, ect. over Magic Weapon because a 50% damage boost is literally nothing when you can just stop an enemy from taking any actions at all. Cause even if your martials are doing .5 of their usual damage, if the enemy is doing 0, then you're gonna win.

Now if it wasn't a Concentration spell, then it'd be worth something. But as it is, its only use is if the Caster has little to no intention of joining the encounter at all.



Assuming that you'll always have a magic weapon means that
a) resistance and immunity to non-magical damage is a dead letter (only affecting summoned creatures, and many people assume you can always find magic weapons for your skellies as well)
b) magic weapon is a waste of space
c) the monk ability is at best keeping them at par, rather than being an actual meaningful feature
d) they were flat out lying both in the DMG, where it assumes that resistance is fully biting (provides 2x effective HP) throughout T2 and still mostly effective into T3 (1.5x effective HP) and in Xanathars, where they say you only need magic items if you don't have any casters, monks, or allies who can cast the spell.

Which one is more plausible?


I'd note that your list seems 100% plausible to me.

a) Willing to bet resistance and non-magical immunity is put there to deal with most forms of minionmancy. A Necromancer with an army of 50 zombies/skeletons will find their army useless if they face something that's immune to non-magical attacks. Thereby forcing them to take action instead.

b) It is, even in a world with no magic weapons. DnD is a team game yes, but casters have sooo many better spells to help out their team that its never gonna see use.

c) It is meant to keep monks on par with other martials, same with the similar abilities on the Moon Druid and Shepard Druid. The only magic item available to them isn't found in the DMG, meaning they had no way to make their attacks magical otherwise. Heck, before they made the errata to change it, the Beastmaster's companion never did magical damage. I remember it being one of the major issues of the subclass back then. It still has a lot of issues, but they fixed that one.

d) I think its less of a purposeful lie and more of a "We don't actually know how our CR system works and made a guess". Cause what you're quoting is talking about the CR system, yeah? Tell me, how accurate is the CR system in 5e? Cause I find it to be wildly inaccurate. Stuff like the Star Spawn Mangler hit far above their CR, as does the Fire Elemental. They also fully believe they made a system where you can easily play without any magic items what so ever, but they are incorrect.

[jas61292]

So you think it's good that martials have to scrounge for methods to deal damage by limiting their magic weapon availability - even going so far as to deliberately offer suboptimal weapons - but you don't think it'd good for casters to have to scrounge for damage types in the same way? I mean isn't it more interesting, by the same logic, if suddenly a wizard can't damage a monster effectively because none of their spells deal the one energy type they need? Doesn't that provoke the exact same interesting gameplay that you're directing on the martials where they have to find "alternate solutions"?

Just because a spellcaster can have many damage types does not mean they do. Almost every caster I have ever played with or DMed for has go to spells for damage. Often stuff like Fireball, but it certainly varies. But rare is the caster that has more than one type of damaging spell that is good for the same situation. Simply having the correct resistance forces them to use different strategies than they are used to. If they always carry Fireball for hoards, a hoard of fire resistant or immune things is going to be a challenge, even if they also have some other means of damaging things. That is the same kind of challenge as what martials have to deal with. And, of course, that's not even getting into the fact that condition immunities are also quite common and can shut down many of a caster's favorite tricks.

The entire point here is to make it so characters can't just follow the exact same flow chart for every encounter. For a caster, that often means making their go to spells not ideal. For a martial that often means making their go to weapon not ideal. It does not mean making a caster unable to use any of their spells. A GWM fighter forced to choose between a half damage greatsword attack and a normal damage flail attack is similar to a Sorcerer being forced to pick between hitting a big hoard with a half damage fireball, or part of a hoard with a full damage Shatter. Making it so the sorcerer cannot hit it with anything unresisted is like not giving the martial a magic weapon in the first place, and that is not what I am advocating (even if I don't have a major problem with it).

[Pex]

Oddly enough, none touch on the issue, but sure, numbers are fun.

Second question first. Took me a bit to find a calculator that wasn't part of my work.
https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#two
Select Confidence level (95% or 99%), select confidence interval (How far off it can be, my original post said a 5% variable). Then a population. (I used the population of the US set at 329.5 million).

I was off when I said below 300, since I was just spitballing from memory. The sample size needed to be 95% accurate with a 5% variable on a population of 329.5 million is 384.

Now, to the other question, the actual percentage of people who are victim to Perceived value. I'm not and wasn't quote a flat %. Because it's irrelevent. Everyone is subject to perceived value. We just gave the example with you. A Mace of Disruption is more desirable than a +2 Mace, but ultimately they don't impact the plot or the difficulty, only your perceived enjoyment.

Likewise, the Perception of a huge discount nearly drove JC Penny to bankruptcy.

Everyday Advil outsells Up&Up Ibuprofin despite being identical products. Because one is name brand and thus perceived as more dependable.

You show it yourself, though in a different way than my initial point. You insist that you aren't victim to it, because you find +X boring and something extra cool. but again, either results in the DM planning encounters around that increased power, so it's all the same and also no different from no reward. The only thing that changes is how you, the player, feel about the issue.

Honestly, is Narsil a cool sword or a boring sword? Is it more or less significant than Sting? How about Glamdrig?

"The Sword of Elendil was forged anew by Elvish smiths, and on its blade was traced a device of seven stars set between the crescent Moon and the rayed Sun, and about them was written many runes; for Aragorn son of Arathorn was going to war upon the marches of Mordor. Very bright was that sword when it was made whole again; the light of the sun shone redly in it, and the light of the moon shone cold, and its edge was hard and keen. And Aragorn gave it a new name and called it Andúril, Flame of the West."

Is the sword less cool because it never does anything and is likely just a +x?

https://culinarylore.com/food-history:aw-1-3-pound-burger-failure-fact-check-are-americans-really-that-bad-at-fractions/

[Hytheter]

People value +X more than they do more "interesting" abilities. Why? In part because the benefit is constant and obvious and they don't require attunement.

It obviously varies by table but this is a huge factor in my experience. A whole host of magic gear would see more use if it wasn't limited by the attunement bottleneck.

[ad_hoc]

That said, the monk and druid features ARE kind-of ribbons in most campaigns, because most campaigns ARE going to hand out magic weapons. Maybe not like candy, but they'll be common enough that this really just lets the monk and druid not need to sigh and never use their unarmed/natural attacks again.

How do you know that?


Not to mention, I can't think of any spell caster I've ever played with, including myself, that would cast Magical Weapon. Because Magical Weapon is a Concentration spell, and casters have far better, more effective things to Concentrate on.

Is the magic weapon a necessity or not?

If the Magic Weapon spell is not worth casting because it doesn't make a big enough difference how can you then also turn around and say a magic weapon is necessary?


And I'd say no, even in a world where there are no Magic Weapons to be found, the spell Magic Weapon is a terrible choice. Sure it gives one party member a 50% damage boost, but compare that to the rest of the Concentration spells. Is 50% more damage really just as strong as granting party members immunity to different conditions, resistance to certain damage types, flat out removing enemies from combat with a single spell, denying spell casters 90% of their spell list, reshaping the entire battlefield in whatever way you see fit, and more? I don't think so. I'd still be casting Hold Person, Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Hypnotic Pattern, Fear, Banishment, ect. over Magic Weapon because a 50% damage boost is literally nothing when you can just stop an enemy from taking any actions at all. Cause even if your martials are doing .5 of their usual damage, if the enemy is doing 0, then you're gonna win.

Now if it wasn't a Concentration spell, then it'd be worth something. But as it is, its only use is if the Caster has little to no intention of joining the encounter at all.



Magic Weapon is a Bonus Action and it works 100% of the time.

Hold Person is an Action and the target gets to make a saving throw.

Magic Weapon is one of the strongest 2nd level spells.

[Carlobrand]

Then you are part of a minority. The statistics don't lie. More people are happy with perceived benefit than with acknowledging that they're alright as is. ...

A weapon being a big deal is on the DM and the player's, not on how many mechanical boosts it has or doesn't have.

You can add me to the minority. I seriously doubt that studies of bargain shoppers in retail outlets have much application to the situation of a gamer sitting across from someone he knows who hands him a prize with a smile and then nerfs the prize. Your last line holds more truth than your first: much depends on how it's handled. A magic weapon could and should be a ticket to a slightly higher level of challenge. However, if that comes as the same old monsters but in better armor, I'm going to feel cheated.

[stoutstien]

You can add me to the minority. I seriously doubt that studies of bargain shoppers in retail outlets have much application to the situation of a gamer sitting across from someone he knows who hands him a prize with a smile and then nerfs the prize. Your last line holds more truth than your first: much depends on how it's handled. A magic weapon could and should be a ticket to a slightly higher level of challenge. However, if that comes as the same old monsters but in better armor, I'm going to feel cheated.

Not to mention that particular study was purposely done to misdirect people away from all the really shady things that the board was doing that had equal or greater impact on the company. The same company in the same time frame found that they lost almost 40% of their talent/people that have been with them for five plus years. They also had almost a 400% increase in legal penalties and fines. Coupled that with the pattern of decline due to the failure to modernize and gain an online presence and giving out huge bonuses to it top tier they were screwed before any retail flop of global retail chain decline like we have had.

But hey sure blame the lack of sales during a short period of time rather than the train wreck it's been for years.
"We haven't made any money in almost 20 years let's try a new pricing policy."
**New policy has no impacts**
"Your idea ruined us!"

[EggKookoo]

I imagine the people who routinely post in this forum are the equivalent of savvy shoppers (e.g. those generally resistant to marketing tricks) when it comes to D&D and TTRPGs in general.

[KorvinStarmast]

It obviously varies by table but this is a huge factor in my experience. A whole host of magic gear would see more use if it wasn't limited by the attunement bottleneck. I am glad about the attunement requirement for some items. (Though why broom of flying isn't an attunement item still has me puzzled). I dislike the artificer "you get to attune more items" nonsense.

Attunement forces me to make a choice if the magic item finding starts to build a bit. I am currently faced with a choice, at high level, of keeping my tattoo (rare, attunement, and as far as I am concerned, never gonna give it up), my bard instrument, which I usually keep attuned since I am a bard, and either the ring of evasion, or the necklace of non detection, or the ioun stone of reserve and now, maybe, the flame tongue sword. I have to think ahead to "what am I going to be doing?" and perhaps un attune one of them, put in into the bag of holding, and attune another one. These choices made are based on what I am doing.

For example, often when I travel I make sure to attune the necklace so that those who do not care for our group can't scry on me. This in one case allowed us to pull a bit of misdirection on an opponent.

That cittern has been with me since early Tier 2, but sometimes, it's not what I need and I'll attune that ioun stone. That sword I have a special place for and it's only in my possession due to our blade lock finding a better one. (Backbiter). My moon touched rapier has been at my side for 10 or 11 levels.

[loki_ragnarock]

Is the magic weapon a necessity or not?

If the Magic Weapon spell is not worth casting because it doesn't make a big enough difference how can you then also turn around and say a magic weapon is necessary?
Coming in late, but doesn't that particular magic sword cut both ways?

If you don't need magic weapons to play the game, then Magic Weapon is a bit a silly spell, yeah?
But if you do need magic weapons to play the game, then Magic Weapon is a bit of a silly spell, yeah?

[Xervous]

Coming in late, but doesn't that particular magic sword cut both ways?

If you don't need magic weapons to play the game, then Magic Weapon is a bit a silly spell, yeah?
But if you do need magic weapons to play the game, then Magic Weapon is a bit of a silly spell, yeah?

Mom says it’s my turn on the magic weapon! Let me guess the answer to two fighters one wizard, it’s someone other than the fighters who has the final vote on one fighter getting the spotlight?

[KorvinStarmast]

Mom says it’s my turn on the magic weapon! Let me guess the answer to two fighters one wizard, it’s someone other than the fighters who has the final vote on one fighter getting the spotlight? Twin spell is here, :smallbiggrin: and he'd like to get recognized. (Only for sorcerers though)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Coming in late, but doesn't that particular magic sword cut both ways?

If you don't need magic weapons to play the game, then Magic Weapon is a bit a silly spell, yeah?
But if you do need magic weapons to play the game, then Magic Weapon is a bit of a silly spell, yeah?

You don't need magic weapons, but magic weapon is a boost in those few times when having a magic weapon makes a difference.

Just like if you never go underwater, waterbreathing is a silly spell. Situational spells are situational.

Now if magic weapons are presumed to be required by level 6, then yes. It's an absolute waste of a spell.

Which says that maybe (just maybe, hear me out here) the assumption that everyone should have a magic weapon by level 6 isn't the best one?

[Amnestic]

Twin spell is here, :smallbiggrin: and he'd like to get recognized. (Only for sorcerers though)

Though I would let it work, that wouldn't work by RAW - Magic Weapon targets one weapon, and Twinned spell requires the spell to target only one creature.

[Boci]

The reality is, any and every magic item you get is now a tool you have that most DMs will take into account as an ability you have. It's the same as my noting that 2 members of the party have Healing magic, so I can have encounters deal more damage without overwhelming or forcing a ton of down time. It's the same as my Throwing in more waves of smaller enemies once the Sorcerer has Fireball, so that they have a good reason to use Fireball and have it be cool.

No, that's just wrong. Fighting more enemies because you are more powerful/have more healing is an appreciable difference of the game experience. Fighting the same enemy with 1 higher AC because you now have a +1 sword, the context you yourself offered me, is not an appreciable difference. So no, these are very much not the same.


Not to mention that particular study was purposely done to misdirect people away from all the really shady things that the board was doing that had equal or greater impact on the company. The same company in the same time frame found that they lost almost 40% of their talent/people that have been with them for five plus years. They also had almost a 400% increase in legal penalties and fines. Coupled that with the pattern of decline due to the failure to modernize and gain an online presence and giving out huge bonuses to it top tier they were screwed before any retail flop of global retail chain decline like we have had.

But hey sure blame the lack of sales during a short period of time rather than the train wreck it's been for years.
"We haven't made any money in almost 20 years let's try a new pricing policy."
**New policy has no impacts**
"Your idea ruined us!"

Yeah, I found an article that talked about the on going decline of JCPenney and it mentioned several contributing factors, the removal of bogus sales was not one of them.

[Carlobrand]

...
Which says that maybe (just maybe, hear me out here) the assumption that everyone should have a magic weapon by level 6 isn't the best one?

Generically, lacking specific information on a specific DM's style, it's a good assumption; it represents the average, at least from my experience. Whether or not it applies to a specific DM is up to that DM, but it's probably a good idea for the DM to be clear with their group from the outset regarding their style of play if it departs significantly from the average.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Generically, lacking specific information on a specific DM's style, it's a good assumption; it represents the average, at least from my experience. Whether or not it applies to a specific DM is up to that DM, but it's probably a good idea for the DM to be clear with their group from the outset regarding their style of play if it departs significantly from the average.

Except that's no system assumption. In fact, it's directly counter to the system's default and explicit statement (see Xanathar's sidebar). So I'd say that assuming you'd have magic weapons by level 6 is the thing that needs to get flagged, not the reverse.

[loki_ragnarock]

You don't need magic weapons, but magic weapon is a boost in those few times when having a magic weapon makes a difference.

Just like if you never go underwater, waterbreathing is a silly spell. Situational spells are situational.

Now if magic weapons are presumed to be required by level 6, then yes. It's an absolute waste of a spell.

Which says that maybe (just maybe, hear me out here) the assumption that everyone should have a magic weapon by level 6 isn't the best one?

If we're going for nuance, then waterbreathing is still significantly less silly in those areas where it is applicable; it can determine whether you can function at all in a situation as a YES or NO. Magic Weapon, though? It's a combat, and in most cases the guy with the non-magic sword gets to do half damage, with a handful of cases where they can't do damage at all. But that still leaves grappling, shoving, etc. available to the guy with the mundane sword; they can still act in combat. For the wizard, it's always going to be a question of whether or not it's better for them to use their concentration to do something else; when you need to breath water, there is no such consideration, as you live or die by the presence of the spell. When you need to navigate combat - the only scenario where magic weapon is likely to apply - the same MU is presented with a variety of levers to pull of varying efficacy.

So waterbreathing (ritual, multiple targets, 24hour duaration, no concentration) is significantly less silly than magic weapon (spell slot, one target, one hour, concentration,).

If magic weapon didn't suck in concentration or target only one weapon (happy fighter, sad rogue), I'd give the whole argument a thumbs up. But as it's written, a 50% - (undefined, can't divide by zero)% increase in damage for one character (in the *optimal* use case) is going to be weighed up against the -100% damage of just taking enemy actions... or letting allies fly, or hasting them, etc.
Which is to say, Magic Weapon as the best option is so vanishingly niche as to make waterbreathing look mainstream. Especially when the opportunity cost starts to become someone else's good time.

If the expectation is that the party MU is going to be enabling the joyful play of others, Magic Weapon needs some serious tweeking to fit the bill.
If you don't *need* a magic weapon, then you don't need the spell.
If you need a magic weapon... just give players magic weapons so the MU can do their own thing, even if it's just a moontouched scimitar - the need is filled without touching the rest of the underlying math.


There's reasons not to; games take a variety of tones. Playstyles vary. I enjoy pumpkin spice and champions as much as I do herbs de province and illusionists. I understand why people might not want to. I can imagine any number of scenarios where a magic weapon is *nice* or *convenient*, but fewer where it is strictly necessary.

[sithlordnergal]

Is the magic weapon a necessity or not?

If the Magic Weapon spell is not worth casting because it doesn't make a big enough difference how can you then also turn around and say a magic weapon is necessary?


Magic Weapon being a bad spell and martials requiring magic weapons to remain relevant aren't mutually exclusive. A martial needs some way to deal with resistance against non-magical weapons. However, I find Magic Weapon is a terrible spell to cast 99% of the time, even if the martial classes are dealing with resistance they can't bypass.




Magic Weapon is a Bonus Action and it works 100% of the time.

Hold Person is an Action and the target gets to make a saving throw.

Magic Weapon is one of the strongest 2nd level spells.

Sure, Magic Weapon is a bonus action that works 100% of the time, but it is far from one of the strongest 2nd level spells. I find spells like Darkness, Cloud of Daggers, Phantasmal Force, Ray of Enfeeblement, and Invisibility have far more use and utility. Heck, Ray of Enfeeblement doesn't even give an initial Con save the end the effect, so you're guaranteed to halve the damage from the target till the end of their turn, provided they use Strength based attacks.

And that's just the Wizard's spell list. Things don't get much better when you're a Paladin, because now its competing with Bless, Divine Favor, Heroism, the Smite spells, Shield of Faith, Divine Smite, and, if you're a Devotion Paladin, Sacred Weapon. As for the Artificer...you can just make a +1 weapon at level 2, along with a Returning Weapon if you have two Martials in need of magical weapons. You never need to bother with the Magic Weapon spell at all.

Now, if it was on, say, the Cleric's spell list or it didn't require Concentration, then I could see myself using it. Clerics don't have that many amazing Concentration spells when compared to the Wizard or Paladin, and unless you're a Forge Cleric, you can't make magical weapon effectively at will like the Artificer. But its only available to Wizards, Paladins, and Artificers, so its stuck competing with all of their Concentration spells.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

No, that's just wrong. Fighting more enemies because you are more powerful/have more healing is an appreciable difference of the game experience. Fighting the same enemy with 1 higher AC because you now have a +1 sword, the context you yourself offered me, is not an appreciable difference. So no, these are very much not the same.

I'm realizing you seem to take everything literally and maybe that's where our problem spikes up.

I took the AC thing because someone else mentioned it so it kept a same context example. When I say increase AC I don't mean "I'm going to change this generic Drow's AC from 15 to 16". I mean "Alright, they've been fighting Drow, but over the last few levels they increased their strength and hit the next tier in their Proficiency bonus. Hmm, this new critter with an AC 19 might be a bit much. But, (Fighter) was saying he hopes to find a magic weapon, I'll make sure that item is a +1 when it comes up.

At no point am I just fudging stats to keep them the same. I AM increasing difficulty as they increase power and I AM taking into account the things they can do when I design encounters.

All of this drags to the side of the actual discussion though. You have said you find +X boring (Again, that is the feeling I get from your stance here, if I am wrong, please clarify). More specifically that you want finding a magic item to be meaningful. I'm still curious how you feel the description and the DM's effort isn't what makes it meaningful or not, vs the mechanics. For better or worse you keep avoiding that particular discussion.

[Boci]

At no point am I just fudging stats to keep them the same. I AM increasing difficulty as they increase power and I AM taking into account the things they can do when I design encounters.

That was the context of the discussion you entered (the comment that I initially responded to from another poster said to increase the AC of monsters, not rebalance encounters), and the only concrete example you have was AC 19 vs. AC 20 with a +1 weapon, which was literally that. I don't think the problem if me interpreting things too literally.


More specifically that you want finding a magic item to be meaningful. I'm still curious how you feel the description and the DM's effort isn't what makes it meaningful or not, vs the mechanics. For better or worse you keep avoiding that particular discussion.

Yeah sure magic items with backstories and fluff and lore are good. Not sure what other kind of answer you were expecting.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

That was the context of the discussion you entered (the comment that I initially responded to from another poster said to increase the AC of monsters, not rebalance encounters), and the only concrete example you have was AC 19 vs. AC 20 with a +1 weapon, which was literally that. I don't think the problem if me interpreting things too literally.

You took a singular example of one aspect of increasing difficulty as the literal and only interpretation of anything despite numerous comments about increasing difficulty in general, tailoring encounters to the party's abilities, etc.


Yeah sure magic items with backstories and fluff and lore are good. Not sure what other kind of answer you were expecting.

The entire context of this thread has been +X are bad, a secondary aspect of this has been that they're bad because they're boring. Your initial statement was that you wouldn't want a +X weapon and you compared it to getting a weapon that was meaningful to the story.

My point there is that how meaningful a weapon is to the story is based on how it is presented in the story, not what it does. Hence examples of things like Narsil which is most likely just a +x weapon, vs Sting, which is a sword that detects goblins.

If items having backstories and fluff and lore are the metric, then it being a +X or something else isn't really an issue, which was the point I was going for.

[ad_hoc]

Generically, lacking specific information on a specific DM's style, it's a good assumption; it represents the average, at least from my experience. Whether or not it applies to a specific DM is up to that DM, but it's probably a good idea for the DM to be clear with their group from the outset regarding their style of play if it departs significantly from the average.

Is it really the average though or is that just your experience (which is highly limited b/c everyone's is).

When we talk about average or normal amount of magic items we should be using what is written in the DMG (and later Xanathar's). Both the treasure hoard tables and the monster CR calculations make it clear that magic weapons are not assumed until much later in the game than level 6.

Personally I would start expecting a magic weapon once we get to level 11+. I don't think it's a guarantee but I would think most of the time there would be weapons by then in an average campaign.

[Valmark]

That was the context of the discussion you entered (the comment that I initially responded to from another poster said to increase the AC of monsters, not rebalance encounters), and the only concrete example you have was AC 19 vs. AC 20 with a +1 weapon, which was literally that. I don't think the problem if me interpreting things too literally.


Do you mean when I talked about Bounded Accuracy not mattering more then normal with +X weapons? Or was it somebody else?

Because I never said you should just straight up give everything a +1 to AC.

[ad_hoc]

Here is the math of Magic Weapon against a creature with resistance to non-magic weapons.

Level 5. 18 stat. Dueling fighting style. Longsword. Extra attack.

Mundane:

2d8+12 * .65 /2 = 7

Magic Weapon:

2d8+14 * .7 = 16

Over 3 rounds that is 27 damage for a Bonus Action level 2 spell. It might be lost before the 3 rounds is up but it might also carry on to the next battle as it lasts 1 hour. Add in damage from a Cantrip on the turn it is cast (2d10 * .65 = 7) and we're up to 34 damage.

What other level 2 combat spells are going to do that? Spiritual Weapon is good as it doesn't use Concentration but it doesn't last for up to an hour and the damage is going to be lower. Summon Beast is also good for a 1 hour Concentration spell and can be cast in advance of combat. They are on different spell lists though and serve different purposes.

Magic Weapon is superior to Hold Person here (though the math changes around with differences in AC and saves I still think Magic Weapon is going to come out on top by a mile). Invisibility has an entirely different purpose though I also have it in my top 10 2nd level spells as it has a big impact on the game (though not nearly as much as Pass Without Trace).

[Boci]

Your initial statement was that you wouldn't want a +X weapon and you compared it to getting a weapon that was meaningful to the story.

No, you misunderstood me again. I said:

"Then finding a magic sword can be a special event, not something that always happens"

The implication here is that a +1 weapon is going to be special even without a backstory, if it doesn't happen all the time. A cool backstory and some lore never hurts, but if finding magical weapons are rare, you don't need them to be special, simply finding one, and never learning the backstory, in of itself will be special, if that's not an every game occurrence.


Do you mean when I talked about Bounded Accuracy not mattering more then normal with +X weapons? Or was it somebody else?

Because I never said you should just straight up give everything a +1 to AC.

You said "increase the AC of monsters". Not "use different monsters/encounter designs". And when I queried you on that you didn't say no. So maybe that's not what you meant, but I don't think I;m to blame for that misunderstanding.

[Valmark]

You said "increase the AC of monsters". Not "use different monsters/encounter designs". And when I queried you on that you didn't say no. So maybe that's not what you meant, but I don't think I;m to blame for that misunderstanding.

You asked me if a +1 weapon was simpler then giving a +3 weapon and increasing ACs by 2.

To which I replied "I guess, if you want to do that, doesn't change the math" or something similar. You didn't ask me wether one should just increase ACs or change encounters' difficulties- that said, misunderstandings aren't really a big deal once resolved. I hope it's clearer now.

[dafrca]

The implication here is that a +1 weapon is going to be special even without a backstory, if it doesn't happen all the time. A cool backstory and some lore never hurts, but if finding magical weapons are rare, you don't need them to be special, simply finding one, and never learning the backstory, in of itself will be special, if that's not an every game occurrence.
Back in my early D&D days I had a GM who gave out +1 Swords like they were candy on Halloween Night.

I started to collect them and over time outfitted my whole castle guard unit with +1 Swords (old AD&D when we built strongholds using the table in the DMG LOL). What you are saying rings true based on my past experience. The rest of the party gave me the +1 Swords for my castle guards because the swords got to the point they held no special meaning other than just a stronger sword. The special was lost. Not the fault of the poor +1 Swords of course, GMs and Players who were too young and didn't understand the true impact of the give away. But still later when we began to pump the breaks on the magic that the swords (and other magic) returned to something special and valued. :smallsmile:

[Pixel_Kitsune]

No, you misunderstood me again. I said:

"Then finding a magic sword can be a special event, not something that always happens"

The implication here is that a +1 weapon is going to be special even without a backstory, if it doesn't happen all the time. A cool backstory and some lore never hurts, but if finding magical weapons are rare, you don't need them to be special, simply finding one, and never learning the backstory, in of itself will be special, if that's not an every game occurrence.

That is, indeed, my misunderstanding then. My apologies.

[Angelalex242]

If there was a castle full of sword+1s, everyone everywhere would be trying to raid it. They might lose a lot, but those swords really do help.

[Ralanr]

If there was a castle full of sword+1s, everyone everywhere would be trying to raid it. They might lose a lot, but those swords really do help.

All you need to do is fight the golem. It's made of +1 swords.

And the dragon?

Also +1 swords.

[Dark.Revenant]

A while back, I played in a game where an ordinary steel sword would have been a greater treasure than the party had earned, in total, over six months of play. Magic is overrated.

[Ralanr]

A while back, I played in a game where an ordinary steel sword would have been a greater treasure than the party had earned, in total, over six months of play. Magic is overrated.

Say you played Dark Sun without saying you played Dark Sun. :smallbiggrin:

[JNAProductions]

I'm of the opinion that the biggest issue with +X Items is they're boring.

They don't break the game-they bend it a bit, but unless you really let PCs stack up on +Numbers, it'll be fine.

But they're just dull. I saw the early example of the throwing shield, and that's interesting-not useful, unfortunately, and so should be tweaked to be actually useful, but the concept is neat.

Also, on the general magic item debate, I feel that magic weapons of an appropriate type (not necessarily optimal type, but at least somewhat in line with the martials' abilities) late T2 to early T3. Monks get magic fists at 6th level, so I don't mind them feeling special for a couple levels before the weapon-users get their own magical tools.

[Pex]

It obviously varies by table but this is a huge factor in my experience. A whole host of magic gear would see more use if it wasn't limited by the attunement bottleneck.

I do like the attunement system. I wouldn't mind an increase in the limit as the levels progress, but I'm ok with it as is. Too many magic items can be a problem. This is a good check on the game. However, in my usual cynical thought a DM might view it as give lots of magic items and let the players figure it out. It becomes an "interesting dilemma" for the player to decide which magic item to use and which to not. On the other hand, even players could enjoy having to make that choice. Any fun game in general is about a choice of interesting decisions. Having to make the choice between magic items is the fun.

Still, too many magic items is an issue DMs need to learn how to handle and prevent. However, the solution is NOT no magic items at all, only give consumables, and/or nothing permanent that helps in combat.

[Hytheter]

To be clear, I don't dislike the attunement system for what it does, I just feel it's applied more liberally than it should have been such a lot of the items that require attunement aren't worth that cost.

[Pex]

You don't need magic weapons, but magic weapon is a boost in those few times when having a magic weapon makes a difference.

Just like if you never go underwater, waterbreathing is a silly spell. Situational spells are situational.

Now if magic weapons are presumed to be required by level 6, then yes. It's an absolute waste of a spell.

Which says that maybe (just maybe, hear me out here) the assumption that everyone should have a magic weapon by level 6 isn't the best one?

No, the assumption remains Magic Weapon is a silly spell. However, I will grant it is useful for low level games when it is most likely a warrior won't have a magic weapon but needs one to fight particular monsters, such as Intellect Devourers and Flame Skulls. It is not an unusual thing for a low level spell to be good when it first comes online but fades out in usefulness as the levels progress. The 3rd level wizard casting Magic Weapon on the weapon of the 3rd level fighter is a good deal. The 10th level wizard casting Magic Weapon on the weapon of the 10th level fighter is not.

[ad_hoc]

No, the assumption remains Magic Weapon is a silly spell. However, I will grant it is useful for low level games when it is most likely a warrior won't have a magic weapon but needs one to fight particular monsters, such as Intellect Devourers and Flame Skulls. It is not an unusual thing for a low level spell to be good when it first comes online but fades out in usefulness as the levels progress. The 3rd level wizard casting Magic Weapon on the weapon of the 3rd level fighter is a good deal. The 10th level wizard casting Magic Weapon on the weapon of the 10th level fighter is not.

10th level is still in Tier 2 and still reasonable to not have a magic weapon. I'll grant more often than not in an average game a player is going to have a magic weapon by that point. Certainly after level 11 the odds of not having one is low enough to not worry about in general.

Certainly 6th level is reasonable not to have one. Level 5-6 is Magic Weapon's sweet spot. Some monsters are going to pop up here and there that have resistance and most likely a character isn't going to have a magic weapon yet. Paladins and post-Tasha's Rangers are going to cast it on themselves and Wizards and post-Tasha's Sorcerers are going to get a good use out of their 2nd level slot while their 3rd level slots are still very valuable.

[Pex]

10th level is still in Tier 2 and still reasonable to not have a magic weapon. I'll grant more often than not in an average game a player is going to have a magic weapon by that point. Certainly after level 11 the odds of not having one is low enough to not worry about in general.

Certainly 6th level is reasonable not to have one. Level 5-6 is Magic Weapon's sweet spot. Some monsters are going to pop up here and there that have resistance and most likely a character isn't going to have a magic weapon yet. Paladins and post-Tasha's Rangers are going to cast it on themselves and Wizards and post-Tasha's Sorcerers are going to get a good use out of their 2nd level slot while their 3rd level slots are still very valuable.

We disagree on what level is reasonable.

Admitted strawman but I still think relevant: The power strength of the magic weapon is a different matter. A "boring" +1 long sword or a +0 longsword that does +1d4 fire damage is fine for 5th level. Frostbrand is for 11th level or so. (Not that it must be a Frostbrand.) I'm fine the paladin gets a holy avenger, if he gets one, at 17th level or so. Also relevant is how many magic items, but that's a different thread. :smallyuk:

[Dark.Revenant]

One time, I let a 6th-level character have a Ring of Fire Elemental Command, a legendary magic item.

It was fine. It was useful at 6th level for the spells, and now at 20th level it’s mostly useful for the fire immunity. It’s not a +X item, crucially.

I like items that offer an expansion of character identity. New mechanics, new twists on existing mechanics, or numerical bonuses to things that you’d normally rarely have numerical bonuses to (such as a Belt of X Giant Strength on a Lore Bard). It’s when the items are just there to pump the primary combat stats that you enter dangerous territory. *Those* items are why you have to start adjusting encounters in order for the game to keep up with the party.

[EggKookoo]

To be clear, I don't dislike the attunement system for what it does, I just feel it's applied more liberally than it should have been such a lot of the items that require attunement aren't worth that cost.

See also concentration.

[Hytheter]

See also concentration.

Yuuup.

I mean, I guess at the end of the day it's safer to be more conservative with these things, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. :P

[loki_ragnarock]

See also concentration.

Insert dissenting opinion on both.

[Ralanr]

I'm generally ok with concentration though there are a few instances where I don't think it should be applied (like the Tasha ranger ability that requires it. Just...WHY?!).

[EggKookoo]

I like concentration. I just would have preferred that we got the final version of the mechanic instead of the first-draft version.

[Ralanr]

I like concentration. I just would have preferred that we got the final version of the mechanic instead of the first-draft version.

How do you mean?

[loki_ragnarock]

How do you mean?
Discussed in a different thread. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637588-Dumb-Questions)

[Valmark]

Discussed in a different thread. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637588-Dumb-Questions)

I could be wrong but I don't think there's anything there about a final version/first draft.

[EggKookoo]

I wasn't being literal.

[Carlobrand]

Is it really the average though or is that just your experience (which is highly limited b/c everyone's is).

When we talk about average or normal amount of magic items we should be using what is written in the DMG (and later Xanathar's). Both the treasure hoard tables and the monster CR calculations make it clear that magic weapons are not assumed until much later in the game than level 6.

Personally I would start expecting a magic weapon once we get to level 11+. I don't think it's a guarantee but I would think most of the time there would be weapons by then in an average campaign.

I dunno, maybe. It's not uncommon here for the big bosses to have a magic weapon to use against us, and by level 6 you've gone through maybe 200-300 monsters and probably several boss-types depending on challenge level. However, I was running numbers and - while there is a slight chance of gaining a magic level as early as level 1 using the DMG random charts - it's only about 1.8 % per hoard. Only goes up to about 2.1% per hoard for the Challenge 5-10 hoards.

On the other hand, the wizard can start making +1 magic weapons at level 3, unless the game master imposes some restraining factor. Used to be you needed a feat to be able to do that, but 5e dropped that. Even factoring in a restraining factor, there's likely to be no shortage of magic-weapon-making wizards in the big city serving the needs of the nobles and the other one-percenters, unless it's one whopping big restraining factor, in which case the 5e values for magic items goes out the window because the elite are going to bid up the price big-time to serve their own needs.

So, maybe my case is atypical, but the game magic-making rules are way out of sync with the game treasure system, so really it comes down to what most DMs are doing. We're an older group harking back to before the 1st Edition, so things tend to go more like they went in those old adventure modules - which to be honest were rather generous about handing out the magic.


A while back, I played in a game where an ordinary steel sword would have been a greater treasure than the party had earned, in total, over six months of play. Magic is overrated.

Kinda depends on the setting, don't you think? Playing in a bronze age or early iron age setting could be a lot of fun, but I wouldn't want to be in a steel-sword-is-a-mighty-treasure world if I were facing vampires, shadows, and wraiths. I'd rather have some magic to back me up against such foes.

[KorvinStarmast]

Even factoring in a restraining factor, there's likely to be no shortage of magic-weapon-making wizards in the big city serving the needs of the nobles and the other one-percenters, unless it's one whopping big restraining factor, in which case the 5e values for magic items goes out the window because the elite are going to bid up the price big-time to serve their own needs. Kinda depends on the setting, don't you think? And IIRC, you still need a formula to craft that sword during downtime, right? (Don't have DMG to hand, might be remembering that incorrectly).

[Carlobrand]

Kinda depends on the setting, don't you think? And IIRC, you still need a formula to craft that sword during downtime, right? (Don't have DMG to hand, might be remembering that incorrectly).

More on the gamemaster than the setting: he'd have to introduce some rationale to the setting that explains the paucity, given that concentrations of wealthy people in a big city are a tremendous incentive for a wizard to figure out how to do it. And yes, there's mention of a formula. The formula could be a closely guarded secret - would almost certainly be a closely guarded secret - but the demand side of that equation would still result in some wizard's guild forming up around the secret formula to meet the demand and profit from it. Rich people love to spend on things that are hard to come by. So, while that might knock the party wizard out of the equation, it doesn't necessarily stop the party from going to the big city in hope of buying one from the folk who hold the secret.

As to rationales, there could for example be laws restricting sale of such items to individuals of noble birth, though that might lead to problems when the party encountered one in a trove or took one from a defeated opponent. There could be exceptionally rare or unusual ingredients, but that moves the sword from the "uncommon" category to rare or very rare, which is fine if that's what the DM wants to do, but I was going from what exists in the DMG. Maybe the wizard's guild with the secret is very elitist and simply won't sell to adventurers.

500 GP is a lot of money - that's more than 1500 modest meals or 9 months pay for a skilled hireling - but the party should have gathered that several times over by the time it reaches level 6. The average haul from a challenge 0-4 opponent is over 5 GP (which seems high to me, but that's the math), and it's very roughly 200-300 monsters defeated per player to get to level 6, and the average haul from a single challenge 0-4 treasure horde is 375 gp, excluding magic found. Even allowing for expenses along the way, I suspect most parties have built up a pretty nice nest egg by level 6.

The GM would either need to come up with a good rationale that didn't involve circumstances which would raise the price beyond the DMG model, or he'd have to bite the bullet and move the swords up in rarity, or he could just do it by fiat and accept that the player with the economics background is going to grinch about it being unrealistic.

[Dark.Revenant]

I dunno, maybe. It's not uncommon here for the big bosses to have a magic weapon to use against us, and by level 6 you've gone through maybe 200-300 monsters and probably several boss-types depending on challenge level. However, I was running numbers and - while there is a slight chance of gaining a magic level as early as level 1 using the DMG random charts - it's only about 1.8 % per hoard. Only goes up to about 2.1% per hoard for the Challenge 5-10 hoards.

If you count all the items that can be used as weapons and are magical, then a Tier 1 horde gives you about 0.09 magic weapons—or rather, 11 hordes typically yields one magic weapon. That's not exactly 9% per horde, statistically, but it's definitely much higher than 1.8%. And for a Tier 2 horde, it's about 0.13 magic weapons per horde (<8 hordes yields a magic weapon). Then Tier 3 goes up to 0.175 per horde (<6 hordes yields a magic weapon) and Tier 4 gives you 0.23 per horde (>4 hordes yields a magic weapon).

All told, by level 6, by the DMG guidelines, there's a fairly good chance that the party has rolled one magic weapon of some sort—whether it be a magical staff, a non +X weapon, or a good old +1 weapon. The odds of this weapon actually fitting one of the characters' builds is fairly low, but flukes do happen. Statistically, this system would provide one magic weapon per member of a four-person party by about level 13–15, on average. By the end of a full-length campaign, that number will probably reach 7—with a distribution looking sort of like one legendary, two very rare, one rare, and three uncommon.

[KorvinStarmast]

More on the gamemaster than the setting: he'd have to introduce some rationale to the setting that explains the paucity, given that concentrations of wealthy people in a big city are a tremendous incentive for a wizard to figure out how to do it. Only if you model the 'big city' on an industrial/information age big city. That's not required. I agree that a guild of the era this system very roughly tries to emulate would hold tightly to any formula any of them had: trade secrets can be serious wealth sources, and so we agree on part but not all of your next bit ...

The formula could be a closely guarded secret - would almost certainly be a closely guarded secret - but the demand side of that equation ... mostly is irrelevant because the supply is so tightly controlled that simple supply/demand equations don't apply ... and ... those unusual ingredients are usually only found through the adventuring process.

(There is also a chance for the crafting process to fail, but that's me porting in something we used in the original edition for magic research).

Magic items are, in general, not very common in the normal English sense of the word common, but are scarce.
Within that layer of scarcity, the "just how much harder than hen's teeth are these things to find?" calibration is where uncommon/rare/very rare and so on fits.

Our DM did this for the formula for an item I wanted to craft: the formula is a rarity treasure category, or two, higher than the item made from it. (Given your understanding of econ, I think you can see why that is).
I was still able to eventually get my hands on a formula - it cost me - and then make a moon touched rapier for myself and for our paladin, during two different down time stretches.

But a DM could have made the formula be like how I do it: when I check for spell scrolls in treasure hordes where one is indicated, I roll for a 5% chance that the scroll is instead a formula for making a magic item. (This is informed by the old "maps and magic" treasure rules from the original game). In other words, if a scroll's spell level is uncommon, per the DMG, there's a 5% chance that it contains the crafting formula for a common magic item. If it's a rare spell level, it may hold a formula for an uncommon magic item, or a common one ... and so on.

[PhoenixPhyre]

More on the gamemaster than the setting: he'd have to introduce some rationale to the setting that explains the paucity, given that concentrations of wealthy people in a big city are a tremendous incentive for a wizard to figure out how to do it. And yes, there's mention of a formula. The formula could be a closely guarded secret - would almost certainly be a closely guarded secret - but the demand side of that equation would still result in some wizard's guild forming up around the secret formula to meet the demand and profit from it. Rich people love to spend on things that are hard to come by. So, while that might knock the party wizard out of the equation, it doesn't necessarily stop the party from going to the big city in hope of buying one from the folk who hold the secret.

As to rationales, there could for example be laws restricting sale of such items to individuals of noble birth, though that might lead to problems when the party encountered one in a trove or took one from a defeated opponent. There could be exceptionally rare or unusual ingredients, but that moves the sword from the "uncommon" category to rare or very rare, which is fine if that's what the DM wants to do, but I was going from what exists in the DMG. Maybe the wizard's guild with the secret is very elitist and simply won't sell to adventurers.

500 GP is a lot of money - that's more than 1500 modest meals or 9 months pay for a skilled hireling - but the party should have gathered that several times over by the time it reaches level 6. The average haul from a challenge 0-4 opponent is over 5 GP (which seems high to me, but that's the math), and it's very roughly 200-300 monsters defeated per player to get to level 6, and the average haul from a single challenge 0-4 treasure horde is 375 gp, excluding magic found. Even allowing for expenses along the way, I suspect most parties have built up a pretty nice nest egg by level 6.

The GM would either need to come up with a good rationale that didn't involve circumstances which would raise the price beyond the DMG model, or he'd have to bite the bullet and move the swords up in rarity, or he could just do it by fiat and accept that the player with the economics background is going to grinch about it being unrealistic.

Note: no wizards required. You do not have to be a wizard or even a spell-caster to craft magic items. All you need is one of (appropriate tool proficiency) OR (arcana proficiency).

But there are two things at play here that drastically limit the "craftability/marketability" of magic items.

First, the formulae default to one step-rarer than the item itself. So that formula for a +1 shortsword? That's a Rare item (ie first really becomes available when facing CR 9+ threats). They're not generally thought of as "something you can just figure out"--they're secrets found through esoteric means. And there's nothing saying that there's a generic "+1 weapon" formula--it may be that the formula for a +1 dagger and a +1 maul are different. That latter's not required, but it's certainly in play.

Second, and more important, crafting an item requires a component found through adventure of an appropriate difficulty. For a +1 sword, that's facing a threat of CR 4-8. And that's per sword.

This means that you can't really turn them out unless you have ready access to a farm for high-power (relative to most settings) encounters. Remember that creatures above about CR 10 are commonly boss-type creatures or extraplanar threats. They're not something just lying around, and if there were bunches of people who could face them (to gather components), you wouldn't need the party.

The default is that magic items are rare (for non-adventurers) and not really made in this day and age. And when they are, they're effectively wondrous creations that can't be mass produced. If creating a (say) moon-touched blade were trivial, then why would anyone ever cast continual flame (with its 100 gp per cast component)--just make a moon-touched blade the size of a small sliver and stick it on a torch end. Etc.

[Carlobrand]

If you count all the items that can be used as weapons and are magical, then a Tier 1 horde gives you about 0.09 magic weapons—or rather, 11 hordes typically yields one magic weapon. ...

I was focused specifically on +1 magic weapons, since those are the items under discussion. I'm curious as to what other items you included. You mentioned a few, including magical staffs (and wands?) and I presume the weapon of warning. Are you including the sword of vengeance? I hadn't included cursed items, but I guess it's conceivable that a player might hold onto that one.


Only if you model the 'big city' on an industrial/information age big city. That's not required. I agree that a guild of the era this system very roughly tries to emulate would hold tightly to any formula any of them had: trade secrets can be serious wealth sources, and so we agree on part but not all of your next bit ...

... mostly is irrelevant because the supply is so tightly controlled that simple supply/demand equations don't apply ... and ... those unusual ingredients are usually only found through the adventuring process.

(There is also a chance for the crafting process to fail, but that's me porting in something we used in the original edition for magic research).

Magic items are, in general, not very common in the normal English sense of the word common, but are scarce.
Within that layer of scarcity, the "just how much harder than hen's teeth are these things to find?" calibration is where uncommon/rare/very rare and so on fits.

Our DM did this for the formula for an item I wanted to craft: the formula is a rarity treasure category, or two, higher than the item made from it. (Given your understanding of econ, I think you can see why that is).
I was still able to eventually get my hands on a formula - it cost me - and then make a moon touched rapier for myself and for our paladin, during two different down time stretches.

But a DM could have made the formula be like how I do it: when I check for spell scrolls in treasure hordes where one is indicated, I roll for a 5% chance that the scroll is instead a formula for making a magic item. (This is informed by the old "maps and magic" treasure rules from the original game). In other words, if a scroll's spell level is uncommon, per the DMG, there's a 5% chance that it contains the crafting formula for a common magic item. If it's a rare spell level, it may hold a formula for an uncommon magic item, or a common one ... and so on.

Umm, no, medieval big city, London for example. King, bunch of high nobles very eager to be close to court to ply their influence and reap the benefits thereof, other assorted nobility handling various royal duties, and so forth. I haven't seen anything that might indicate supply and demand mechanics would not apply in that situation. I don't see how it would be any different than a guild of master armorers making high-quality armor. The fact that supply is controlled doesn't alter the fact that there is demand from wealthy clients. If anything, it supports the price by keeping the party mage and other relatively low level mages from getting in on the business.

From there it gets tricky, how common are wizards (or other parties with the necessary skills and ability to follow that formula) being the real bottleneck. But the basic mechanics would still apply: the guild of magic weapon makers would expand operations enough to meet demand and profit from it while keeping a tight rein on members. To NOT meet demand could lead to dissatisfied nobles with the wealth and influence to make trouble for the guild. And the scarcity of the formula itself isn't really a factor: the guild either meets demands or makes enemies that are not wise to make. Heck, if word gets out that some hedge-wizard is making magic items, don't be terribly surprised when assassins show up to help correct the problem.

The guild might only make a few magic weapons a year to serve families seeking weapons for young noblemen coming of fighting age, and that only presuming the population is growing normally and they're making weapons for those young men who weren't able to inherit their elderly grandfather's weapons - but that still positions them to earn some extra gold by making a few weapons for your party if your party shows up shopping and there isn't some other logical restraint. The weapons would be scarce for the same reason medieval plate armor was scarce - the only buyers are the ones with the wealth and the need to buy them. But scarce is a relative term when making something that lasts a lifetime or longer. If the nobles are only 1% of the population, and allowing for children and other noncombatant types, that still means there are a few thousand magic weapons among a population of a million or so and maybe a dozen or so being added to that value annually - and a few leaking out each year as the occasional noble meets a bad end under circumstances that don't allow the recovery of his weapons and armor. Which makes them scarce as hens' teeth outside of noble circles but more common among nobles, so uncommon overall. So, you've got to have a decent reason why your players can't just trek to London and buy a couple or three magic weapons from the guild directly.

I'd still go with they're elitists who just won't make weapons for ruffians. It could get awkward for them if your little group bought from them and then decided to fight in support of Wat Tyler.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're still missing the "need a component from a hefty adventure per item" part. And creatures like that don't cluster around cities (rather the opposite most of the time). And not just any creature of the right CR range, but specific ones per different item.

Making magic items in 5e is not really scalable.

[ad_hoc]

If you count all the items that can be used as weapons and are magical, then a Tier 1 horde gives you about 0.09 magic weapons—or rather, 11 hordes typically yields one magic weapon. That's not exactly 9% per horde, statistically, but it's definitely much higher than 1.8%. And for a Tier 2 horde, it's about 0.13 magic weapons per horde (<8 hordes yields a magic weapon). Then Tier 3 goes up to 0.175 per horde (<6 hordes yields a magic weapon) and Tier 4 gives you 0.23 per horde (>4 hordes yields a magic weapon).

All told, by level 6, by the DMG guidelines, there's a fairly good chance that the party has rolled one magic weapon of some sort—whether it be a magical staff, a non +X weapon, or a good old +1 weapon. The odds of this weapon actually fitting one of the characters' builds is fairly low, but flukes do happen. Statistically, this system would provide one magic weapon per member of a four-person party by about level 13–15, on average. By the end of a full-length campaign, that number will probably reach 7—with a distribution looking sort of like one legendary, two very rare, one rare, and three uncommon.

7 0-4 treasure hoards, which is what is given as the average, yield 2.1 rolls on Table F and .21 rolls on Table G.

There is a 21% chance of finding a non-cursed magic weapon on Table F. .21 * 2.1 = .44 add another .05 from Table G rolls and we are at .49 of a magic weapon.

By level 6 let's say they have gotten 4 of the 18 5-10 hoards. That gives us .29 on Table F, .08 on Table G, and .01 on Table 5.

That gives us a grand total of .87 of a magic weapon. So on average a Level 6 group will not have gotten one yet.

I'm not going to go into standard deviation but that is a whole other thing. The treasure tables are super swingy as the good tables are rare but often result in many rolls (1d4). This means that many games are likely to have few items while a few others will have many items.

By level 7 a group should expect to have found 1 magic weapon but it wouldn't be entirely unlikely to not have found 1 until level 11.

The average group of 4 with 2 weapon users will want 2 of them and I think on average they will probably get there before Tier 2.

This is right in line with giving the Monk a chance to shine with magic fists and with Magic Weapon being very useful in levels 5 and 6.

[sithlordnergal]

Here is the math of Magic Weapon against a creature with resistance to non-magic weapons.

Level 5. 18 stat. Dueling fighting style. Longsword. Extra attack.

Mundane:

2d8+12 * .65 /2 = 7

Magic Weapon:

2d8+14 * .7 = 16

Over 3 rounds that is 27 damage for a Bonus Action level 2 spell. It might be lost before the 3 rounds is up but it might also carry on to the next battle as it lasts 1 hour. Add in damage from a Cantrip on the turn it is cast (2d10 * .65 = 7) and we're up to 34 damage.

What other level 2 combat spells are going to do that? Spiritual Weapon is good as it doesn't use Concentration but it doesn't last for up to an hour and the damage is going to be lower. Summon Beast is also good for a 1 hour Concentration spell and can be cast in advance of combat. They are on different spell lists though and serve different purposes.

Magic Weapon is superior to Hold Person here (though the math changes around with differences in AC and saves I still think Magic Weapon is going to come out on top by a mile). Invisibility has an entirely different purpose though I also have it in my top 10 2nd level spells as it has a big impact on the game (though not nearly as much as Pass Without Trace).

Magic Weapon can allow a single ally to do a decent amount of damage by removing Resistances. But that's part of the problem, it can only aid a single ally, and Sorcerer's don't get the spell. So unless you're playing a Paladin/Sorcerer or a Wizard/Sorcerer, you can't Twin Magic Weapon. Now lets compare it to Hold Person. Hold Person gives a saving throw, and can only target Humanoids. But the Paralyze condition is just insane. Attacks made within the creature are auto-crits, all attacks are made with advantage, the creature is Incapacitated, and the creature auto-fails Strength and Dex saves.

So while Magic Weapon is excellent when you're just looking at a lone Fighter, it actually loses out in a party. In fact, lets look at some math. We'll have the same Fighter you made, with a 18 in their attack stat, dueling, and a Longsword. We'll add a Cleric that wields a Mace but doesn't cast Spiritual Weapon and 16 Strength, a Rogue with a Rapier and 16 Dex, and the Wizard that casts Hold Person or Firebolt. Additionally, none of them will have magical weapons, and we'll assume Hold Person has been successful:

If you're curious where I got the percentages, I found a D&D Probability Calculator on Desmos, and the target AC is 15. I suspect you used 15 AC as well for your calculations:


---With Hold Person---

Fighter: (4d8+12 * 0.94)/2 = 14

Cleric: (2d6+3 * 0.93)/2 = 5

Rogue: (2d8+6d6+3 *0.93)/2 = 15

Total damage done that round: 34


---With Magic Weapon---

Fighter: 2d8+14 * .7 = 16

Cleric: (1d6+3 * 0.6)/2 = 2

Rogue: (1d8+3d6+3 * 0.6)/2 = 5

Wizard: 2d10*0.6 = 6

Total damage: 29

Now, provided the calculator program I used is correct, and I have every reason to believe it is, Hold Person allowed the party to out-damage the party that cast Magic Weapon. Keep in mind, the party with Hold Person was purposely gimped as well. The Cleric didn't use Spiritual Weapon or Inflict Wounds, the Rogue and Cleric both had a 16 in their attack stat and no feats to improve their damage, and the Wizard wasn't able to cast any other spells. I suspect adding those things would have made the gap in damage even wider. Not only that, but for at least one round, that held enemy could not do anything, thereby protecting the party from 100% of the damage that enemy could do.

You also have spells like Mind Spike, which is really handy if your DM throws you against something that likes to turn invisible/hide or if you need to track them, Phantasmal Force, which is either one of the strongest illusions in the game or the weakest depending on how your DM interprets " The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm.", Ray of Enfeeblement which halves all strength based damage and doesn't give a save till after the creature's turn, ect.

So yeah, I still hold that Magic Weapon is a terrible spell.

[Carlobrand]

You're still missing the "need a component from a hefty adventure per item" part. And creatures like that don't cluster around cities (rather the opposite most of the time). And not just any creature of the right CR range, but specific ones per different item.

Making magic items in 5e is not really scalable.

Not at all. First, the DMG rules say, "You can decide that certain items also require special materials or locations to be created." Nothing there saying it's mandated to do so, it's just one of the many things that's left to the DM's discretion. Can't speak to Xanatar, don't have it, but core rules leave a lot to the DM's discretion. So, if we postulate a guild in the big city, then we in turn postulate that said guild is able to secure the materials it needs; rules don't prevent that. If Baron Harkonnen wants a sword for his grandson's 18th birthday, he will get a sword for his grandson's 18th birthday. One does not disappoint the Baron. They'll hire parties of adventurers to go track down the needed parts. If humans are so motivated by profit that they'll spend weeks in caravan hauling spices from distant lands, or sail 15th century ships on lengthy and sometimes deadly voyages - and then come home to people who will actually pay enough money to make the trip and the dangers worth it - then they can certainly find a way to acquire the strange and exotic materials that they need to make the items they need in a fantasy world.

If one is deciding to keep to the suggested magic item costs, then the item in question would need to be one that can be acquired within the budget for the item. If you're paying a party of adventurers a couple hundred gold to find something for a +1 sword, then it's likely a pretty low level party, and the item is going to be something within their abilities to find and retrieve. Otherwise, you'd need to scrap the recommended values so that you could require the kind of exotic and difficult-to-find materials you wanted it to require. Keep in mind that it's all up to the DM and how he wants to structure his world: if he just flat doesn't want there to be a guild, then he can make requirements that make it impossible for a guild to exist - requiring freshly harvested materials, for example, or really exotic and isolated locales in which to create the items. But, that's entirely up to the DM and, if that's what he wants, then he's going to need to create those requirements. Given the very loose rule structure and the ways groups of people tend to operate - and the relative rarity of magic in the treasure section as compared to those very liberal rules - the default setting kinda lends itself toward a guild with a closely guarded secret formula and a tendency to serve only the powerful.

[ad_hoc]

Magic Weapon can allow a single ally to do a decent amount of damage by removing Resistances. But that's part of the problem, it can only aid a single ally, and Sorcerer's don't get the spell. So unless you're playing a Paladin/Sorcerer or a Wizard/Sorcerer, you can't Twin Magic Weapon. Now lets compare it to Hold Person. Hold Person gives a saving throw, and can only target Humanoids. But the Paralyze condition is just insane. Attacks made within the creature are auto-crits, all attacks are made with advantage, the creature is Incapacitated, and the creature auto-fails Strength and Dex saves.

So while Magic Weapon is excellent when you're just looking at a lone Fighter, it actually loses out in a party. In fact, lets look at some math. We'll have the same Fighter you made, with a 18 in their attack stat, dueling, and a Longsword. We'll add a Cleric that wields a Mace but doesn't cast Spiritual Weapon and 16 Strength, a Rogue with a Rapier and 16 Dex, and the Wizard that casts Hold Person or Firebolt. Additionally, none of them will have magical weapons, and we'll assume Hold Person has been successful:

If you're curious where I got the percentages, I found a D&D Probability Calculator on Desmos, and the target AC is 15. I suspect you used 15 AC as well for your calculations:


---With Hold Person---

Fighter: (4d8+12 * 0.94)/2 = 14

Cleric: (2d6+3 * 0.93)/2 = 5

Rogue: (2d8+6d6+3 *0.93)/2 = 15

Total damage done that round: 34


---With Magic Weapon---

Fighter: 2d8+14 * .7 = 16

Cleric: (1d6+3 * 0.6)/2 = 2

Rogue: (1d8+3d6+3 * 0.6)/2 = 5

Wizard: 2d10*0.6 = 6

Total damage: 29

Now, provided the calculator program I used is correct, and I have every reason to believe it is, Hold Person allowed the party to out-damage the party that cast Magic Weapon. Keep in mind, the party with Hold Person was purposely gimped as well. The Cleric didn't use Spiritual Weapon or Inflict Wounds, the Rogue and Cleric both had a 16 in their attack stat and no feats to improve their damage, and the Wizard wasn't able to cast any other spells. I suspect adding those things would have made the gap in damage even wider. Not only that, but for at least one round, that held enemy could not do anything, thereby protecting the party from 100% of the damage that enemy could do.

You also have spells like Mind Spike, which is really handy if your DM throws you against something that likes to turn invisible/hide or if you need to track them, Phantasmal Force, which is either one of the strongest illusions in the game or the weakest depending on how your DM interprets " The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm.", Ray of Enfeeblement which halves all strength based damage and doesn't give a save till after the creature's turn, ect.

So yeah, I still hold that Magic Weapon is a terrible spell.

I didn't use an AC I just went with the quicker method of using 65% but sure it's fine to be more exact.

What you didn't factor in are the rounds in which the monster saves against Hold Person (also Hold Person is a terrible example here as a creature with resistance to non-magic attacks probably isn't a humanoid) and the Hold Person does nothing.

Magic Weapon always works. There is no chance of failure. The humanoid can save against Hold Person, and save again in the next round and so on. Magic Weapon also has the chance to last for another combat.

Magic Weapon is also very very good for Paladins (and Rangers w/Tasha's additional spells). They aren't limited to a cantrip when they cast it, they get their full attack that round.

You're just wrong. Magic Weapon is one of the strongest 2nd level spells in the game (behind Continual Flame and Pass Without Trace).

I get it though, if you always play a Monty Haul game then of course you don't find it useful.

[sithlordnergal]

I didn't use an AC I just went with the quicker method of using 65% but sure it's fine to be more exact.

What you didn't factor in are the rounds in which the monster saves against Hold Person (also Hold Person is a terrible example here as a creature with resistance to non-magic attacks probably isn't a humanoid) and the Hold Person does nothing.

Magic Weapon always works. There is no chance of failure. The humanoid can save against Hold Person, and save again in the next round and so on. Magic Weapon also has the chance to last for another combat.

Magic Weapon is also very very good for Paladins (and Rangers w/Tasha's additional spells). They aren't limited to a cantrip when they cast it, they get their full attack that round.

You're just wrong. Magic Weapon is one of the strongest 2nd level spells in the game (behind Continual Flame and Pass Without Trace).

I get it though, if you always play a Monty Haul game then of course you don't find it useful.

Magic Weapon always works yes, but again, it only effects a single party member. Congrats, casting it lets one player be very effective in an encounter instead of casting a spell that lets everyone in the party be effective. Not exactly what I would consider to be a stand out effect, with or without magic items. As for Hold Person, I personally prefer Hideous Laughter as it works on nearly everything, is only a level 1 spell, and Incapacitated+Prone is nearly as good as Paralyze, and removes a combatant from combat until you want to deal with them.

I mostly chose Hold Person because I was limiting myself to 2nd level spells and keeping the first comparison. I've played games without any magic items until level 8, and I did take Magic Weapon as a precaution...but I never found a reason to cast it. Yes, the main Fighter of the group was dealing half damage whenever we came across something resistant to non-magic weapons, ​but my Concentration was better used elsewhere, usually in the form of debuffs to prevent whatever we were fighting from harming the party.

And for a Paladin, I find it laughably bad. Its competing with Wrathful Smite, which forces a target to waste their action to end the Fightened condition if they fail a Wisdom save, Shield of Faith, a handy +2 to AC which can be surprisingly useful, Heroism, which is a really handy buff, Bless, Branding Smite for the invisible enemies, and just regular old Divine Smite. As a Half Caster the Paladin doesn't have too many spell slots to use to begin with.


EDIT: Also, I'm surprised you didn't do the AC calculations XD .65 and .7 are spot on for trying to hit an AC 15

[Dark.Revenant]

I was focused specifically on +1 magic weapons, since those are the items under discussion. I'm curious as to what other items you included. You mentioned a few, including magical staffs (and wands?) and I presume the weapon of warning. Are you including the sword of vengeance? I hadn't included cursed items, but I guess it's conceivable that a player might hold onto that one.

All of the above; every item that can possibly be used proficiently as a magic weapon.


7 0-4 treasure hoards, which is what is given as the average, yield 2.1 rolls on Table F and .21 rolls on Table G.

There is a 21% chance of finding a non-cursed magic weapon on Table F. .21 * 2.1 = .44 add another .05 from Table G rolls and we are at .49 of a magic weapon.

By level 6 let's say they have gotten 4 of the 18 5-10 hoards. That gives us .29 on Table F, .08 on Table G, and .01 on Table 5.

That gives us a grand total of .87 of a magic weapon. So on average a Level 6 group will not have gotten one yet.

I'm not going to go into standard deviation but that is a whole other thing. The treasure tables are super swingy as the good tables are rare but often result in many rolls (1d4). This means that many games are likely to have few items while a few others will have many items.

By level 7 a group should expect to have found 1 magic weapon but it wouldn't be entirely unlikely to not have found 1 until level 11.

The average group of 4 with 2 weapon users will want 2 of them and I think on average they will probably get there before Tier 2.

This is right in line with giving the Monk a chance to shine with magic fists and with Magic Weapon being very useful in levels 5 and 6.

I said "fairly good chance"; I'd say with ~0.87 of a magic weapon, the odds are close to 50-50 that the party actually has one at that point. I'm counting cursed weapons, by the way.

It's worth noting that a monk's fists are an "ideal weapon" for the monk; 1d6 damage (at level 6) with a magic fist is not that far away from what a monk does with a weapon (1d8 or 1d10), and it aligns with their "fighting style". Contrast to something like a fighter, which will want pretty specific magic weapons; a GWM user getting a magic dagger won't be particularly happy. Even if a party finds several magic weapons, there's no guarantee they'll be of a sort that actually makes the group more effective.

[Pex]

You're still missing the "need a component from a hefty adventure per item" part. And creatures like that don't cluster around cities (rather the opposite most of the time). And not just any creature of the right CR range, but specific ones per different item.

Making magic items in 5e is not really scalable.

I remain convinced, as a matter of personal opinion, that the designers of 5E never wanted PCs to make magic items. However, because of legacy or whatever they couldn't outright say that, so they made the rules make it as prohibitive as possible so that players effectively cannot do it without going through shenanigans. In other words, they violated "Grod's Law". They balanced something by making it annoying to do. The 5E magic item creation rules are garbage. However, I can also agree the 3E rules of magic item creation are too easy. I didn't personally have a problem with them, but I can understand how others do and have no qualm with those who do not want the game to go back to that ease. There should/could be a middle ground between these two extremes. I support DM control of the process to maintain campaign coherence, but whatever the process should not make Rumpelstiltskin look like Fairy Godmother.

[ad_hoc]

I said "fairly good chance"; I'd say with ~0.87 of a magic weapon, the odds are close to 50-50 that the party actually has one at that point. I'm counting cursed weapons, by the way.


That isn't to be confused with having an 87% chance of finding one.

On average a level 7 party will have found 1 magic weapon.

It is more likely than not that a level 6 party will not have found one yet.

Sometimes they're going to find the weapon at level 4, sometimes at level 10.

[Segev]

I remain convinced, as a matter of personal opinion, that the designers of 5E never wanted PCs to make magic items. However, because of legacy or whatever they couldn't outright say that, so they made the rules make it as prohibitive as possible so that players effectively cannot do it without going through shenanigans. In other words, they violated "Grod's Law". They balanced something by making it annoying to do. The 5E magic item creation rules are garbage. However, I can also agree the 3E rules of magic item creation are too easy. I didn't personally have a problem with them, but I can understand how others do and have no qualm with those who do not want the game to go back to that ease. There should/could be a middle ground between these two extremes. I support DM control of the process to maintain campaign coherence, but whatever the process should not make Rumpelstiltskin look like Fairy Godmother.

I actually disagree, on both counts. At least once we get to Xanathar's Guide (which is a lot of what the DMG should have been). 3.PF item creation isn't "easy," just a more concrete game structure. And a DM who wants a more "wondrous" experience can substitute thematic specific items for "several thousand gold pieces worth of fungible rare ingredients." 5e item creation is mostly prohibitive in the time department, if you look at the expected gp payouts. Items are meant to be harder to come by in 5e than 3e, but "go hunt the CR-appropriate monster with the right themes" is just good game fodder.

5e, if anything, is simply designed more with a sandbox-style game in mind, at least insofar as item crafting is concerned. I think it's perfectly viable, provided downtime is something you can get.

Though I suppose as you get into higher-rarity items, the downtime requirements can get a bit extreme.

[Havlock]

Can we not all agree that the propensity of magic items is DM dependent, and any DM with a bit of experience will understand perfectly well that the amount and type of magic items (including +x weapons) that they choose to make available in their world will impact the game experience.

[stoutstien]

Can we not all agree that the propensity of magic items is DM dependent, and any DM with a bit of experience will understand perfectly well that the amount and type of magic items (including +x weapons) that they choose to make available in their world will impact the game experience.

You'd be surprised. See every thread on setting realistic DCs for ability checks and those are less difficult to handle than understanding the impact stacking static bonuses have on attack, saves, and AC.

[Xervous]

Can we not all agree that the propensity of magic items is DM dependent, and any DM with a bit of experience will understand perfectly well that the amount and type of magic items (including +x weapons) that they choose to make available in their world will impact the game experience.

Define a bit of experience, I’d bet it’s a lot more than a bit. The game doesn’t present much explanation for the magnitude of such impacts. This generally takes a lot of forum babble or multiple years of play that doesn’t end with the GM stuck in a hole like “monks are overpowered”. With an edition that’s pulling in tons of first time players it’s a small fraction that actually come to grasp the inner workings of the system in a short period of time.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was focused specifically on +1 magic weapons, since those are the items under discussion. I'm curious as to what other items you included. You mentioned a few, including magical staffs (and wands?) and I presume the weapon of warning. Are you including the sword of vengeance? I hadn't included cursed items, but I guess it's conceivable that a player might hold onto that one. Sword of Vengeance could be, for example, a crafting error. :smallwink: I disagree with what looks to me like an anachronism: porting of late-enlightenment-early-industrial-era economic theory backwards into the medieval setting because, unlike grain and basic food stuffs, the volume of trade is so small as to operate under different stresses.
I do agree with you on the idea of the rich being the sole market of said items - I put them in the same category of rare art works sold at Sotheby's. That's a constricted market that is only for the rich - but a guy finding a Rembrandt / frostbrand in his great grandfather's attic "stuff collection" is still a possibility, right?. Or a ring passed down from one generation to the next ... :smallbiggrin:

If anything, it supports the price by keeping the party mage and other relatively low level mages from getting in on the business. On that I'll agree whole heartedly.

From there it gets tricky, how common are wizards (or other parties with the necessary skills and ability to follow that formula) being the real bottleneck. Concur with that. My assumption is that spell casters are rare, but I guess that in FR they are under every rock and stone.

The guild might only make a few magic weapons a year to serve families seeking weapons for young noblemen coming of fighting age, and that only presuming the population is growing normally and they're making weapons for those young men who weren't able to inherit their elderly grandfather's weapons - but that still positions them to earn some extra gold by making a few weapons for your party if your party shows up shopping and there isn't some other logical restraint. The restraint need not be logical, though. 'You're not from 'round here' is sufficient reason not to accommodate this party of strangers in the medieval setting. :smallwink:
But if the PCs make a few connections, do a few favors for the ruling elite, grease a few palms, we have a new situation. Maybe a commission can be undertaken on the down low ... with a hefty boost to the price. :smallbiggrin: Bespoke goods cost more, right?

The weapons would be scarce for the same reason medieval plate armor was scarce - the only buyers are the ones with the wealth and the need to buy them. With you on this.

I'd still go with they're elitists who just won't make weapons for ruffians. It could get awkward for them if your little group bought from them and then decided to fight in support of Wat Tyler. Which is a very plausible adventure hook, isn't it? :smallwink: Depends on just how big of a jerkwad collection the local nobility are.

[Dark.Revenant]

That isn't to be confused with having an 87% chance of finding one.

On average a level 7 party will have found 1 magic weapon.

It is more likely than not that a level 6 party will not have found one yet.

Sometimes they're going to find the weapon at level 4, sometimes at level 10.

Mathematically, level 6 is more-or-less the 50% point. What are you getting 87% from?

[Segev]

You'd be surprised. See every thread on setting realistic DCs for ability checks and those are less difficult to handle than understanding the impact stacking static bonuses have on attack, saves, and AC.

Eh, different sources of problem.

With skill DCs, the issue is, "Yeah, but is climbing this wall easy, medium, or hard difficulty?"

What about baking a cake good enough for a minor noble's birthday party?

Noticing that the "duchess" has an adam's apple that she didn't yesterday, and remembering she has an exiled twin brother?

This is quite different than analyzing the math behind whether a +1 sword will make fights go too much more in the party's favor too quickly. Not that one is more difficult, necessarily, than the other, but rather that they're very different questions, to the point that the analogy breaks down. People who need help with one may be perfectly competent to handle the other without help.

[JNAProductions]

Mathematically, level 6 is more-or-less the 50% point. What are you getting 87% from?

Are you including cursed items? They are, I believe, which might explain the discrepancy.

[stoutstien]

Eh, different sources of problem.

With skill DCs, the issue is, "Yeah, but is climbing this wall easy, medium, or hard difficulty?"

What about baking a cake good enough for a minor noble's birthday party?

Noticing that the "duchess" has an adam's apple that she didn't yesterday, and remembering she has an exiled twin brother?

This is quite different than analyzing the math behind whether a +1 sword will make fights go too much more in the party's favor too quickly. Not that one is more difficult, necessarily, than the other, but rather that they're very different questions, to the point that the analogy breaks down. People who need help with one may be perfectly competent to handle the other without help.

They are both similar in that there isn't a clear explanation of how work or the math backing them. Sure there is a table or chart here or there but no clean brake down.
Giving a barbarian a +2 greataxe in a featless game and giving a samurai fighter a +2 bow with feats are worlds apart in impact even if they both utilize advantage in a somewhat similar fashion. they effectively make it trial by error for DM/tables.

**Not to mention the DC table for ability checks is just wrong once you break it down. No one cares what anyone calls a DC value. Give DM some actual % of success so they don't think they are being fair but the math doesn't agree. E.g. setting 15 as the standard DC because it is in the middle

[Segev]

They are both similar in that there isn't a clear explanation of how work or the math backing them. Sure there is a table or chart here or there but no clean brake down.
Giving a barbarian a +2 greataxe in a featless game and giving a samurai fighter a +2 bow with feats are worlds apart in impact even if they both utilize advantage in a somewhat similar fashion. they effectively make it trial by error for DM/tables.

**Not to mention the DC table for ability checks is just wrong once you break it down. No one cares what anyone calls a DC value. Give DM some actual % of success so they don't think they are being fair but the math doesn't agree. E.g. setting 15 as the standard DC because it is in the middle

That's the thing, the math is quite well explained for skill DCs. The trouble is there's no connection of activities to those DCs.

[Pex]

I actually disagree, on both counts. At least once we get to Xanathar's Guide (which is a lot of what the DMG should have been). 3.PF item creation isn't "easy," just a more concrete game structure. And a DM who wants a more "wondrous" experience can substitute thematic specific items for "several thousand gold pieces worth of fungible rare ingredients." 5e item creation is mostly prohibitive in the time department, if you look at the expected gp payouts. Items are meant to be harder to come by in 5e than 3e, but "go hunt the CR-appropriate monster with the right themes" is just good game fodder.

5e, if anything, is simply designed more with a sandbox-style game in mind, at least insofar as item crafting is concerned. I think it's perfectly viable, provided downtime is something you can get.

Though I suppose as you get into higher-rarity items, the downtime requirements can get a bit extreme.

I count the ridiculously long time to make as part of the shenanigans of 5E magic item creation as well as requiring a search for a formula. 3E is easy because it's a feat, money, and a skill check. The gameworld time to make an item in 3E is almost a non-factor. 3E had an XP cost. You'd think I would be opposed to that, especially because of my anti-punishing players rant, but humorously and ironically it did not bother me at all. The cost was not prohibitive and served well to prevent assembly line magic item crafting. However, I did not shed a tear when Pathfinder got rid of the XP cost.

[Havlock]

Define a bit of experience, I’d bet it’s a lot more than a bit. The game doesn’t present much explanation for the magnitude of such impacts. This generally takes a lot of forum babble or multiple years of play that doesn’t end with the GM stuck in a hole like “monks are overpowered”. With an edition that’s pulling in tons of first time players it’s a small fraction that actually come to grasp the inner workings of the system in a short period of time.

Every DM gives out too many shiney things the first time they run a campaign. Its a right of passage. But if that DM doesn't learn anything from their first Monty Haul campaign, then no amount of guidance from the rule books will help. Fun is everyone's responsibility but the DM is the only one able to ensure balance or to challenge the PCs. If a DM doesn't recognize that, all hope is lost.

[EggKookoo]

I count the ridiculously long time to make as part of the shenanigans of 5E magic item creation as well as requiring a search for a formula. 3E is easy because it's a feat, money, and a skill check. The gameworld time to make an item in 3E is almost a non-factor. 3E had an XP cost. You'd think I would be opposed to that, especially because of my anti-punishing players rant, but humorously and ironically it did not bother me at all. The cost was not prohibitive and served well to prevent assembly line magic item crafting. However, I did not shed a tear when Pathfinder got rid of the XP cost.

I ended up making my own item creation rules for 5e, entirely because of the in-game time cost. I mean, sure, you can fast-forward to cover that time, but then why bother with it?

[vexedart]

Magic items, like feats, are optional, problem solved

[JNAProductions]

Magic items, like feats, are optional, problem solved

Playing the game, like technically anything, is optional. Problem solved.

Magic items are fun to get and to use. But +Number items are a combination of boring and highly effective, often nudging out other, more interesting items because they're not as powerful.

Plus, unless you carefully curate your enemies, you'll find a decent chunk of enemies that resist non-magical weapon damage, which can be quite frustrating. If a DM I was playing under continually threw enemies at me that I had no practical way of overcoming their resistance... I'd be a bit peeved.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Playing the game, like technically anything, is optional. Problem solved.

Magic items are fun to get and to use. But +Number items are a combination of boring and highly effective, often nudging out other, more interesting items because they're not as powerful.

But why are they boring? I get the basic idea that "This sword DOES other stuff and this one doesn't." But why is that inherently boring? It's like choosing between a full ASI or a Feat, sure the Feat has more mechanical pieces, but that doesn't mean getting your main stat to 20 is boring.

[KorvinStarmast]

But +Number items are a combination of boring and highly effective The "boring" bit is a matter of taste, not a matter of fact. My players like hitting more often, particularly the dwarf fighter and the various barbarians I've got playing in various games. They like their damage not to be reduce or nullified.

[Ralanr]

But why are they boring? I get the basic idea that "This sword DOES other stuff and this one doesn't." But why is that inherently boring? It's like choosing between a full ASI or a Feat, sure the Feat has more mechanical pieces, but that doesn't mean getting your main stat to 20 is boring.

Well, boredom is, at its core, suggestive. The reason why I find +X items boring is that they don't really add anything to the table beyond me hitting more often and bypassing resistances if I haven't already been doing so.

They don't feel like a neat item, they feel like a required item.

[Potato_Priest]

Well, boredom is, at its core, suggestive. The reason why I find +X items boring is that they don't really add anything to the table beyond me hitting more often and bypassing resistances if I haven't already been doing so.

They don't feel like a neat item, they feel like a required item.

This is why I like to give out +x items as backup weapons- the kind of weapons nobody's build is centered around, but that they'll use when they need something reliable/onehanded/that doesn't imply disadvantage underwater/long ranged. Daggers, short swords, light crossbows, javelins, etc. I very rarely give out a +1 greatsword. The party's main weapons get more interesting effects, but +x ones can be a good fallback choice.

[Segev]

I feel the need to point out there are tables for "minor properties" and "quirks" in the DMG right before the magic item loot tables. Add one or two of these to a "boring +X weapon" and it could get interesting again.

A +1 whip that is made from a still-prehensile Ulitharyd tentacle that is revolting and makes the wielder uneasy, but also can be used as a hand with a 10 foot reach when grasped in a hand.
A set of 20 unbreakable arrows and a +2 harmonius lodestar bow. The attuned wielder of the bow can take an action to learn the distance and direction to any one of the arrows of his choosing at that moment.
A +3 sword apparently carved from driftwood and bleached in the sun. It always floats in the water and aligns itself so its tip points east when floating freely. It can support up to a Medium creature while floating.
An extremely ornate +2 pickaxe whose wielder can spend an action to learn their exact depth underground. When in complete darkness, magical light glows on its blade. Not luminous enough to see by, but enough to clearly be seen as a sets of three numbers.

[Ralanr]

I feel the need to point out there are tables for "minor properties" and "quirks" in the DMG right before the magic item loot tables. Add one or two of these to a "boring +X weapon" and it could get interesting again.

A +1 whip that is made from a still-prehensile Ulitharyd tentacle that is revolting and makes the wielder uneasy, but also can be used as a hand with a 10 foot reach when grasped in a hand.
A set of 20 unbreakable arrows and a +2 harmonius lodestar bow. The attuned wielder of the bow can take an action to learn the distance and direction to any one of the arrows of his choosing at that moment.
A +3 sword apparently carved from driftwood and bleached in the sun. It always floats in the water and aligns itself so its tip points east when floating freely. It can support up to a Medium creature while floating.
An extremely ornate +2 pickaxe whose wielder can spend an action to learn their exact depth underground. When in complete darkness, magical light glows on its blade. Not luminous enough to see by, but enough to clearly be seen as a sets of three numbers.

Surfs up, bra!

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Well, boredom is, at its core, suggestive. The reason why I find +X items boring is that they don't really add anything to the table beyond me hitting more often and bypassing resistances if I haven't already been doing so.

They don't feel like a neat item, they feel like a required item.

Segev beat me to it and provided a good example in game. I'm still not seeing a why it's boring answer. Sure, I understand you feel it's boring, but there's more to that.

Is it boring because the DM you play with makes no effort to have the weapons have lore and fluff and detail? Is it because you don't care about lore and fluff and detail? Something else?

Cause again, I'll point out, looking at the string of various magical items we have in fantasy.

LotR: Occasionally a blade had a goblin detector, but in general, magic weapons up to including Aragorn's aren't items with special features.

GoT: The Dragonsteel weapons are just super sharp and have some extra impact against one type of creature.

WoT: Almost all the magic weapons are just "Super sharp, never break, never need care". The few that do something different, one is a very specific deal that the wielder doesn't even know about until the very end. One is essentially a deals extra damage against a creature type (Mace of Disruption style) and one is a legendary artifact that the plot kind of turns around and it's ability to be a magical sword is really not that important.

Stormlight Archives: Yeah, the Real Radiant Shardblades are morph weapons. But otherwise they're just magic weapons. The rest of the Shardblades are also just magic weapons. The only special thing is essentially having the Warlock Pact Blade summon feature.

In general, how interesting a magical item is kind of comes from what the DM does with it and how it's set up. Even a weapon with a lot of features could be meh if those features aren't important. (Give the party a Mace of Disruption and never throw undead at them, see how much they care about the thing.)

[Dark.Revenant]

Stormlight Archives: Yeah, the Real Radiant Shardblades are morph weapons. But otherwise they're just magic weapons. The rest of the Shardblades are also just magic weapons. The only special thing is essentially having the Warlock Pact Blade summon feature.

They are so sharp that they can slice straight through rock or metal armor like butter, and they pass through flesh as if it didn't exist (but still cause the limb/person to die). Some of that can be explained with a +3, but you'll need more nuance (particularly the ability to sunder things with casual ease).

[Pixel_Kitsune]

They are so sharp that they can slice straight through rock or metal armor like butter, and they pass through flesh as if it didn't exist (but still cause the limb/person to die). Some of that can be explained with a +3, but you'll need more nuance (particularly the ability to sunder things with casual ease).

You have a valid point there, but I'd honestly put "Doing normal damage" against objects is a minor trait, something of flavor, more than a feature that would make the weapon exciting.

Maybe it's just my own subjective views (Which, let's be honest, I'm as subjective and internally biased as any of us are) that when I think of a weapon that does more I'm picturing things like the Holy Avenger or MoD or other things that have specific riders or extra abilities.

[Pex]

In general, how interesting a magical item is kind of comes from what the DM does with it and how it's set up. Even a weapon with a lot of features could be meh if those features aren't important. (Give the party a Mace of Disruption and never throw undead at them, see how much they care about the thing.)

That's true. I acquired Lightbringer from Phandever. I use it because my Artificer Battlesmith needs a magic weapon to attack with IN, and now I don't need to spend an infusion to get one. All it does is give light and +1d6 damage against undead. Not a bad weapon and useful when I acquired it at 5th level, but as the levels progressed it became less impressive. We hardly ever fought undead, otherwise I just did 1d6 + IN damage. It's not awful by any means, happy to have it, but it wasn't special anymore. At 10th level I acquired the Spider Staff. Useful for the spells, but now I do an extra +1d6 poison damage on every hit and we don't face poison immune foes. 2d6 + IN damage per attack vs 1d6 + IN damage per attack. No contest, and the Spiderstaff is a +0 weapon while Lightbringer is +1. The extra +1 to hit is nice, but Spiderstaff gives a better result so I use that. Of course I'll use Lightbringer when we fight undead, if we fight undead. If it was an undead heavy campaign then Lightbringer would be the superior weapon, but the campaign is not so it is not.

Edit: Of course both weapons are "better" than a +1 longsword, but I'd likely use the longsword unless we fight undead because 1d8 > 1d6. If hypothetically a +2 and only a +2 weapon came along I might stick with Spider Staff, but if monster ACs are creeping up I'll pause to reconsider.

[Segev]

You have a valid point there, but I'd honestly put "Doing normal damage" against objects is a minor trait, something of flavor, more than a feature that would make the weapon exciting.

I mean, "doing normal damage" is selling Shardblades very, very short. They ignore flesh and cut the soul off where they sever, and they cut through nonliving matter like it wasn't there, leaving perfect "anime katana cut" slices in it. That's not "normal damage," that's "sword of annihilation."

[Ralanr]

In general, how interesting a magical item is kind of comes from what the DM does with it and how it's set up. Even a weapon with a lot of features could be meh if those features aren't important. (Give the party a Mace of Disruption and never throw undead at them, see how much they care about the thing.)

I guess that's my issue? There's not much for the player to do with the weapon beyond use it as the weapon it's designed to be. I've tried developing some magical weapons beforehand that gave players options, like one where you could sacrifice one of your attacks to shoot lightning, then use a BA to teleport to where that lightning struck.

But as it stands, a lot of items are just extra damage. And I enjoy weapons where I get to roll an extra dice for elemental damage or improvement against a specific enemy, but that's just more of the same.

Adding Segev's point because it's been years since I remembered how to actually quote posts in edits.


I mean, "doing normal damage" is selling Shardblades very, very short. They ignore flesh and cut the soul off where they sever, and they cut through nonliving matter like it wasn't there, leaving perfect "anime katana cut" slices in it. That's not "normal damage," that's "sword of annihilation."

I think this could be a very interesting mechanical sword. Think about it, a weapon that can cut what can't be cut. Suddenly you have a weapon that can slice through wall of force or forcecage.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

Edit: Of course both weapons are "better" than a +1 longsword, but I'd likely use the longsword unless we fight undead because 1d8 > 1d6. If hypothetically a +2 and only a +2 weapon came along I might stick with Spider Staff, but if monster ACs are creeping up I'll pause to reconsider.

I think this is another indicator of outlook, not as a negative or a positive. Some players are more into the mechanics and so that might lead them to juggle based on what the item does.

On the other hand, as an example. A while back I played in a game that was Legend of Zelda inspired. Instead of a single hero the DM had developed all of the "Sages" as an equal group and created equivalent items for them. Anyway, my character was in the "Link" spot (Sage of Courage in this case). Build wise he actually was inspired by the Knight Radiants. Mechanically a hexblade/paladin where the oath/weapon spirit were combined into a Navi like familiar (Again, taking some inspiration from Syl). I used Pact of the Blade as either a Whip or Flail and spent about 9 levels with him being a Weapon and Shield fighter using that flail/whip and connecting with it in that way. Mastersword came along and it was a +3 Longsword with some Locate X spells built in and it ended up doing additional damage against Legitimately evil (DM's decision alignment, but definately undead, demons, devils, etc).

I never used it except against the things it had to be used against. The character's flavor and behavior was so locked into the bond with their pact weapon and the whip/flail that the sword, even though it was better, just never entered combat.


I mean, "doing normal damage" is selling Shardblades very, very short. They ignore flesh and cut the soul off where they sever, and they cut through nonliving matter like it wasn't there, leaving perfect "anime katana cut" slices in it. That's not "normal damage," that's "sword of annihilation."

I don't agree, but no reason we need to. Mechanically I'd treat that as a +3 weapon, the rest is descriptive.

Given that HP doesn't translate as a health bar so much as near misses, heroic "Getting out of the way to only take a scratch on the armor, etc.

Mechanically if someone crits with a generic +3 weapon and as the DM I have it cut off a hand. The weapon does double damage and I'd describe it cleaving the limb and the spray of red, etc.

Mechanically if there were a Shardblade in my game and the same scenario happened, it'd still deal double damage and I'd describe the clothing and armor of the limb sliding off with that anime precision cut while the limb itself now just hangs there, gray and lifeless, unresponsive the the person it belongs to.


I think this could be a very interesting mechanical sword. Think about it, a weapon that can cut what can't be cut. Suddenly you have a weapon that can slice through wall of force or forcecage.

Those wouldn't likely cut Force. They don't slice through each other or spirits, but the idea is a very cool one. I had a player want to play a Hexblade themed towards Kuwabara from YuYu Hakusho. Ended up developing some Invocations that let her do stuff like that.

[Kuu Lightwing]

Re: casting Magic Weapon spell.

I thing regardless of it's mathematical efficiency, the problem is perception, since this topic was mentioned before.

Let's assume that martials do somewhat decent damage at those levels. But if they suddenly meet a "p/b/s resistant" enemy then their damage drops significantly, and now casters are "taxed" because of this by having to use action, slot and concentration to bring them back to their normal damage. So even if in that situation it's mathematically the best damage option, it's really is using a spell to make a martial do "normal" damage, because that's seen as a baseline.

[stoutstien]

Re: casting Magic Weapon spell.

I thing regardless of it's mathematical efficiency, the problem is perception, since this topic was mentioned before.

Let's assume that martials do somewhat decent damage at those levels. But if they suddenly meet a "p/b/s resistant" enemy then their damage drops significantly, and now casters are "taxed" because of this by having to use action, slot and concentration to bring them back to their normal damage. So even if in that situation it's mathematically the best damage option, it's really is using a spell to make a martial do "normal" damage, because that's seen as a baseline.

Is that any different than casting fly so the barbarian can reach the thing? It's a pretty basic part of the game. using resources to overcome challenges to just make it to basaline.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is that any different than casting fly so the barbarian can reach the thing? It's a pretty basic part of the game. using resources to overcome challenges to just make it to basaline.

Or wizards casting mage armor on themselves to have a decent AC? Or bards spending bardic inspiration to help someone make saves? Etc.

Team games are team games. Selfish "but my DPR!" attitudes are bad for the game.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

I get the feeling that the folks with the "I shouldn't have to cast my spell to make the Barb do normal damage." Are the types who also don't understand the sheer joy of playing an Abjuration specialist or a Lore Bard with Counterspell.

The sheer level of "I shut down the enemy's entire magic" is just fun, but it ends up looking like you're Not doing anything."

Like, Geez, why should I want to Counterspell the BBEG's teleport so he can't escape and regroup? Everyone else is getting to attack and do damage, I'm just wasting my turn.

[Ralanr]

Or wizards casting mage armor on themselves to have a decent AC? Or bards spending bardic inspiration to help someone make saves? Etc.

Team games are team games. Selfish "but my DPR!" attitudes are bad for the game.

"But how will I top the damage charts?!"

[PhoenixPhyre]

"But how will I top the damage charts?!"


I think DPS meters and associated "gear score" addons are absolute cancer for MMOs. I'm very grateful that FFXIV (the main MMO I play) has a "mods aren't allowed but we won't really check. But harrassing someone over their DPS is quickly bannable." policy that they enforce fairly heavily.

[Segev]

I don't agree, but no reason we need to. Mechanically I'd treat that as a +3 weapon, the rest is descriptive.

Given that HP doesn't translate as a health bar so much as near misses, heroic "Getting out of the way to only take a scratch on the armor, etc.

Mechanically if someone crits with a generic +3 weapon and as the DM I have it cut off a hand. The weapon does double damage and I'd describe it cleaving the limb and the spray of red, etc.

Mechanically if there were a Shardblade in my game and the same scenario happened, it'd still deal double damage and I'd describe the clothing and armor of the limb sliding off with that anime precision cut while the limb itself now just hangs there, gray and lifeless, unresponsive the the person it belongs to.

For fighting creatures, sure, but that still is vastly shortselling their use against inanimate objects. A +3 weapon doesn't do nearly the damage a shardblade should, even if it just flat-out ignores all damage thresholds, to, say, a stone wall.

[Pixel_Kitsune]

For fighting creatures, sure, but that still is vastly shortselling their use against inanimate objects. A +3 weapon doesn't do nearly the damage a shardblade should, even if it just flat-out ignores all damage thresholds, to, say, a stone wall.

Honestly, I think it'd be fun to work out the 5e stats for a full Shardblade.

But keep in mind the Cosmere has some weird interactions that are fully consistent in world but.. wierd.

Like, yeah, flavor wise a Shardblade will casually cut through Hardened steel like a knife through butter...

But it won't penetrate aluminum. At all..

It also meets resistance against things with heavy investiture. Now we need to decide. Are Mithral and Adamantite just Harder metals? Or are they hard because they've absorbed ambient magic from something or set with a certain level of magic by the creators of a world?

I would honestly LOVE to see Cosmere in general brought over to 5e. Wonder what a Mistborn can do with those same semi magic metals?

[Ralanr]

I think DPS meters and associated "gear score" addons are absolute cancer for MMOs. I'm very grateful that FFXIV (the main MMO I play) has a "mods aren't allowed but we won't really check. But harrassing someone over their DPS is quickly bannable." policy that they enforce fairly heavily.


Can’t say I disagree.

[Segev]

Honestly, I think it'd be fun to work out the 5e stats for a full Shardblade.

But keep in mind the Cosmere has some weird interactions that are fully consistent in world but.. wierd.

Like, yeah, flavor wise a Shardblade will casually cut through Hardened steel like a knife through butter...

But it won't penetrate aluminum. At all..

It also meets resistance against things with heavy investiture. Now we need to decide. Are Mithral and Adamantite just Harder metals? Or are they hard because they've absorbed ambient magic from something or set with a certain level of magic by the creators of a world?

I would honestly LOVE to see Cosmere in general brought over to 5e. Wonder what a Mistborn can do with those same semi magic metals?

WE have examples of genuinely magical metals in Mistborn, actually. Atium and Lerasium. They did have unique and very powerful properties.

Whether Mithril and Adamantine would qualify as "magical metals" that have investiture or anti-investiture properties sufficient to interfere with Shardblades is something that the conversion writer would have to determine; we don't have the right kind of info about them in 5e canon.

[Pex]

I get the feeling that the folks with the "I shouldn't have to cast my spell to make the Barb do normal damage." Are the types who also don't understand the sheer joy of playing an Abjuration specialist or a Lore Bard with Counterspell.

The sheer level of "I shut down the enemy's entire magic" is just fun, but it ends up looking like you're Not doing anything."

Like, Geez, why should I want to Counterspell the BBEG's teleport so he can't escape and regroup? Everyone else is getting to attack and do damage, I'm just wasting my turn.

I know that feeling. I was in a game where we had to fight the BBEG inside a humongous gelatinous cube. That meant slowed movement and acid damage each round, especially for my barbarian. I could not reach the BBEG. It was not my character's finest moment in battle, but he was at least hanging in there surviving. I was not to have the spotlight this combat, and that was ok metagame speaking. The cleric had the brilliant idea to cast Wall of Fire inside the cube. That cleared space to allow me to move freely and not take damage, to get closer to the BBEG. Meanwhile other spellcasters in the party were able to attack the BBEG directly, and the shadow monk who could teleport. The cleric player got jealous and wanted his own glory. He stopped concentrating on Wall of Fire so he could cast a concentration spell on the BBEG, who made the saving throw so no effect. Gone was the freedom of movement I had. Back came the acid damage every round. We were 11th level having started at 3rd. It would be the second time in the entire campaign I would drop in battle, the first being at 6th level in an unlucky saving throw against a banshee.

There would be other games where players felt useless because they were buffing or concentrating on a spell that made the battle terrain in our favor instead of directly attacking the bad guys. I always tell them how important it is to what they're doing. Maintain that concentration. We need it. I don't care if they Dodge forever and move away from the battlefield. Keep that spell going. You're contributing. You're doing your job so we can do ours.

[sithlordnergal]

I get the feeling that the folks with the "I shouldn't have to cast my spell to make the Barb do normal damage." Are the types who also don't understand the sheer joy of playing an Abjuration specialist or a Lore Bard with Counterspell.

The sheer level of "I shut down the enemy's entire magic" is just fun, but it ends up looking like you're Not doing anything."

Like, Geez, why should I want to Counterspell the BBEG's teleport so he can't escape and regroup? Everyone else is getting to attack and do damage, I'm just wasting my turn.

I dunno...I adore Lore Bards with Counterspell, and I enjoy Abjuration Wizards, but I am still of the opinion that I can use my Concentration on better spells then Magic Weapon. Why improve a single player when I can improve the entire party's effectiveness, or completely shut down an enemy? Sure that Barbarian is gonna hit harder, but a small boost to everyone will out-damage the single buffed Barbarian and make everyone feel powerful.

[Kuu Lightwing]

I get the feeling that the folks with the "I shouldn't have to cast my spell to make the Barb do normal damage." Are the types who also don't understand the sheer joy of playing an Abjuration specialist or a Lore Bard with Counterspell.

The sheer level of "I shut down the enemy's entire magic" is just fun, but it ends up looking like you're Not doing anything."

Like, Geez, why should I want to Counterspell the BBEG's teleport so he can't escape and regroup? Everyone else is getting to attack and do damage, I'm just wasting my turn.

Worth nothing that Counterspell is a Reaction, and doesn't require Concentration, so you are obviously not wasting your turn.

[Kuu Lightwing]

As for "team play" and such, many Concentration spells are not actually damage spells so saying that it's all about "muh DPR" is incorrect. It's just about having more interesting options to concentrate on. Magic Weapon is just boring "you get to do normal damage now" spell that everybody knows will not be needed if we get a +1 weapon for the fighter, so it's obviously a far more preferable solution.

If you want to talk about being selfish, isn't it selfish for the Fighter to expect Wizard to use his Concentration on his personal DPR, instead of some spell like Slow or Hypnotic Pattern that would benefit the whole party?

[ad_hoc]

As for "team play" and such, many Concentration spells are not actually damage spells so saying that it's all about "muh DPR" is incorrect. It's just about having more interesting options to concentrate on. Magic Weapon is just boring "you get to do normal damage now" spell that everybody knows will not be needed if we get a +1 weapon for the fighter, so it's obviously a far more preferable solution.

If you want to talk about being selfish, isn't it selfish for the Fighter to expect Wizard to use his Concentration on his personal DPR, instead of some spell like Slow or Hypnotic Pattern that would benefit the whole party?

If you play with only 1 encounter/long rest then Slow or Hypnotic Pattern are probably going to be the superior spells because they're 3rd level and you don't need to worry about running out of them.

It sounds like you're playing Combat As Performance (which I suspect is most of the people here).

There are 2 types of CaP - A performance to show cooperation between party members and a performance to show competition. This board is full of the latter I imagine.

So under this paradigm, yes you could say that it is unfair for one character to do more in a combat than another because the point of the combat is to show who is the coolest or most powerful character.

Which spells or options are best come entirely down to how the game is played at the table. I play with many encounters per long rest, combat is not purely performative, and on average the party finds their first magic weapon during level 7 (but could be as late as 11).

So I have a different view of Magic Weapon than people do who play entirely differently. My view comes from playing closely to the baseline rules of the game though and so when I say that Magic Weapon is a great spell I'm saying that in relation to the baseline assumptions of the game. If we want to change those then spell rankings are going to move around, sometimes dramatically.