Purpose of magical items (+1/+2/+3) in a bounded system with proficiency bonuses?

[Segev]

+X weapons are also a way for a DM to do some hot-fix balancing if a player's power is too low compared to the party. Got somebody who is missing just a little too much, or not dealing quite enough damage, and don't want to give them an ASI or something? A +1, maybe +2 weapon can make all the difference.

[Nefariis]

The advantage should be conditional but not too niche. To have it always on takes away the fun of using tactics to gain advantage. Advantage against a creature type the DM will have a significant amount exist in the campaign. Advantage of positioning, such as flanking when not using the optional flanking rules.

I agree with this.


So where this is coming from (and maybe it would help to explain the problem before looking for an answer), is that I've been a near a permanent DM for about 15 years, 8 years with 5e, and I DM a ton of new and just learning players.

Issue one -

The biggest hangups for new players are always with adding PB into things correctly (or not adding) on their character sheet - in a perfect world, PB would be from 0-4 or 1-4, +1-3 items would be included into PB (the title of this post), it should be calculated in both AC and damage (things you are proficient in), and the calculations should start at 10 and not 8 - these are the things that I have to explain the most (particularly, why PB is for attack and not for damage and why the **** 8).

For new players the PB system could be more intuitive, apply to everything, and +1-3 items could apart of PB.

That's issue one.

Issue two -

Is that I honestly don't like loot tables nor do I like handing out customs items for players - it always seems like it's a lose/lose situation for both the DM and the players (short of just letting everyone pick their own items).

Loot tables are too random - the players might not get anything they can use, or it's worse than what everyone currently has. And with custom items, they might have wanted something in particular, or maybe it's a situation where Johnny got something better Timmy and now Timmy is bummed.

and that's fine, human nature, we have all been bummed at a treasure chest or two in our adventures - it's not necessarily a big deal and the system as a whole is still pretty solid.

but this is one aspect of dnd that I don't particularly enjoy as a DM and I think the EB system could be slightly revamped to fix this issue - and I'll explain why.

If everyone got a +1, +2, +3 added to their armor and weapons at level 5, 11, 16 (following the normal 5e progression) then you could take the basic magic weapons/armors (leaving the named stuff) off of the loot tables completely.

Now imagine a situation where the only thing left on the loot tables are fun, quirky, named, and nice to have items? NOT stuff players feel like they absolutely NEED TO HAVE by a certain level.

Your basic needs are already being met, you are automatically getting a +1, +2, and +3 at their appropriate levels - the only thing left are the more fun and unique items.

For me personally (and I can't imagine I'm the only DM), getting rid of +1, +2, +3 weapons and armor and thus getting rid of the players expectations to receive such items by certain levels would alleviate this - and again I'm not talking about getting rid of named/non basic magic items - but it would be nice if all magical weapons and armor auto raised with the player at 6, 11, 16.

That's issue two.

Fixing the PB system would seem like it would make the game a lot easier and alleviate both of my issues.

[Nefariis]

+X weapons are also a way for a DM to do some hot-fix balancing if a player's power is too low compared to the party. Got somebody who is missing just a little too much, or not dealing quite enough damage, and don't want to give them an ASI or something? A +1, maybe +2 weapon can make all the difference.

This is actually my new favorite answer - I guess with the system I am proposing, this would be lost.

[Zhorn]

This thread has me thinking;
What is the value of +1/+2/+3 in comparison to +dice on damage?
Has someone done the math on this?

I imagine it would be very similar to the GWM formula where the breakpoints exist on target AC.
It would be interesting to see where the break points are as to when +1/+2/+3 is better (assumed more value on high AC), and when what size of +dice are better (assumed value on low AC).

[MoiMagnus]

This thread has me thinking;
What is the value of +1/+2/+3 in comparison to +dice on damage?
Has someone done the math on this?

I imagine it would be very similar to the GWM formula where the breakpoints exist on target AC.
It would be interesting to see where the break points are as to when +1/+2/+3 is better (assumed more value on high AC), and when what size of +dice are better (assumed value on low AC).

As a rough approximation, your hitting proba is 10/20, meaning that +1/+2/+3 is giving you a +10%/+20%/+30% increase in damages.

Outside of the rogue's sneak attack (or any ability that significantly increases damages), this is probably inferior to raw damage, as +10% (and +1dmg) is only better than +1d6 when your average damage on hit is 25 or more.

But the +N weapons are more interesting against high AC targets, much better with the -5/+10 feats, or if you usually fight disadvantaged. On the other hand, raw damage is even more interesting if you usually have advantage to your attacks.

[Segev]

This thread has me thinking;
What is the value of +1/+2/+3 in comparison to +dice on damage?
Has someone done the math on this?

I imagine it would be very similar to the GWM formula where the breakpoints exist on target AC.
It would be interesting to see where the break points are as to when +1/+2/+3 is better (assumed more value on high AC), and when what size of +dice are better (assumed value on low AC).

Ludic Savant has a spreadsheet somewhere that does this calculation, but I do not recall where.

[Tanarii]

If everyone got a +1, +2, +3 added to their armor and weapons at level 5, 11, 16 (following the normal 5e progression) then you could take the basic magic weapons/armors (leaving the named stuff) off of the loot tables completely.

Now imagine a situation where the only thing left on the loot tables are fun, quirky, named, and nice to have items? NOT stuff players feel like they absolutely NEED TO HAVE by a certain level.

Your basic needs are already being met, you are automatically getting a +1, +2, and +3 at their appropriate levels - the only thing left are the more fun and unique items.

You're missing the point. Lots of players find +1/+2/+3 fun and unique. Provided they don't feel like they absolutely need to have it, they enjoy it.

That's the entire point of bounded accuracy setting an upper limit on Target Numbers, monster AC and ability check DCs. So the players don't feel like they need to have Magic weapons. Or for that matter even ability scores of 20, or Rogue expertise. Instead those things feel awesome.

Of course, there are certain number crunching optimizers that still feel like they need to max their ability scores and get a Magic +# weapon on a schedule, despite the system math not requiring either. But 5e isn't about supporting optimizers or white room character builders. It's about supports g the average joe player in an actual table environment. (Same reason is why point buy, Multiclassing and feats are all optional rules.)

[Keravath]

+1/+2/+3 weapons and the corresponding wands etc for casters can serve to increase to hit/damage when the stat increases stop.

In many cases, characters max out their attack stat by level 8-12 (not always but frequently). The existence of magical weapons/wands from +1 to +3 provide the equivalent of continued stat progression at the higher levels so that the characters (particularly martials) are capable of being more effective at higher levels. The same goes for magical armor that boosts AC beyond the limits the character could normally achieve.

The difference is that magic items are typically under the control of the DM and they can tailor the power level to their current campaign. DMs can add items that benefit one character and not another in order to overcome possible balance issues or character effectiveness in particular circumstances.

Anyway, I think the +1 to +3 items are essentially part of the bounded accuracy system primarily aimed for use at levels 9+. (+0 magical weapons could be introduced in the level 3+ range to provide magical damage and small bonuses - warlock blade pact weapons without the improved pact weapon feature would be one example).

Of course, it is up to the DM when and if they want to introduce such weapons.

[ZRN]

Bounded accuracy is about the DM's or other designers assumptions.

They can assume that the standard boundaries are monster AC 31 (vs player +11 to hit), monster ability 30, player ability 20, proficiency +6, weapon +3, armor AC 18, shield +2, armor +3, and DC 30 (vs +11 to roll). There are other circumstantial or limited modifiers but those are in theory limited.

Most importantly, from the DM perspective, TNs shouldn't exceed something that can be rolled on a d20 with just ability score and proficiency, ie 1d20+11. That's why the absolute top AC for monster is 31 and the near impossible is DC 30. That's the boundary in bounded accuracy. The upper point at which Magic items or Spells are not required to succeed.

This is well put. Bounded accuracy (BA because I'm lazy) is not about eliminating numerical progression; "number porn" is a fun part of the game for a lot of people! It's just about making sure everyone has a clear understanding what the expected range of numbers is. In 3e or 4e, for example, a level 20 character might have +40 in their trained skills, while an untrained character would have +0 or worse. That led to a lot of situations where at high levels, everyone almost always succeeded in their maxed-out skills and/or always failed in their non-class skills, because there was not "sweet spot" for DCs. (Same with armor and attack bonuses.)

The proficiency system and limited numerical bonuses elsewhere in 5e help ensure that that range is much smaller. Same for magical weapons: they used to scale up to +5 or +6, so the current +3 max fits better within BA.

[Segev]

(+0 magical weapons could be introduced in the level 3+ range to provide magical damage and small bonuses - warlock blade pact weapons without the improved pact weapon feature would be one example).

I think the barbarian in my ToA game used the Trident of Fish Command more for the fact it pierced "immune to nonmagical b/p/s" abilities than for the ability to control aquatic creatures (though she definitely liked that ability when she first got it; it just didn't come up too often after a while as they moved away from rivers).

They also really liked a Sword of Gleaming I introduced. It was the Armor of Gleaming from Xanathar's Guide, but applied to a sword. So it was always clean and never needed maintenance. Also, because it was magical, it pierced immunity to non-magical weapon attacks.

[Unoriginal]

+0 magical weapons could be introduced in the level 3+ range to provide magical damage and small bonuses - warlock blade pact weapons without the improved pact weapon feature would be one example).

I think the barbarian in my ToA game used the Trident of Fish Command more for the fact it pierced "immune to nonmagical b/p/s" abilities than for the ability to control aquatic creatures (though she definitely liked that ability when she first got it; it just didn't come up too often after a while as they moved away from rivers).

They also really liked a Sword of Gleaming I introduced. It was the Armor of Gleaming from Xanathar's Guide, but applied to a sword. So it was always clean and never needed maintenance. Also, because it was magical, it pierced immunity to non-magical weapon attacks.

The Moon-Touched Sword from the Xanathar's is the de facto "+0" weapon. Not only it is a Common magic item, it also fits the "and the hero's magic weapon was shiny" trope.

[Amnestic]

Xanathar's also has the Moon-touched Sword as a common magic weapon that doesn't do anything other than shed light when drawn, and lets you pass resistances.

You could presumably have moon touched [other weapon types] too.

[Asisreo1]

The Moon-Touched Sword from the Xanathar's is the de facto "+0" weapon. Not only it is a Common magic item, it also fits the "and the hero's magic weapon was shiny" trope.

One of my favorite +0 items is the clockwork sword which honestly feels like it should be a whole uncommon or even rare item since it can basically boost your accuracy to 100% on the condition it was already 50% or higher.

Nearly doubling your DPR for an entire encounter feels wild, especially since the default assumptions are that you'll almost never have below a 50% chance to hit.

Edit:

Its actually the clockwork amulet and you can only do it once a day, which is significantly more balanced than what I though before. Being a wondrous item, its also irrelevant to the conversation. Apologizes.

[Nefariis]

Say all the named items - berserker axe, frost brand, flame tongue, luck blade were all +0 items, then they "become" +1, +2, +3 as you level up at 6, 11, 16 (or whatever) through the PB system already in place - so the items themselves wouldn't be called be called +X, the +X would just be apart of the normal PB progression.

You wouldn't lose anything on the current bounded accuracy system by removing it, the +X would just become apart of PB, nothing would actually change math wise - only that players can use any magic item throughout the entire course of their career.


The only answer that addresses why it might be helpful not to lump it into PB, is that it's an easy way for DM's to help struggling players.

[Nefariis]

Being a wondrous item, its also irrelevant to the conversation. Apologizes.

Im not advocating to get rid of wondrous/legendary items either, they would have the same rarity that they do currently, they just wouldn't have a +X to hit/damage or AC rating in their statblock.

*EDIT*

I'm not referring to items like ring and cloak of protection (as far as not adding +x to AC) - I am just referring to weapons and armor

[Rukelnikov]

I agree with this.


So where this is coming from (and maybe it would help to explain the problem before looking for an answer), is that I've been a near a permanent DM for about 15 years, 8 years with 5e, and I DM a ton of new and just learning players.

Issue one -

The biggest hangups for new players are always with adding PB into things correctly (or not adding) on their character sheet - in a perfect world, PB would be from 0-4 or 1-4, +1-3 items would be included into PB (the title of this post), it should be calculated in both AC and damage (things you are proficient in), and the calculations should start at 10 and not 8 - these are the things that I have to explain the most (particularly, why PB is for attack and not for damage and why the **** 8).

For new players the PB system could be more intuitive, apply to everything, and +1-3 items could apart of PB.

That's issue one.

Issue two -

Is that I honestly don't like loot tables nor do I like handing out customs items for players - it always seems like it's a lose/lose situation for both the DM and the players (short of just letting everyone pick their own items).

Loot tables are too random - the players might not get anything they can use, or it's worse than what everyone currently has. And with custom items, they might have wanted something in particular, or maybe it's a situation where Johnny got something better Timmy and now Timmy is bummed.

and that's fine, human nature, we have all been bummed at a treasure chest or two in our adventures - it's not necessarily a big deal and the system as a whole is still pretty solid.

but this is one aspect of dnd that I don't particularly enjoy as a DM and I think the EB system could be slightly revamped to fix this issue - and I'll explain why.

If everyone got a +1, +2, +3 added to their armor and weapons at level 5, 11, 16 (following the normal 5e progression) then you could take the basic magic weapons/armors (leaving the named stuff) off of the loot tables completely.

Now imagine a situation where the only thing left on the loot tables are fun, quirky, named, and nice to have items? NOT stuff players feel like they absolutely NEED TO HAVE by a certain level.

Your basic needs are already being met, you are automatically getting a +1, +2, and +3 at their appropriate levels - the only thing left are the more fun and unique items.

For me personally (and I can't imagine I'm the only DM), getting rid of +1, +2, +3 weapons and armor and thus getting rid of the players expectations to receive such items by certain levels would alleviate this - and again I'm not talking about getting rid of named/non basic magic items - but it would be nice if all magical weapons and armor auto raised with the player at 6, 11, 16.

That's issue two.

Fixing the PB system would seem like it would make the game a lot easier and alleviate both of my issues.

When you talk about "intended" levels, you imply that PCs SHOULD be getting certain magical bonuses at certain levels, and while I respect that as a perspective on the kind of game you like to play, the core rules DO NOT take that for granted.

Actually if you check the items the game recommends when creating PCs of levels higher than 1, for a "standard magic campaign" (whatever that means) level 17 PCs get 2 uncommon items and 1 rare item. Considering +X items, since that's what this thread is about, that would amount to +1 Armor, +1 Shield and +1 Weapon, and at lvl 16 you wouldn't even had enough to afford this. So if by any means the game does intend you to get numerical bonuses, it would just be the bare minimum, and only from lvl 17 onwards.

Another thing is, what would "baking the bonus into proficiency" even mean? if the games prof bonus went from +2 to +9 assuming the +1/2/3 bonus were "baked in", there would be no difference than if it wasn't. PB would just climb higher (and likely faster). It would make no difference for the game since it would then have been balanced around that. Which is the point of +X items, to unbalance the bounded accuracy.

Now, I do think +X items are the most boring kind of item (and I include things like Flame Tongues or the like, those are also +X to a common stat, in this case damage), and I generally try not to give those, instead opting for items with active abilities, which would be limited in their usage if they are strict upgrades, and more flexibility in its use if its a sidegrade.

Everything after this is kinda tangential, but its rarely talked about and thought it could be relevant to the thread.

An item allowing, for instance, an effect equivalent to an (average power) third level spell a day, is a strict upgrade for a full caster for any reasonable adventuring day until 11th lvl at the very least, since a full caster only has 9 slots that are lvl 3 and above by that level, so even if the whole adventuring day comprised only 10 combat turns, and no spell slots of level 3 or above were used outisde of combat, this item would be a strict upgrade for one of those 10 actions.

By comparison the ability to cast a lvl 1 equivalent effect at that level, is more often than not a sidegrade, since by that level cantrips are about the same damage wise as level 1 spells and most lvl 1 concentration effects have been made obsolete by higher level ones, thus spending your action on using said item is not power creeping your at will actions by much (if at all).

That's why I like the way wands work in this edition (particularly low level ones, it would break for non-conc higher level spells, it kinda already does with the wand of fireball), since they allow you the choice of having one really impactful action (spending all charges but the last), many less impactful ones (casting many times at base level), or something in between.

Now the thing with +X items is that they are strict upgrades that are on all day long, and specifically in the case of weapons they are an upgrade to your main action (most PCs interested in such items are likely to make liberal use of the Attack action), so from a white room, unlimited rounds, unlimited enemies within reach min/max perspective, its hard to compete with them, since the ammount of actions a given PC is gonna take in a adventuring day is something they can't optimize around because its an uncertain variable, which makes said items look better because in an arbitrarily long day they will always improve your average action more than anything printed with limited use, which leaves players with the idea that they are the most valuable items.

tl;dr: The amount of actions a PC takes per day is not unlimited, and is something most optimization exercises don't usually take into account.

[Tanarii]

Say all the named items - berserker axe, frost brand, flame tongue, luck blade were all +0 items, then they "become" +1, +2, +3 as you level up at 6, 11, 16 (or whatever) through the PB system already in place - so the items themselves wouldn't be called be called +X, the +X would just be apart of the normal PB progression.

You wouldn't lose anything on the current bounded accuracy system by removing it, the +X would just become apart of PB, nothing would actually change math wise - only that players can use any magic item throughout the entire course of their career.


The only answer that addresses why it might be helpful not to lump it into PB, is that it's an easy way for DM's to help struggling players.

In other words, you want to throw out bounded accuracy assumption that you dont need +# magical items.

If you make this change, you should also increase monster ACs, saves, and ability check DCs by +1/2/3 at the appropriate levels.

[ZRN]

Now, I do think +X items are the most boring kind of item (and I include things like Flame Tongues or the like, those are also +X to a common stat, in this case damage), and I generally try not to give those, instead opting for items with active abilities, which would be limited in their usage if they are strict upgrades, and more flexibility in its use if its a sidegrade.

...

Now the thing with +X items is that they are strict upgrades that are on all day long, and specifically in the case of weapons they are an upgrade to your main action (most PCs interested in such items are likely to make liberal use of the Attack action), so from a white room, unlimited rounds, unlimited enemies within reach min/max perspective its hard to compete with them, since the ammount of actions a given PC is gonna take in a adventuring day is something they can't optimize around because its an uncertain variable, which makes said items look better because in an arbitrarily long day they will always improve your average action more than anything printed with limited use, which leaves players with the idea that they are the most valuable items.

The approach I've used and encountered the most, to the degree that I assume (perhaps wrongly?) that it's a widespread default, is to include only +x equipment that ALSO has other, usually situational effects, ranging from "hums when demons are nearby" to "cast Tongues once a day on someone who touches the hilt of the blade" or whatever. That way the player gets that feeling of linear numerical improvement while also getting a more interesting benefit that they can use or forget as wanted.

[Unoriginal]

In other words, you want to throw out bounded accuracy assumption that you dont need +# magical items.

If you make this change, you should also increase monster ACs, saves, and ability check DCs by +1/2/3 at the appropriate levels.

True. And also their HPs. In particular for the resistant/immune to non-magical weapons ones.

[Nefariis]

Actually if you check the items the game recommends when creating PCs of levels higher than 1, for a "standard magic campaign" (whatever that means) level 17 PCs get 2 uncommon items and 1 rare item. Considering +X items, since that's what this thread is about, that would amount to +1 Armor, +1 Shield and +1 Weapon, and at lvl 16 you wouldn't even had enough to afford this. So if by any means the game does intend you to get numerical bonuses, it would just be the bare minimum, and only from lvl 17 onwards.

Can you point to a page number? I have not seen that.

Another thing is, what would "baking the bonus into proficiency" even mean? if the games prof bonus went from +2 to +9 assuming the +1/2/3 bonus were "baked in", there would be no difference than if it wasn't. PB would just climb higher (and likely faster). It would make no difference for the game since it would then have been balanced around that. Which is the point of +X items, to unbalance the bounded accuracy.

No PB would be from 0-4 or 1-4 or maybe even 1-5

Now the thing with +X items is that they are strict upgrades that are on all day long, and specifically in the case of weapons they are an upgrade to your main action (most PCs interested in such items are likely to make liberal use of the Attack action), so from a white room, unlimited rounds, unlimited enemies within reach min/max perspective its hard to compete with them, since the ammount of actions a given PC is gonna take in a adventuring day is something they can't optimize around because its an uncertain variable, which makes said items look better because in an arbitrarily long day they will always improve your average action more than anything printed with limited use, which leaves players with the idea that they are the most valuable items.

You are aware that spell attacks, like eldritch blast, use your proficiency bonus and can be done all day? As well as spell save cantrips (like Toll the Dead) which also involves your PB?

Soo, melee and casting would both be buffed at the same time like it's already happening through the current PB system.

PB already governs 5e and everything in it, I'm just proposing a slight change to further leverage the system that is already in place, and to make the maths for new players a bit easier.

[Valmark]

Can you point to a page number? I have not seen that.



No PB would be from 0-4 or 1-4 or maybe even 1-5



You are aware that spell attacks, like eldritch blast, use your proficiency bonus and can be done all day? As well as spell save cantrips (like Toll the Dead) which also involves your PB?

Soo, melee and casting would both be buffed at the same time like it's already happening through the current PB system.

PB already governs 5e and everything in it, I'm just proposing a slight change to further leverage the system that is already in place, and to make the maths for new players a bit easier.

I would not say that it makes math easier if instead of adding +2 and +1 you add +3.

Aside from that something I don't think has been mentioned is that some classes/subclasses depend on the PB for the uses of their features- so you'd have to also change how some features work if you wanted to change the PB system.

[Rukelnikov]

Can you point to a page number? I have not seen that.

DMG pg 38

No PB would be from 0-4 or 1-4 or maybe even 1-5

You are missing the point, PB could be static or range from 1 to 1 million, the game would still be balanced around that since it would be the same for everyone.

You are aware that spell attacks, like eldritch blast, use your proficiency bonus and can be done all day? As well as spell save cantrips (like Toll the Dead) which also involves your PB?

Soo, melee and casting would both be buffed at the same time like it's already happening through the current PB system.

PB already governs 5e and everything in it, I'm just proposing a slight change to further leverage the system that is already in place, and to make the maths for new players a bit easier.

I know, I specifically chose a caster as an example for that reason, and because spell level vs spell level is a far simpler comparison to make and explain than a Wand of Fireball vs +2 Weapon (which at a glance seems to be about the same DPR increase in a ~20 turn day for a lvl 11 EK)

[Tanarii]

PB already governs 5e and everything in it, I'm just proposing a slight change to further leverage the system that is already in place, and to make the maths for new players a bit easier.

It's not making the maths easier when you need to increase every TN in the game by the same amount to maintain the originally intended result, that the system math doesn't 'expect' that bonus to be included.

[Nefariis]

In other words, you want to throw out bounded accuracy assumption that you dont need +# magical items.

If you make this change, you should also increase monster ACs, saves, and ability check DCs by +1/2/3 at the appropriate levels.

Yeah raised or lowered depending on what the PB range was - it's not lost on me that game designers calculated CR based on PB.

Some adjustments would have to be made, but then again - what DM doesnt fudge the stat blocks of their monsters both higher and lower?.

[Tanarii]

Yeah raised or lowered depending on what the PB range was - it's not lost on me that game designers calculated CR based on PB.

Some adjustments would have to be made, but then again - what DM doesnt fudge the stat blocks of their monsters both higher and lower?.

Why not just Eliminate +1/2/3 weapons and armor from your game? It's the same result, and it actually makes math easier for newer players and the DM.

[Yakk]

+1/2/3 items are designed to be optional. You can play D&D without them.

The max bonus is small enough that it doesn't break bounded accuracy.

Getting a +3 item causes a decent bump in your character's power level. Magic items are a tool the DM has to manipulate a PC's power level relative to the world and to the other PCs.

The attunement ones are designed to be a fun and character defining, so the DM can feed those to PCs. The unattuned +X items instead grant boring power. So when the DM thinks that the PCs need a power bump (be it differential or not), make +X items available.

Suppose there is a Paladin with a flametongue longsword who is dominating fighting a bit too much for everyone to be having fun. Passing out vanilla +2 items will reduce that dominance.

These boring +X items are also callbacks to previous editions. D&D work work reasonably well if magic items all did extra dice of damage instead of static modifiers and never modified accuracy; except, for example, you have a situation where a PC didn't optimize their to-hit very well and is finding all fights are full of wiffs. Arranging for an item that is suspiciously useable for that PC but less so the rest of the party can patch that up.

[Nefariis]

Why not just Eliminate +1/2/3 weapons and armor from your game? It's the same result, and it actually makes math easier for newer players and the DM.

I mean.... that's essentially the title of the thread - and yeah, it's probably just as simple as that

[Willie the Duck]

I think magic weapons could have been just a bonus to damage, and not to-hit, and the system would have worked fine. If that sounds like something the OP would prefer, they could try it out.

So where this is coming from (and maybe it would help to explain the problem before looking for an answer), is that I've been a near a permanent DM for about 15 years, 8 years with 5e, and I DM a ton of new and just learning players.
...
The biggest hangups for new players are always with adding PB into things correctly (or not adding) on their character sheet - in a perfect world, PB would be from 0-4 or 1-4, +1-3 items would be included into PB (the title of this post), it should be calculated in both AC and damage (things you are proficient in), and the calculations should start at 10 and not 8 - these are the things that I have to explain the most (particularly, why PB is for attack and not for damage and why the **** 8).
For new players the PB system could be more intuitive, apply to everything, and +1-3 items could apart of PB.
...
Fixing the PB system would seem like it would make the game a lot easier and alleviate both of my issues.

I've played a game like this. Not with 5e, but with D&D. My first gaming was at ~9 yo with a BX/BE (the initial release of what would become BECMI) hybrid. We split our time trying to run it ourselves and having an older kid DM for us. He decided (I think accurately) that we weren't able to keep track of all sorts of different numbers and modifiers for most things (most specifically to-hits), so we just didn't use them. You did not get a to-hit/damage bonus for high Strength, the weapon just did the base damage dice, so you just used (your level-by-class line on) the to-hit table to determine what AC you hit. We eliminated the Constitution score and just got max hp each level (which, being BX, was 4, 6 or 8). Charisma affected the reaction table and how many henchmen you got. Str, Dex, Int, and Wis just influenced XP gained based on class prime requisites (and the adhoc task resolution system of roll under stat on d20, as appropriate). Since magic items were mostly player-facing, he had magic armor still benefit your AC and magic weapons gave a plus to damage only, but in general, you just followed the chart, and he'd adjust the difficulty of the opposition to match. It worked very well for what it was.

If you wanted to do something like that with 5e, I can see it working. Since for the most part people don't fight with weapons with which they are unproficient, you could probably drop the PB by 2 points and have it by 0-4 and lower the AC of the opposition by 2 and it all work out. My question to you is this: why is magic items the focus here? They are super-intuitive: +1 means +1 on to-hit and damage for weapons, and AC for armor. It is the least confusing part of the situation (especially now that everything is set to 'higher is always better and a bonus always increases things, etc.). Proficiency Bonus (following the slightly-hard-to-remember formula of '1+roundup(level/4)') and attribute modifiers (derived from from 'rounddown(attribute/2)-5') are significantly more of an issue and something one could eliminate/modify before worrying about +1-3 weapons and armor.

I mean.... that's essentially the title of the thread

Sure, but since then you've advocated rolling the bonus up into the character's innate abilities.

[EggKookoo]

This thread has me thinking;
What is the value of +1/+2/+3 in comparison to +dice on damage?
Has someone done the math on this?

I imagine it would be very similar to the GWM formula where the breakpoints exist on target AC.
It would be interesting to see where the break points are as to when +1/+2/+3 is better (assumed more value on high AC), and when what size of +dice are better (assumed value on low AC).

You could also play with incrementing the damage die size. So a magical longsword, no bonus to hit, deals 1d10 one-handed and 1d12 two handed.

I've toyed with the idea of a sword that deals damage as though the target was vulnerable to slashing, unless the target already resisted it (or was immune, naturally). I haven't implemented anything like that in game, though.

[Xervous]

Given the assumption that magic items are not guaranteed, and will be handed out as the GM sees fit, +X armor and weaponry is effectively an optional rule for people who want gear that does the thing it’s supposed to but better. It’s a tool for the GM to use or neglect as they see fit.