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

[Pex]

Maybe I'm grognard but while I wouldn't mind a magical +0 weapon that's always clean at level 3, enough to do full damage against a creature resistant to non-magical weapons, I don't want that to be my magic weapon at level 10, 15, or 20. I'm not demanding to have any specific magic weapon, but at some point I would like a flashier weapon. I'll say preferably before level 10. I'm perfectly happy and fine that 5E is made in such a way you don't need any particular magic item, but that's not the same thing as never having one. It is part of the fun of the game as a warrior to have a Kewl Neet weapon. I would enjoy a flame tongue, frost brand, or sunblade, but I'm not requiring one or else. It could be something the DM made up. It could be culturally tied to Campaign Plot, PC background, whatever epic story. It could very well be that original +0 weapon that's always clean that gains new abilities at particular character levels. Something that adds a little spice of decent worth that provides game mechanics assistance and not just roleplaying flavor text.

[KillingTime]

It's just flavour.
A +X longsword is just cooler to own than a mundane one.
At our table we flavour them up further by giving them names and describing what they look like and how the magic bonus manifests. Cos it's roleplay, and stuff like that is fun.
But there's really no point looking for extra meaning in a game sense. D&d is a magical setting with magical artifacts. Some of those artifacts will have extra special abilities, and some are easier to simplify to a straight +X bonus.
Does it break the game? Nope.
Does it ruin the maths of bounded accuracy? Nope.
Does it allow players to feel more badass?
Absolutely.

[Segev]

The discussion of "not special except for counting as 'magic'" weapons reminds me of how the -2 cursed sword was, for some 3.PF builds, a boon. The property that forced you to draw it every time you tried to draw a weapon could be a poor man's Returning, prevent disarming, and even be gamed to have a sword when you been stripped of gear if you could find a way to draw an improvised weapon.

[Doug Lampert]

Also a proficiency bonus of 0 at first level means no difference between being proficient or not, which sorta puts the lie to the name.

There's some thematic utility to +X items as well, since it lets you have swords that are simply very good at being swords, rather than requiring your enchanted cutlery to also be a portable bonfire. Like I don't recall Excalibur catching fire, and that's kinda the granddaddy of the magical weapon family in western mythology.

The Sword from the Stone is explicitly magical, and flashes with light in several battles which somehow turns the tide of the entire battle (presumably some sort of morale effect). Excalibur's scabbard prevents all blood loss by the wearer, and Arthur is told that it is thus more valuable than the sword. (He loses the scabbard and then gives the sword to Gawain to hold as it has been demonstrated via the loss of the two most powerful magic items in the stories that Arthur can't have nice things).

[GooeyChewie]

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

What I don't understand is why simply not using +X items would necessitate any change to how proficiency bonus works. The game math doesn't assume that you'll get +X items, so I see no reason to bake that bonus into the proficiency bonus.

[Tanarii]

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

The question is what is the purpose?

The purpose is to give you noticible but not excessive bonuses above and beyond the system math, in a way that makes a magic item feel special.

Your suggestion, without adjusting the TNs, would give characters a system math advantage without any magic items to feel special at higher levels.

[Skrum]

Related to this topic, +X arms and armor should *not* be magical, it should be exceptionally crafted items. My 2 cents that I will defend till the end of days.

[DwarfFighter]

Why does proficiency bonus start at +2?

I'm guessing that they wanted to do away with the non-proficient penalty, and they wanted to streamline attacks, saves and ability check (previously skill checks).

Back in the day, non-proficient attacks had a -4 penalty, proficiency negated that to +0. Also, things got wonky if you tried to have attack rolls, AC, skill checks and saves interact. An attack roll vs. a skill check? Your base attack bonus advances steadily by level, while skill ranks are widely unpredictable.

Starting proficiencies at +2 vs non-proficiencies at +0 says a couple of things:

All characters can try! The system does not presume that certain tasks are exclusive to certain characters.

The proficient character is better in a positive way. It's like being more wealthy because you have $2 and everyone else has $0, as opposed to you having no money and everyone else is $4 in debt.

You know what you are good at because you can see the proficiency bonus. You don't have to examine the task to determine if some sort of special skill is required to AVOID a penalty! This may not always be obvious since most tasks are dealt with by characters trained for that, but all tasks have you roll at +0 base and the proficiency bonus is incidental to your character.

[EggKookoo]

Why does proficiency bonus start at +2?

Not being part of the beta testing, I can only speculate, but I suspect Proficiency Bonus started out as Proficiency Dice along the lines of the variant of the same name in the DMG. You started with +1d4 and ended up with +1d12 (+1d20 being too powerful for mere mortal PCs). That's 5 dice spread out over 20 levels, so 4 levels per die. And +2/+3/+4/+5/+6 works close enough to the average of those dice that it was an easy conversion when they wanted to simplify things.

[CTurbo]

I understand why these weapons exist, but I can understand the argument for them to not exist as well.

In my games, we typically roll for stats and the norm is to have higher than point buy stats to start. It's not completely uncommon for a player to start with 20 in their attack stat. The last thing this player needs is MORE to-hit bonuses. A long while ago my whole group adapted a different magic weapon table delving deep into homebrew territory. A "mundane" +1 magic weapon does not have a to-hit bonus, only +1 to damage. We're pretty generous with the magic weapon riders too since it's a way for martials to keep up with spellcasters better at mid-high levels. 5e did seem to get boring with the magic weapons. Later in game, if a player is specifically wanting a magic weapon with a to-hit bonus, I'll let them find one, but the riders won't be as good.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I personally think that +X weapons and armor are inherently boring and distortionary (since +1 to hit is so much better than +1 to damage, generally, and those items are not attunement, people prefer those "boring" items to ones that have more interesting effects), I understand their meaning.

Bounded accuracy does not mean that the system assumes "At level X, attack bonus will be Y". It assumes that as a function of level, attack bonus will only scale slowly and within limits. This lets something else, a non-level-dependent effect (like an item) actually have meaning instead of just being a treadmill.

Take 4e. 4e made the assumption in its monster design that the all-inclusive attack bonus would be f(level), within very strict bounds. This mean that at each level you had a specific magic item grade (+X) that you had to have, otherwise you'd not be able to contribute. This meant that magic items were never rewards, they were requirements. You had to have specific items at specific points, otherwise the system fell apart mechanically.

Bounded accuracy prevents that. It lets a DM give someone a magic item as a cool thing and have it actually make them meaningfully more powerful than otherwise, while still not shattering the game math. Even a +3 item at low level doesn't shatter the math (although it does make CR very much less meaningful, but then again so do lots of things a DM can do). And having merely a "magic" weapon at level 20 also doesn't shatter the math. The math works just fine as long as you don't do something stupid (like make a melee combatant whose primary attack stat is 0 or negative[1]). The "expected" minimum breakpoints go something like

T1: +4 to hit.
early T2: +5 to hit
late T2: +6 to hit (from some combination of ASI and proficiency)
T3: +7 to hit - +9 to hit
T4: ~+10 to hit (+6 proficiency, +4 primary stat).

This assumes that the DM isn't doing things like only having you face CR >= level monsters, and that a roughly 50% hit rate is normal.

[1] I had a barbarian/cleric mix in a game. Halfling, low STR (like +1), wielding a heavy weapon. And wouldn't change that up for something more useful. He was very ineffective. His greatest effectiveness, hands down, was when he couldn't close to melee and used a sling. Seriously. Don't be this person unless you're in a joke game.

[Nefariis]

Not being part of the beta testing, I can only speculate, but I suspect Proficiency Bonus started out as Proficiency Dice along the lines of the variant of the same name in the DMG. You started with +1d4 and ended up with +1d12 (+1d20 being too powerful for mere mortal PCs). That's 5 dice spread out over 20 levels, so 4 levels per die. And +2/+3/+4/+5/+6 works close enough to the average of those dice that it was an easy conversion when they wanted to simplify things.

Interesting, and that actually makes sense - I could totally see the original version of 5e requiring a d4, d6, etc extra per attack roll or skill use en lieu of the +2-6 as we know it.

Related to this topic, +X arms and armor should *not* be magical, it should be exceptionally crafted items. My 2 cents that I will defend till the end of days.

I would be fine with this, it could be a new kind of crafter/artificaer that can make it - does this also mean that we can kill off non-magical resistances?

The purpose is to give you noticible but not excessive bonuses above and beyond the system math, in a way that makes a magic item feel special.

Your suggestion, without adjusting the TNs, would give characters a system math advantage without any magic items to feel special at higher levels.

The only thing I want to change is to take out the +1/+2/+3 (so the prefixes) to attack/damage and AC from magical armors and weapons - all the magical/wondrous/legendary items would still exist and so would their riders/abilities - don't worry bud, you can still feel special at higher levels, I wont take that away from you.


*edit*

Sorry for the quick edit -

It sounds like though, that most people are in agreeance that, because of the way 5e is setup, that PC's could go from 1-20 without needing an extra +1/+2/+3 to either their attack/damage or their AC (as long as they have some way to overcome non-magical resistances).

Essentially the +1/+2/+3 items are just character gravy.

[Segev]

Essentially the +1/+2/+3 items are just character gravy.

Essentially, yes.

They shouldn't be necessary, and if they are given unnecessarily, they will have the desired effect of making the PC who has them feel especially deadly in combat. If they are necessary, for whatever reason, they can be used to patch things without having to do anything more than hand out a magic item or two.

[Rukelnikov]

Essentially, yes.

They shouldn't be necessary, and if they are given unnecessarily, they will have the desired effect of making the PC who has them feel especially deadly in combat. If they are necessary, for whatever reason, they can be used to patch things without having to do anything more than hand out a magic item or two.

I've read a couple comments like this on this thread... and Idk, I never did that thing as a GM where if one PC got a +1 sword everyone gets a +1 sword, they are individuals after all. However, I would feel kinda cheated as a player if someone has a +3 vorpal for 3 levels while another martial only has a +1 weapon... Or if someone who already has the best magical equipment in the party gets even more substantial magical equipment while the rest is still left behind. And since I woudn't like it as a player, I try not to to that as a DM.

Using magic items to balance the party's internal "power level", could very easily lead to disillusioned players and internal animosity between the players and between players and DM, so its something I would say should be done with a lot of care. A DM who loses the trust of his players will have a really difficult time managing to engage them in his story/setting.

[Nefariis]

I've read a couple comments like this on this thread... and Idk, I never did that thing as a GM where if one PC got a +1 sword everyone gets a +1 sword, they are individuals after all. However, I would feel kinda cheated as a player if someone has a +3 vorpal for 3 levels while another martial only has a +1 weapon... Or if someone who already has the best magical equipment in the party gets even more substantial magical equipment while the rest is still left behind. And since I woudn't like it as a player, I try not to to that as a DM.

Using magic items to balance the party's internal "power level", could very easily lead to disillusioned players and internal animosity between the players and between players and DM, so its something I would say should be done with a lot of care. A DM who loses the trust of his players will have a really difficult time managing to engage them in his story/setting.

This is exactly what I said was my second major issue with the +1/+2/+3 prefixes (behind trying to make PB and character sheets easier for new players to fill out)

Rolling on tables is too random and passing out weapons/armor (what players are more likely to deem "must have") has the appearance of favoritism - which is why I was proposing to either get rid of +1/+2/+3 or to add +1 at 6, 11, and 16 automatically.

[The_Jette]

This is exactly what I said was my second major issue with the +1/+2/+3 prefixes (behind trying to make PB and character sheets easier for new players to fill out)

Rolling on tables is too random and passing out weapons/armor (what players are more likely to deem "must have") has the appearance of favoritism - which is why I was proposing to either get rid of +1/+2/+3 or to add +1 at 6, 11, and 16 automatically.

I just want to say: handing out weapons and armor only has the appearance of favoritism if only one person (or rather, not everyone) is getting them.

[Rukelnikov]

This is exactly what I said was my second major issue with the +1/+2/+3 prefixes (behind trying to make PB and character sheets easier for new players to fill out)

Rolling on tables is too random and passing out weapons/armor (what players are more likely to deem "must have") has the appearance of favoritism - which is why I was proposing to either get rid of +1/+2/+3 or to add +1 at 6, 11, and 16 automatically.

I've ran both methods, random has the problem of very often resulting in stuff no one uses, but also a bigger problem, if you randomly determine equipment POST battle, that means the creature didn't have it equipped for this fight.

Why would a very smart Lich have a ring of protection lying around in his laboratory instead of having it in his finger?

So I ended up always doing the equipment myself when it comes to "story relevant" NPCs, and leave random loot tables for random or pseudo random encounters (which I don't do much as of late).

Actually the last time I DMed, after my players led a group of scoundrels and "evil" races (orcs, goblins, trolls, etc) to stage a top security prison break (starting from the outside), I told them there was a lot of loot, but also lots of people claiming loot too, so they had "first pick". They could basically describe more or less what they wanted and I would give them something of the sort. The druid asked for a Key that could open any door, I thought it fitting for someone in a high security magical prison to have something like that, and I refluffed a chime of opening. The other one wanted an item to boost his Charisma, and I thought that sucked and he was already at 20, I told him there was nothing that could get him above 20 here, so then he asked for something to make him fast, so I offered some anklets that would let him operate under the effects of Haste for 10 non consecutive rounds per day, it may have been a bit OP, but it wasn't a campaign centered around combat, and giving less rounds than that sounded like it wouldn't make difference, especially since he was playing a sorcerer.

Prior to that in a similar situation one ended up with a wand of fireballs and another with a staff of healing, yup, the second time they got magic loot it was far less powerful than the first, but both times it was them who described what they wanted the item to do, and I chose/modified from those already existing.

I just want to say: handing out weapons and armor only has the appearance of favoritism if only one person (or rather, not everyone) is getting them.

Hmm... I think the problem arises when it goes on for too long, one PC getting magical weaponry before the rest doesn't sound so strange for 1 level, 2 full levels would be too much for my taste, 3 would be constant player nagging "I want a magic Halberd!"

Ofc this is all setting dependant, in some settings getting a magic item could be the equivalent of getting an artifact in more "standard" DnD like Greyhawk or FR. I played many adventures where the party had artifacts in its possession, a character of mine had a Moonblade since lvl 10 (they were minor artifaccts in 3.x) it was a heirloom (well, yeah ofc it was), but I didn't expect to get an artifact myself in other campaigns when somebody else got one. They are suppossed to be extremely rare, I wouldn't like it if we all had one in the party, especially if we all got them at the same time, it would make them feel lame and commonplace.

[Segev]

I've read a couple comments like this on this thread... and Idk, I never did that thing as a GM where if one PC got a +1 sword everyone gets a +1 sword, they are individuals after all. However, I would feel kinda cheated as a player if someone has a +3 vorpal for 3 levels while another martial only has a +1 weapon... Or if someone who already has the best magical equipment in the party gets even more substantial magical equipment while the rest is still left behind. And since I woudn't like it as a player, I try not to to that as a DM.

Using magic items to balance the party's internal "power level", could very easily lead to disillusioned players and internal animosity between the players and between players and DM, so its something I would say should be done with a lot of care. A DM who loses the trust of his players will have a really difficult time managing to engage them in his story/setting.

The DM doesn't hand out magic items to specific PCs. At most, he can place one that is perfect for a PC. Nothing stops the party from agreeing to distribute it differently. Frankly, though, if it's obviously shoring up a weakness, I doubt most parties would care, unless the now-item-enhanced PC starts overshadowing everybody.

If the players have an issue at this point, it's an OOC one, best handled with OOC discussion.

[Rukelnikov]

The DM doesn't hand out magic items to specific PCs. At most, he can place one that is perfect for a PC. Nothing stops the party from agreeing to distribute it differently. Frankly, though, if it's obviously shoring up a weakness, I doubt most parties would care, unless the now-item-enhanced PC starts overshadowing everybody.

Well yeha, maybe they decide not to give the Rod of the Pact Keeper to the Warlock, or the Oathbow to the archer... But even if they do, the intent is clear, which is what would bring the problems.

If the players have an issue at this point, it's an OOC one, best handled with OOC discussion.

Yeah, of course it is, the PCs are not complaining for having a chosen one amongst them, the players are complaining because of the favoritism.

[Segev]

Well yeha, maybe they decide not to give the Rod of the Pact Keeper to the Warlock, or the Oathbow to the archer... But even if they do, the intent is clear, which is what would bring the problems.



Yeah, of course it is, the PCs are not complaining for having a chosen one amongst them, the players are complaining because of the favoritism.

And that is, again, an OOC problem. A DM handing out items to shore up a weaker PC is probably doing so because it's gotten pretty obvious that it's needed. If the problem is, in fact, favoritism, that is, again, an OOC problem, and won't be solved by refusing to use tools that are available to you.

[Rukelnikov]

And that is, again, an OOC problem. A DM handing out items to shore up a weaker PC is probably doing so because it's gotten pretty obvious that it's needed. If the problem is, in fact, favoritism, that is, again, an OOC problem, and won't be solved by refusing to use tools that are available to you.

Of course it is, that doesn't make it less of a problem, I'd argue is an even bigger one.

That's why I'd discourage giving magic items to "balance" the party.

[Segev]

Of course it is, that doesn't make it less of a problem, I'd argue is an even bigger one.

That's why I'd discourage giving magic items to "balance" the party.

that makes no sense to me. "Of course jealousy/envy between players and/or favoritism is an out of character problem. That is why I would never recommend using magic items to make a character who is missing too much or not doing enough damage because his bonuses are too far behind the rest of the party have bonuses in ne with the rest of the party."

I do not see the logical connection. It makes as much sense to me as, "Of course ketchup goes on french fries. That is why you should eat only ham on Thanksgiving."

[Rukelnikov]

that makes no sense to me. "Of course jealousy/envy between players and/or favoritism is an out of character problem. That is why I would never recommend using magic items to make a character who is missing too much or not doing enough damage because his bonuses are too far behind the rest of the party have bonuses in ne with the rest of the party."

I do not see the logical connection. It makes as much sense to me as, "Of course ketchup goes on french fries. That is why you should eat only ham on Thanksgiving."

Giving more items to a player because s/he is "lagging behind" is likely to be viewed as favoritism eventually.

Player favoritism is likely to generate animosity if it extends for a long period of time (10 sesions is almost 3 months normally)

You can explain your reasons for it (This PC needs a boost), but IME eventually the other players won't be ok with the situation. (why does he always get candy and we get bread?)

Build encounters that play to that characters strenghts, let the player retrain levels or feats without compromising the character concept or help him build a character that will be more useful. But dont give one player candy all the time and the others bread.

[kazaryu]

Here is one aspect of 5e I never understood - why even have +1, +2, +3 magical weapons and Armor?

The whole system is supposed to have bounded accuracy, and we already have a proficiency bonus system in place that raises with your total character level -

so why do we have +1, +2, +3 items at all?

Can't we just say that people get a +1 to armor and weapon/spell attacks at level 6, 11, and 16? and couldn't we just build this into the proficiency bonus system that literally already exists?

If we are just doing it for the purpose of overcoming magical resistances, then couldn't we just have base magical items and call it a day?

This seems like its just a relic from past systems that was ported over.

so a big part is legacy. but the other part is to make PC's special. the idea with 5e is that when you *do* get a magic item, ideally it should mean something to either the player or the character. but it also allows the player to break bounded accuracy. making PC's feel special for having the magic items. of course...thats not how they tend to work in practice. unfortunately there are a few things in the games design philosophy that are built on the assumption that players play differently than they do. monsters with resistance to magic weapons is one of them.

And as a side note and a separate topic, I'm surprised that proficiency bonus isn't built into armor calculation.

i.e (and I am completely making this up on the fly, don't get caught up in the exact numbers)

leather = 9 + dex + PB
hide = 10 + dex (2 max) + PB
half plate = 13 + dex (+2 max) + PB
Ringmail = 15 + PB
Plate is = 16 + PB

Essentially, the higher level you are, the better you are at dodging attacks in the same armor as a level 1 mook.

So a level 1 fighter in plate has 18 AC and a level 20 fighter in the same plate is 22 AC - to me it makes perfect sense that someone with 20 levels of fighter should be more proficient at wearing that plate armor - and, as a bonus, you completely get rid of the +1, +2, +3 items.

Thoughts?

this is literally what bounded accuracy is meant to avoid. ironically, 'bounded accuracy' isn't really about the accuracy, its about the target. the idea that anyone, at any level, should be able to hit any target. which is why a 20ac is considered 'high' in 5e, even though you can hit it without any to-hit bonus. its also why monster AC's tend to be around the mid teens, even higher tier monsters. that way i can still threaten a party, even a level 20 party, with a group of cr1 goblins.

[Pex]

It sounds like though, that most people are in agreeance that, because of the way 5e is setup, that PC's could go from 1-20 without needing an extra +1/+2/+3 to either their attack/damage or their AC (as long as they have some way to overcome non-magical resistances).

Essentially the +1/+2/+3 items are just character gravy.

Yes, but not needing them is not the same thing as they shouldn't exist.

[Segev]

Giving more items to a player because s/he is "lagging behind" is likely to be viewed as favoritism eventually.

Player favoritism is likely to generate animosity if it extends for a long period of time (10 sesions is almost 3 months normally)

You can explain your reasons for it (This PC needs a boost), but IME eventually the other players won't be ok with the situation. (why does he always get candy and we get bread?)

Build encounters that play to that characters strenghts, let the player retrain levels or feats without compromising the character concept or help him build a character that will be more useful. But dont give one player candy all the time and the others bread.

I am not sure where you get the impression I am saying to shower one player with magic items and give the others dross. I am saying that giving out a +X item that helps a PC who is lagging can help. Even if that WERE an "extra" item over the number given to everyone else, you honestly think one bonus item that gives a +1 or even a +3 that only bris?his numbers up to the low end of the rest of the party will create a sense of favoritism?

Sounds to me like you had better not tailor those encounters, either, or the other players will feel like you're picking on them and giving the favorite player all the easy chances to shine.

[Tanarii]

Hmm... I think the problem arises when it goes on for too long, one PC getting magical weaponry before the rest doesn't sound so strange for 1 level, 2 full levels would be too much for my taste, 3 would be constant player nagging "I want a magic Halberd!"

"Okay, put together a plan to find one, or find the formula to make one, and put together a Party to go do it."

that makes no sense to me. "Of course jealousy/envy between players and/or favoritism is an out of character problem. That is why I would never recommend using magic items to make a character who is missing too much or not doing enough damage because his bonuses are too far behind the rest of the party have bonuses in ne with the rest of the party."

I do not see the logical connection. It makes as much sense to me as, "Of course ketchup goes on french fries. That is why you should eat only ham on Thanksgiving."

Given that you can have level 5 non-optimized (didn't max attack stat) level 6 characters in a Party with optimized (maxed attack stat) level 9 characters in a Party without significant issue, the perception issue here is that a Magic item is needed to make up for numbers. Not to mention the player chose to be behind to gain something else.

Now at a table where multiclass and feats are allowed, you might want to "give" something special to every martial that doesn't take GWM/PAM/SS/XBE. And explicitly not "give" any to those feat users, or full casters that take Res (Con) or dip for armor. Or choose to play a Hexblade. Because those are imbalance problems between choices within a single character, especially compared to the default game. Balancing character option picks by making it clear that the powerful ones won't get as good Magic item support is one perfectly reasonable method to address them.

Edit: Personally I prefer randomly generating Magic items. During adventure creation though. I don't think I've heard of "do it on the spot as a "loot drop" as a concept since AD&D.

[Rukelnikov]

I am not sure where you get the impression I am saying to shower one player with magic items and give the others dross. I am saying that giving out a +X item that helps a PC who is lagging can help. Even if that WERE an "extra" item over the number given to everyone else, you honestly think one bonus item that gives a +1 or even a +3 that only bris?his numbers up to the low end of the rest of the party will create a sense of favoritism?

Not immediately, no. But if the problem is that someones character is noticeably less impactful in combat than the rest, noticeable enough that it has become an issue that needs to be addressed, it's probably something that will go on for most of the campaign, and as levels go on, what bridged that gap at level 4 is not likely to keep bridging it at 8, and it creates a treadmill effect, cause next time they get some big loot you are positioning yourself in a place where if you give everyone awesome items, he is still behind, so he always needs an "awesomer" item. And... it gets old after a while that s/he's always getting the better tailored gear.

Maybe this is not what you were suggesting, but when I read it like "as a general rule", this is what came to mind.

Sounds to me like you had better not tailor those encounters, either, or the other players will feel like you're picking on them and giving the favorite player all the easy chances to shine.

Well, encounters are not only combat, if a PC is not very impactful in combat I hope its good at something outside it, maybe detecting traps, maybe being a face, maybe being a detective, something. And also, if they build a character with certain skillsets useful outside of combat, they will likely wanna be able to use them every once in a while. And if the character is no good at anything, then I believe as a DM you should advice the player on their choices, so that they know the character they are building won't be really useful at anything, and if they still decide to go on with it, then there's no need to balance anything, cause the player knew that was gonna be the case.

"Okay, put together a plan to find one, or find the formula to make one, and put together a Party to go do it."

Yeah, that's pretty much what would happen, and then the power disparity that magic weaponry was supposed to fix is back again.

Just to clarify, I do give my players magical gear, I like giving them stuff to get creative, and I like when I get those as a PC.

I'm just against trying to use magical gear as a means to "balance the party power-wise". It feels in a way that you are limiting the campaign, and the players options.

Given that you can have level 5 non-optimized (didn't max attack stat) level 6 characters in a Party with optimized (maxed attack stat) level 9 characters in a Party without significant issue, the perception issue here is that a Magic item is needed to make up for numbers. Not to mention the player chose to be behind to gain something else.

Now at a table where multiclass and feats are allowed, you might want to "give" something special to every martial that doesn't take GWM/PAM/SS/XBE. And explicitly not "give" any to those feat users, or full casters that take Res (Con) or dip for armor. Or choose to play a Hexblade. Because those are imbalance problems between choices within a single character, especially compared to the default game. Balancing character option picks by making it clear that the powerful ones won't get as good Magic item support is one perfectly reasonable method to address them.

Edit: Personally I prefer randomly generating Magic items. During adventure creation though. I don't think I've heard of "do it on the spot as a "loot drop" as a concept since AD&D.

I did this for a while, just out of curiosity, do you equip monsters with the loot they have (when it makes sense, for example if they are humanoids that could benefit from them)

[Thunderous Mojo]

Rolling on tables is too random and passing out weapons/armor (what players are more likely to deem "must have") has the appearance of favoritism

It appears your aesthetic sensibilities might have lead you into a trap.

Many players, (and I would go so far as to say most), enjoy some degree of change in status and possessions as they play their character....especially if the campaign is the type that can be expected to be played for years.

As a player I certainly appreciate when I have advanced to a level that increases my Proficiency Bonus, but it doesn't exactly yield the same Roleplaying opportunities as finding Namara, "The Sword that Never Sleeps" that is a +1 Longsword, can float on water, and never makes a sound when it's blade strikes.

The sword is also ancient, (as in thousands of years old), and has developed a legendary reputation, as some of the greatest heroes in the world have had possession of it over the eons.

(In fact some say those that hold the sword are destined for greatness)

A static bonus may be mathematically equivalent to the +1, but the sword gives a great Roleplaying hook.

Edit: Personally I prefer randomly generating Magic items. During adventure creation though. I don't think I've heard of "do it on the spot as a "loot drop" as a concept since AD&D.

I confess that I do, (sometimes), generate loot right at the table still. Admittedly, this is primarily due to a lack of prep time.

I'm also going to advocate that those that have never used Random Loot, try it a few times. The stories that arise out of Serendipity, are often way better than anything I would have conceived of as a DM.

It is fun watching a Lantern of Revealing you randomly rolled two sessions before, wreck havoc during an encounter with Skulks and Will O' Wisps a month later.

[Tanarii]

I did this for a while, just out of curiosity, do you equip monsters with the loot they have (when it makes sense, for example if they are humanoids that could benefit from them)

When it makes sense and they know what they have, definitely.