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

[Pex]

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


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.

No, that's punishing players for the choices they make. DM doesnt like the player's build choice so no magic item for you! I don't accept that. The Great Weapon Master warrior still gets his magical greatsword/great axe. It doesn't have to be a +2 weapon with a rider like the 16 ST Champion weapon and shield user Protection style with Healer feat got, but he gets something and it's not a +0 greatsword that never gets dirty or that ilk. It could be a +1 greatsword that does an extra 1d6 radiant damage against undead and fiends in a campaign where undead and/or fiends will appear often not necessarily every combat. Maybe it's a Flametongue. He gets something.

[Tanarii]

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 used to use it with AD&D "build a dungeon" tables. Does the DMG still have those?

I confess, I've skipped over the vast majority of the world and adventure building sections of the DMG despite looking at the book at least once a week.

No, that's punishing players for the choices they make.

No, it's not. It's adding a cost to the feat / choice before it is made, which changes the value equation when considering making it.

Doing it after the fact without making it explicit in advance by intentionally selectively rewarding as a balancing act for others might be punishing choice. It depends on the intent, and if it negatively impacts the chooser.

[Pex]

No, it's not. It's adding a cost to the feat / choice before it is made, which changes the value equation when considering making it.

Tomato tomahto

[Tanarii]

Tomato tomahto

Absolutely not. More like Tomato, Piece of Iron.

[Zalabim]

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.

If you're hitting 50% of the time, and players probably prefer 70%, then 1d6 is worth an average of 1.925. So the break even with +1 weapon is 27.5 as your average damage roll. If you instead hit 40% of the time, the break even is at 22.5.

[Amdy_vill]

so the reason we have +x items is because bounded accuracy includes +x items, if you play the game without +X items you will find yourself massively underperforming after level 5 and at level 10 you pretty much can't play. note magic-user classes because of how spells are built can ignore as dc are easier to succeed compared to AC.

[JNAProductions]

so the reason we have +x items is because bounded accuracy includes +x items, if you play the game without +X items you will find yourself massively underperforming after level 5 and at level 10 you pretty much can't play. note magic-user classes because of how spells are built can ignore as dc are easier to succeed compared to AC.

No? Not at all.

The game doesn't assume anything in terms of magic items, save weapon-users having something that at least COUNTS as magical by late Tier 2. And even that can be done away with, if the DM just picks enemies carefully.

[Rukelnikov]

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

Cool, idk why but I'm generally under the impression most DMs don't do that for randomly generated loot.

If you're hitting 50% of the time, and players probably prefer 70%, then 1d6 is worth an average of 1.925. So the break even with +1 weapon is 27.5 as your average damage roll. If you instead hit 40% of the time, the break even is at 22.5.

Hmm... I'm getting some different results, granted my napkin math is not taking crits into consideration, but the disparity is to large for crits to shore it.

50% I get you need 24+ avg damage (in a d6 weapon), to get higher DPR from a +1att/dam

if you replace for 40% you need only 19+

and with 70% well... you need 34+

With larger damage dice the disparity increases clearly in favor of the damage bonus

Spoiler: math

Show

(d + 3.5) * 10/20 < (d + 1) * 11/20

10d + 35 < 11d + 11

24 < d

The general formula would be something like:

ad = avg att damage
wd = avg weapon die damage
h/5 = chanche to hit / 5 (50% would be 10, since its the amount of sides on the d20 that land the hit)

==> (ad + wd) * h/5 < (ad + 1) * (h/5 +1)

==> h/5 * ad + h/5 * wd < ad * h/5 + ad + h/5 + 1

==> h/5 * wd < ad + h/5 + 1

==> h/5 * wd - h/5 < ad + 1

==> h/5 * (wd - 1) < ad +1

==> h/5 * (weapon dice avg - 1) < attack dam avg +1

it breaks if you are already hiting on a 2 (95%), or if you would miss even on a 20 ("0%")

Now since your att dam avg and weapon die avg are static, we can solve for %hit

%hit < 5 * (attack dam avg +1) / (weapon dice avg - 1)

For instance a Greataxe wielded by someone with 20 str using GWM would have an avg dam of 21.5 and avg dice of 6.5

%hit < 5 * 22.5 / 5.5

%hit < 20.45

So the extra damage die will yield higher DPR as long as your chance to hit is above 20.45%

[Pixel_Kitsune]

It's a placebo.

Fun fact, Department Stores don't really have massive sales. Levi's aren't really $50 marked down to $20. They're $20 but they fake the sale so people feel like they got a deal.

JC Penny tried just being honest and almost went bankrupt.

People in general find having a +7 to a +8 because of their cool magic weapon more interesting than just having a +8.

[Amdy_vill]

No? Not at all.

The game doesn't assume anything in terms of magic items, save weapon-users having something that at least COUNTS as magical by late Tier 2. And even that can be done away with, if the DM just picks enemies carefully.

bounded accuracy assumes you have a +3 stat and your proficiency mod, look at the average ac of monsters you will find after level 5 not only do you need a magic item to overcome damage resistance but also that the ac spikes up by 1 above what you expect. it happens again at level 10 making it 2 points higher than you would expect. you will also notice that monster attacks do the same having an odd spike in bonus to hit that would require most martial classes to pick up a +x ac item. exceptions being for fighters with heavy armor and lucky monks and barbarians.

[JNAProductions]

bounded accuracy assumes you have a +3 stat and your proficiency mod, look at the average ac of monsters you will find after level 5 not only do you need a magic item to overcome damage resistance but also that the ac spikes up by 1 above what you expect. it happens again at level 10 making it 2 points higher than you would expect. you will also notice that monster attacks do the same having an odd spike in bonus to hit that would require most martial classes to pick up a +x ac item. exceptions being for fighters with heavy armor and lucky monks and barbarians.

Erm... Wouldn't that be easier to explain with increase to your attack stat? Something that's guaranteed, and not subject to the DM's whims/random chance?

[Amdy_vill]

Erm... Wouldn't that be easier to explain with increase to your attack stat? Something that's guaranteed, and not subject to the DM's whims/random chance?

you could but multiple dragon talks directly say those increases are because your expected to have magic items at those levels. also, cr 5 and cr 10 don't line up right with ASI. its a little thing but still an important note.

[Rukelnikov]

bounded accuracy assumes you have a +3 stat and your proficiency mod, look at the average ac of monsters you will find after level 5 not only do you need a magic item to overcome damage resistance but also that the ac spikes up by 1 above what you expect. it happens again at level 10 making it 2 points higher than you would expect. you will also notice that monster attacks do the same having an odd spike in bonus to hit that would require most martial classes to pick up a +x ac item. exceptions being for fighters with heavy armor and lucky monks and barbarians.

You de need magic weaponry to overcome monsters damage resistance, but that doesn't mean a +X to att and damage, a Sword of Gleaming is magical and bypases the resistances, all it does is shine all day long.

Regarding the to hit bonus:

The guidelines from the DMG put CR 1 AC at 13, and you have +2 prof, so you would need 11 between die result and stat bonus to hit

At lvl 4 it bumps to 14, coincidentally thats the level a single class character gets their first ASI, so the relation would stay the same as at lvl 1
At lvl 5 it bumps to 15, which is when prof increases too, so we are still equal
At lvl 8 it goes to 16, again an ASI lvl, and since as you said +3 is the expected at level one, we are still in the same territory we were at lvl 1, monsters got +3 AC, PCs got 2 ASIs and a prof increase
At lvl 9 it stays on 16, and prof increased so hitting has become EASIER than at lvl 1.
At lvl 10 AC rises to 17, so it goes back to lvl 1 difficulty (if this bump had been at lvl 9, we would still have the same chances from lvl 1 till now)
At lvl 13 it increases by 1 to 18, and so does proficiency.
And finally at lvl 17 it increases to 19, and again so does proficiency.

So your expected chance to hit against a monster of your CR stays the same throught the 20 levels EXCEPT in lvl 9 when its actually easier.

Thus, no, you don't need magic weaponry to hit more often if the guideline is somewhat accurate, and I reckon it is.

What I do in my games is add proficiency to AC for most creatures in the MM, since those were clearly not balanced against feats and magic items, nevermind the eventual and inevitable power creep that dnd editions always have.

[Lucas Yew]

I do agree with the OP in that your skills alone should be enough to keep up with the in-game expected progression, instead of bribing your way to victory with an outside source dependency such as necessary magical equipment.
Hope I got their message straight though.

[x3n0n]

you could but multiple dragon talks directly say those increases are because your expected to have magic items at those levels. also, cr 5 and cr 10 don't line up right with ASI. its a little thing but still an important note.

Can you point us to a Dragon Talk that says this? I'm very surprised because everything I can remember hearing from Jeremy Crawford says that system was built with the goal that magic items should never be necessary, just a "nice to have".

[Segev]

You de need magic weaponry to overcome monsters damage resistance, but that doesn't mean a +X to att and damage, a Sword of Gleaming is magical and bypases the resistances, all it does is shine all day long.

Regarding the to hit bonus:

The guidelines from the DMG put CR 1 AC at 13, and you have +2 prof, so you would need 11 between die result and stat bonus to hit

At lvl 4 it bumps to 14, coincidentally thats the level a single class character gets their first ASI, so the relation would stay the same as at lvl 1
At lvl 5 it bumps to 15, which is when prof increases too, so we are still equal
At lvl 8 it goes to 16, again an ASI lvl, and since as you said +3 is the expected at level one, we are still in the same territory we were at lvl 1, monsters got +3 AC, PCs got 2 ASIs and a prof increase
At lvl 9 it stays on 16, and prof increased so hitting has become EASIER than at lvl 1.
At lvl 10 AC rises to 17, so it goes back to lvl 1 difficulty (if this bump had been at lvl 9, we would still have the same chances from lvl 1 till now)
At lvl 13 it increases by 1 to 18, and so does proficiency.
And finally at lvl 17 it increases to 19, and again so does proficiency.

So your expected chance to hit against a monster of your CR stays the same throught the 20 levels EXCEPT in lvl 9 when its actually easier.

Thus, no, you don't need magic weaponry to hit more often if the guideline is somewhat accurate, and I reckon it is.

What I do in my games is add proficiency to AC for most creatures in the MM, since those were clearly not balanced against feats and magic items, nevermind the eventual and inevitable power creep that dnd editions always have.

It looks to me like you missed the 16 and 19 single-class ASIs, which would actually make it get easier at those levels, and if the monsters don't gain more AC around then, after 16, it's at the same difficulty it was for that brief period at level 9, and after 19, it's even easier still.

Edit to add: Which is to say, this is a good and helpful analysis; I was just adding in a couple things that bolster your point.

[Sigreid]

IMO and observation for the most part magic bonuses allow you to punch above your weight class. They're best used when the DM wants to use higher CR encounters they otherwise wouldn't stand a chance against.

Basically, + magic items let me use and play with monsters I ordinarily shouldn't yet.

[Tanarii]

bounded accuracy assumes you have a +3 stat and your proficiency mod, look at the average ac of monsters you will find after level 5 not only do you need a magic item to overcome damage resistance but also that the ac spikes up by 1 above what you expect. it happens again at level 10 making it 2 points higher than you would expect. you will also notice that monster attacks do the same having an odd spike in bonus to hit that would require most martial classes to pick up a +x ac item. exceptions being for fighters with heavy armor and lucky monks and barbarians.

No. They explicitly don't do that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

No. They explicitly don't do that.

Exactly. Not only that, CR ~ Level is not how the game is intended. The CR of monsters you fight on a regular basis is generally going to be significantly lower than your party level, because they're intended to come in groups. Generally somewhere between CR ~ level / 2 and CR ~ level - 3.

And there's no significant power boost for CR 5+ monsters statistically. They grow at a roughly linear rate until the mid teens, when you start having more "boss-style" monsters that deviate. Characters get power boosts at tier boundaries, but that's from things like Extra Attack, 3rd/6th/9th level spells, etc. And those power boosts are baked in to the classes, not equipment dependent.

Also, if every character was expected to have a +X weapon by level 5, the treasure tables need to be completely overhauled. Because my copy of Xanathar's suggests that by level 5, the entire party should have 2 major magic items (which all +X weapons are). Period. And by level 10, they should have a cumulative total of 8. Giving an average party of 4 each a magic weapon would eat half the entire magic item budget, leaving little for actually interesting things.

This edition was designed to remove the "Christmas Tree/Item Treadmill" problem of earlier editions (3e and 4e especially). 3e and 4e assumed certain equipment-based bonuses at various levels. And in doing so, made magic items build requirements, not rewards. PF and later 4e solved that problem by just giving those "boring" bonuses (the +X to Y) as inherent bonuses on level up. But that's just a patch over a problem. And means that your range of acceptable monsters is a tiny sliding window, instead of 5e's generally expanding window (the low end moves up, but not as fast as the high end moves).

[stoutstien]

It's a placebo.

Fun fact, Department Stores don't really have massive sales. Levi's aren't really $50 marked down to $20. They're $20 but they fake the sale so people feel like they got a deal.

JC Penny tried just being honest and almost went bankrupt.

People in general find having a +7 to a +8 because of their cool magic weapon more interesting than just having a +8.

Off topic but the JC Penny thing about being honest about pricing being the reason they almost went under is a red herring. They made rapid back to back high risk investment choices and banked on the fact they could leverage there assets and contracts in the event of the odds not playing out. Eventually they over played their hand and ran out of retries so they needed a reason to save face hence the honest price angle. In reality there net sales showed little deviation so the only loss from it was due to wasted advertisement. Similar story for Toys r Us.

It is kinda similar to the whole +1/2/3 magic gear thing. For the most part they are false advancement if they are factored into the base PC progression but if you don't factor them on some level you can quickly jump out of the normal range of what is expected. See any high AC build getting to the point they only take damage on nat 20s.

[Morty]

Count me in as one of those who don't see a lot of purpose behind +1/+2/+3 items. If they need to exist, they don't necessarily need to be magical, just high quality. But actual magic items should give their users options they didn't have before. Even a bog-standard flaming weapon is better than a +1 weapon, because doing fire damage with weapon attacks isn't something weapon-users can normally do without spell-casting.

[Rukelnikov]

It looks to me like you missed the 16 and 19 single-class ASIs, which would actually make it get easier at those levels, and if the monsters don't gain more AC around then, after 16, it's at the same difficulty it was for that brief period at level 9, and after 19, it's even easier still.

Edit to add: Which is to say, this is a good and helpful analysis; I was just adding in a couple things that bolster your point.

Thanks !

I didn't take them into account, because I assumed a 16 in the attacking stat, so they would get to 20 by lvl 8.

[Tanarii]

Thanks !

I didn't take them into account, because I assumed a 16 in the attacking stat, so they would get to 20 by lvl 8.

IIRC the math assumes a 18 at level 10. 14 to start is a little behind and a 20 isn't ever necessary except for "boss" type battles.

The comparison to make is Cr minus 3 steps. So level 1 to 1/8, 2 to 1/4, 3 to 1/2, and then level-3 through 20 to 17.

[MaxWilson]

bounded accuracy assumes you have a +3 stat and your proficiency mod, look at the average ac of monsters you will find after level 5 not only do you need a magic item to overcome damage resistance but also that the ac spikes up by 1 above what you expect. it happens again at level 10 making it 2 points higher than you would expect. you will also notice that monster attacks do the same having an odd spike in bonus to hit that would require most martial classes to pick up a +x ac item. exceptions being for fighters with heavy armor and lucky monks and barbarians.

Bounded accuracy, according to 5E designer Rodney Thompson who coined the term, is about not making any assumptions at all on the DM's side (during monster design, etc.) that the PCs bonuses will increase over time. None. It doesn't mean they won't increase, but they don't have to.

What you're describing is the opposite of bounded accuracy, a number treadmill.

Quote, emphasis mine:

Conventional D&D wisdom tells us that the maxim "the numbers go up" is an inherent part of the class and level progression in D&D. While that might be true, in the next iteration of the game we're experimenting with something we call the bounded accuracy system.

The basic premise behind the bounded accuracy system is simple: we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game that the player's attack and spell accuracy, or their defenses, increase as a result of gaining levels. Instead, we represent the difference in characters of various levels primarily through their hit points, the amount of damage they deal, and the various new abilities they have gained. Characters can fight tougher monsters not because they can finally hit them, but because their damage is sufficient to take a significant chunk out of the monster's hit points; likewise, the character can now stand up to a few hits from that monster without being killed easily, thanks to the character's increased hit points. Furthermore, gaining levels grants the characters new capabilities, which go much farther toward making your character feel different than simple numerical increases.

Now, note that I said that we make no assumptions on the DM's side of the game about increased accuracy and defenses. This does not mean that the players do not gain bonuses to accuracy and defenses. It does mean, however, that we do not need to make sure that characters advance on a set schedule, and we can let each class advance at its own appropriate pace. Thus, wizards don't have to gain a +10 bonus to weapon attack rolls just for reaching a higher level in order to keep participating; if wizards never gain an accuracy bonus, they can still contribute just fine to the ongoing play experience.

This extends beyond simple attacks and damage. We also make the same assumptions about character ability modifiers and skill bonuses. Thus, our expected DCs do not scale automatically with level, and instead a DC is left to represent the fixed value of the difficulty of some task, not the difficulty of the task relative to level. *snip*

-Rodney Thompson

Those interested in bounded accuracy should read the whole article. It's not really a new concept, but it's a new concept for WotC: no number treadmills.

BTW, bounded accuracy is not necessarily good per se. It's what makes minionmancers (Conjure Animals, Animate Dead, etc.) overpowered in 5E.

[Rukelnikov]

IIRC the math assumes a 18 at level 10. 14 to start is a little behind and a 20 isn't ever necessary except for "boss" type battles.

The comparison to make is Cr minus 3 steps. So level 1 to 1/8, 2 to 1/4, 3 to 1/2, and then level-3 through 20 to 17.

Well, yeah, but the guildeline accurately alines with increasing an attack stat on 4 and 8 and stops increasing after that on ASI levels. Having a 20 is not necessary, but I guess they assumed the "simplest" build possible, which would just be raising your main stat and starting with a 16, 15 from standard array +1 standard human.

[Tanarii]

Well, yeah, but the guildeline accurately alines with increasing an attack stat on 4 and 8 and stops increasing after that on ASI levels. Having a 20 is not necessary, but I guess they assumed the "simplest" build possible, which would just be raising your main stat and starting with a 16, 15 from standard array +1 standard human.

It only aligns that way if you assume players will fight creatures of CR = party level. IMO that is not really a reasonable assumption for the game.

[Rukelnikov]

It only aligns that way if you assume players will fight creatures of CR = party level. IMO that is not really a reasonable assumption for the game.

That's not really what it means, making AC increase at the same rate as PC attack bonus is expected to, allows them to maintain the same level of difficulty for the challenges designed for the PCs level, thats what CR is, so a CR 1 creature should be as challenging for a lvl 1 PC as a CR 18 should be for an 18th lvl PC.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's not really what it means, making AC increase at the same rate as PC attack bonus is expected to, allows them to maintain the same level of difficulty for the challenges designed for the PCs level, thats what CR is, so a CR 1 creature should be as challenging for a lvl 1 PC as a CR 18 should be for an 18th lvl PC.

But ac vs attacks isn't the only way challenges scale. So the comparison isn't that simple. And the error bars here are huge for real monsters.

[Rukelnikov]

But ac vs attacks isn't the only way challenges scale. So the comparison isn't that simple. And the error bars here are huge for real monsters.

True, but its the most basic one. I don't understand what you mean by the error bars, deviation from suggested?

[Witty Username]

Count me in as one of those who don't see a lot of purpose behind +1/+2/+3 items. If they need to exist, they don't necessarily need to be magical, just high quality. But actual magic items should give their users options they didn't have before. Even a bog-standard flaming weapon is better than a +1 weapon, because doing fire damage with weapon attacks isn't something weapon-users can normally do without spell-casting.

I do agree that D&d should have an equivalent to Charcoal pine resin/fire paper or Gold pine resin/bolt paper.