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

[stoutstien]

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

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

[Xervous]

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

Sword of Vengeance could be, for example, a crafting error. I disagree with what looks to me like an anachronism: porting of late-enlightenment-early-industrial-era economic theory backwards into the medieval setting because, unlike grain and basic food stuffs, the volume of trade is so small as to operate under different stresses.
I do agree with you on the idea of the rich being the sole market of said items - I put them in the same category of rare art works sold at Sotheby's. That's a constricted market that is only for the rich - but a guy finding a Rembrandt / frostbrand in his great grandfather's attic "stuff collection" is still a possibility, right?. Or a ring passed down from one generation to the next ...

If anything, it supports the price by keeping the party mage and other relatively low level mages from getting in on the business.

On that I'll agree whole heartedly.

From there it gets tricky, how common are wizards (or other parties with the necessary skills and ability to follow that formula) being the real bottleneck.

Concur with that. My assumption is that spell casters are rare, but I guess that in FR they are under every rock and stone.

The guild might only make a few magic weapons a year to serve families seeking weapons for young noblemen coming of fighting age, and that only presuming the population is growing normally and they're making weapons for those young men who weren't able to inherit their elderly grandfather's weapons - but that still positions them to earn some extra gold by making a few weapons for your party if your party shows up shopping and there isn't some other logical restraint.

The restraint need not be logical, though. 'You're not from 'round here' is sufficient reason not to accommodate this party of strangers in the medieval setting.
But if the PCs make a few connections, do a few favors for the ruling elite, grease a few palms, we have a new situation. Maybe a commission can be undertaken on the down low ... with a hefty boost to the price. Bespoke goods cost more, right?

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

With you on this.

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

Which is a very plausible adventure hook, isn't it? Depends on just how big of a jerkwad collection the local nobility are.

[Dark.Revenant]

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

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

Eh, different sources of problem.

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

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

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

[stoutstien]

Eh, different sources of problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

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

[Pex]

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

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

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

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

[Havlock]

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

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

[EggKookoo]

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

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

[vexedart]

Magic items, like feats, are optional, problem solved

[JNAProductions]

Magic items, like feats, are optional, problem solved

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

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

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

[Pixel_Kitsune]

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

But +Number items are a combination of boring and highly effective

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

[Ralanr]

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

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

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

[Potato_Priest]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

[Ralanr]

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

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

Surfs up, bra!

[Pixel_Kitsune]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dark.Revenant]

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

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

[Pixel_Kitsune]

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

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

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

[Pex]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

[Ralanr]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pixel_Kitsune]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kuu Lightwing]

Re: casting Magic Weapon spell.

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

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

[stoutstien]

Re: casting Magic Weapon spell.

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

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

[Pixel_Kitsune]

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

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

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