D&D 5E Making standard items less vanilla.

[Illithidbix]

A tangent from the "Highest AC thread" where I pointed out that I personally think it's a little odd that the "basic" +3 Weapon (very rare), +3 Armour (legendary) and +3 Shield (very rare) don't require attunement; despite being very rare or legendary and less powerful but many (dare I say "most") characterful weapons/shield/armours do require attunement.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?475208-Highest-Possible-5E-AC/page3#ixzz3xI2HQZEW

(http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?475208-Highest-Possible-5E-AC/page3)

Well, @Illithidbix on the subject of such weapons, if I were making stuff for 5e (and really any D&D game, but 5e in particular), I'd probably not hand out JUST +3 gear with no other attributes. Even in 4e, I don't think I'd do that--unless the party has a history of, or interest in, custom-tailoring their gear themselves. Instead, I'd have any weapon with a +3 (or higher) be something special, either a unique one-off creation or the result of some kind of profound magical event.

For 4e specifically, I'd also allow characters to layer their own enchantments on things (especially "quality of life" enchantments, e.g. the various enchantments that allow particular classes like Bard or Paladin to use them as implements). So whatever special properties they have would probably be either unique materials, or special custom-made features, more like a Boon attached to a specific item.

I'm actually quite keen on stuff like this, "unique"/"unusual" materials that "justify" the +1 or whatever. As an example of "+1 materials," I originally posted these elsewhere:

- Forgeboon. A "forgeboon" item results from an accidentally beneficial blending of multiple materials in a single alloy. Such mixes are notoriously difficult to produce intentionally, but lead to some blacksmiths intentionally leaving their smelters with traces of leftover metal to see what comes out. A "forgeboon" weapon may qualify as one or more material types for the purpose of hurting enemies which can only be harmed by specific substances--the DM should decide (or roll to decide) which. Forgeboon armor may possess the lightness of mithril or slight damage resistance of adamantium, the DM should decide (or roll to decide) what.
- Ravenglass. This is obsidian which formed under the influence of strong magical energy; perhaps a water elemental flash-freezing lava, or a Meteor Storm spell clashing with a Blizzard. Slashing and piercing ravenglass weapons have absurdly sharp edges and points, and have +1 to their critical threat range, which stacks with the Keen property and any other sources of increased threat range which are not stated to be exclusive. Crushing or blunt ravenglass weapons magically produce tiny slivers of glass; they gain Brutal 1 or increase their Brutal value by 1 if they already possess that property. Ravenglass armor retains some traces of the fire that was rapidly drained from it; any fire resistance the wearer possesses is increased by 5 for wearing it (as 'body-covering' armor).
- Witchfold. A "witchfolded" blade is one which has a simple, innate enchantment beaten into the metal itself. There are many closely-guarded, competing traditions. Actual practitioners of the arcane arts often find it difficult to produce witchfolded blades, so most are made by non-mages. One witchfolding style channels energy into the item, often from specially-selected reagents added to the forging fire and quenching vat, to create a primitive spirit or spirit-like entity which "lives" inside the blade. Edged weapons might have a "spirit of sharpness," making a blade that sharpens itself as it cuts. Blunt weapons might receive a spirit of "impact" or "thrust;" ranged weapons, a spirit of "swiftness"; for armor, a spirit of endurance, or a spirit of levity to lighten one's load. The DM may select (or roll to select) a single appropriate property for the item in question, though these properties should generally have little to no game effect (no more powerful than being unbreakable, or weighing half as much as usual, or the like).

Further (not-written-up) examples I gave were Unmelting Ice, Starmetal, or giant bones for +2 items. For very high-plus weapons (+3 in 5e, probably +5 or +6 in 4e) either items that are nearly impossible to find in nature, such as the bodily fluids of gods or shell fragments of dragons that are now ancient wyrms; or materials that have been exposed to magic for so long that they're now sources of magic in themselves, such as astral sandstone, oricalcum, or amber of the First Oak. Such things would be fantastically rare; finding them in sufficient quantity and quality to produce a useful item could be a fun quest in and of itself.

I very much agree.
One thing I really liked is in the playtest they went out of their way to encourage you to make every item kinda special.

Armor with a Bonus Higher than 1
A basic suit of armor can have a bonus to AC that is greater than 1, but such armor is unusual. Typically, a higher bonus appears in a magic item such as efreeti chain, which has additional properties.

Weapons with a Bonus Higher than 1
A basic magic weapon can have a bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls that is greater than 1, but such a weapon is unusual. Typically, a higher bonus appears in a magic item such as the rod of lordly might, which has additional properties.

They introduced the creator, History, minor property and minor quirk tables and they had little bits like this in the bag of holding description

Rumors persist that a hidden network of planar tunnels connects a great number of bags of holding, and that the archdevil Baalzebul sometimes uses these passages to replace valuable or powerful items with fakes.

Now the 5E DMG does have a brief mention of special features and kept the tables from the playtest (on page 142-143); but it is somewhat de-emphasised, and that little gem about the bag of holding didn't make the cut. - I suspect because the magic item descriptions already take up 65 pages before they get onto sentient items and artifacts. I believe they were aspiring to provide 5E versions of all the magic items in the 1E and 2E DMGs.

Personally I would have preferred few items and more flavour, but then I run and play in relatively low powered games so most of the items are kinda irrelevant to me anyhow.
(And I still think that +2 magic armour/shields/weapons should require attunement!)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm glad you liked those examples, [MENTION=12283]Illithidbix[/MENTION]. A user on RPG.net (where I originally posted those ideas) made a blogpost about similar things, which you can read here.

I, too, really liked at least the idea of the tables in the 5e playtest--adding a light touch of character to every weapon. I don't think I would necessarily use them all the time, but they provide a useful tool whenever you want to help make a magic weapon exist as more than a functional tool. At the same time, I think the "magic materials" approach is a slightly better choice for a handful of reasons. One of the simplest is just that I feel it makes intuitive sense that certain materials need to "bond" to someone in order to function at full capacity.

 

[Mouseferatu]

So for those of us who didn't see it, how did the tables in the playtest differ from those--like the weapon history and weapon traits--that appear in the DMG?

 

[CapnZapp]

So for those of us who didn't see it, how did the tables in the playtest differ from those--like the weapon history and weapon traits--that appear in the DMG?

He says they were kept. Presumably "as is".

The difference seems to lie in the introductory language. The playtest specifically discussing items with greater bonuses than +1 and how this was cut, methinks.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Ah. I misread. Okay, thanks.

 

[CapnZapp]

It doesn't hurt to repeat an important factor:

A plus bonus to offense is much less disruptive to your campaign than a plus bonus to defense.

A +3 Sword doesn't do anything a +0 Sword doesn't do. Remember, bounded accuracy means heroes usually hit their foes (intentional, since whiffing with a lot of misses is not fun). So +3 to attacks increase your power, sure, but it doesn't enable you to do anything you couldn't already.

A +3 shield on the other hand quite quickly means lesser foes only hit you on a natural 20. This wrecks the way bounded accuracy is supposed to keep low-powered foes relevant. It especially magnifies powers that allow you to negate natural 20 rolls, such as the Lucky feat.

TL;DR: Don't hand out plus armors and shields unless you actually know what you're doing. The DMG completely fails to inform you of this.


NOTE: Things like the -5/+10 feats change this. Once these feats become effectively only -2/+10 they break the game hard. This is because now the +3 isn't just a +3 any longer.

 

[devincutler]

NOTE: Things like the -5/+10 feats change this. Once these feats become effectively only -2/+10 they break the game hard. This is because now the +3 isn't just a +3 any longer.

Nothing a Bless spell doesn't already do. Or a barbarian with reckless attack and a bless spell even moreso. So if they are broken with a +3 weapon then they are broken with Bless and/or reckless attack.

 

[CapnZapp]

Nothing a Bless spell doesn't already do. Or a barbarian with reckless attack and a bless spell even moreso. So if they are broken with a +3 weapon then they are broken with Bless and/or reckless attack.

I didn't say it is the +3 that breaks them. They might well be broken already. But a +3 all but guarantees they break.

Look, let me phrase it a different way for you

Don't hand out plus weapons to a character with GWF/SS.

Otherwise, it's much less problematic to hand out a +3 to attacks than a +3 to AC, is what I'm sayin'

(You're welcome)