D&D 5E (2024) Indirectly Buffing Rogues, Rangers, Monks Via Magic Items?

[THEMNGMNT]

The issue with this is it is usually player-focused, not class or character focused. Some players may feel slighted by this.

For me, it's character-focused.

 

[Horwath]

What hinders other, better, classes from just taking the items from these classes? Why should the melee Ranger get a good sword, and not the fighter with more attacks and better survivability?



Sure its not always possible (like fist fighter monk, or no fighter/paladin/barbarian which uses the same type of weapons), but overall in general, it would be a waste to give the worse class the better weapon in a party.

you can always make class specific weapons.

IE:
Hunter's bow
rare, requires attunement by a ranger
+1 Longbow,

while attuned to this bow, Hunter's mark does not require Concentration, you can still only have one HM on a single target.
HM deals +2d6 damage instead of +1d6.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is basically what I do in every campaign and system. I watch to see which characters are dominant and which are not. The ones that are struggling get magic items to bring them up to parity. The other characters...don't.

I mean...wouldn't it be better if you just....didn't have to do that? Like if most characters were all clearly in the same ballpark pretty much all of the time?