the Jester
Legend
No, it isn't 'needed', any more than a high-level wizard 'needs' a staff of the magi or a high-level cleric 'needs' a rod of resurrection.
D&D 5E Is a +3 weapon needed...when it boosts damage by 53%?
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Raith5
Adventurer
Yep you can ignore the maths but maths wont ignore you! But I still dont think they are going to be necessary. I also remember AD&D weapons that were +2 to hit and +4 damage - so there is maybe leeway to create more interesting magical items without cutting upsetting the to hit math.
Charles Wright
First Post
Unless you can't beat encounters without +3 weapons, you won't need them.
Obryn
Hero
True! However, I think it's really important to be cognizant of the difference when you're building encounters. I am hoping the books provide some guidance there.
Charles Wright
First Post
I fully agree.
dd.stevenson
Super KY
I will be very interested to see what they do with that. Because a "can only be hit by +x or greater" implicitly bakes magic items into the monster math.
sidonunspa
First Post
by what I understand +3 is "Artifact" level
no, not needed..... a +3 weapon in the new system should give you a very notable advantage....
because, it's like an artifact....
no, not needed..... a +3 weapon in the new system should give you a very notable advantage....
because, it's like an artifact....
sidonunspa
First Post
I have not seen any evidence of "+X" weapons needed to hit being anyplace in 5e
Giltonio_Santos
Hero
There's a difference between a needed item and a wanted item.
Before 3.5, a magic weapon was needed because characters would barely hurt some of their enemies without it. In 4E, a magic weapon was needed because not having one would seriously hurt the assumed accuracy of the math in combat encounters, one of its main selling points.
In 5E, some monsters are resistant to non-magical damage, but characters without magic weapons still deal enough damage to give them a fair fight. Also, the monster math doesn't assume magic weapons, so you shouldn't be stuck missing with your attacks because you don't have one.
This have a consequence: having a magic weapon in 5E allows you to more easily defeat enemies in an otherwise balanced encounter or simply opt into harder challenges that would be beyond your ability without the help of a magic weapon.
I like it that way. I not always have magic weapons in my campaigns, but when I have them, I want it to represent a real advantage, not an illusory bonus built into the math of the game.
So, if a +3 weapon is increasing the efficacy of a level 20 fighter by 50%, I see that as a good thing. It's a +3 weapon, they're supposed to be special!
For people who run non-sandbox games, though, I can see the issue. If players are not deciding what challenges they want to face, the DM should be able to say how much harder his/her challenges can be based on the magic items owned by the group. 3E/4E DMs certainly have an edge on that.
That's why I expect the DMG to have some additional discussion on how much magic items effectively increase the power of PCs. It creates a fair compromise, and recognizes the fact that, at least accordingly to my own experience, most DMs don't want the existence of magic items in their campaign to follow the prescriptive pattern of 3E/4E.
Before 3.5, a magic weapon was needed because characters would barely hurt some of their enemies without it. In 4E, a magic weapon was needed because not having one would seriously hurt the assumed accuracy of the math in combat encounters, one of its main selling points.
In 5E, some monsters are resistant to non-magical damage, but characters without magic weapons still deal enough damage to give them a fair fight. Also, the monster math doesn't assume magic weapons, so you shouldn't be stuck missing with your attacks because you don't have one.
This have a consequence: having a magic weapon in 5E allows you to more easily defeat enemies in an otherwise balanced encounter or simply opt into harder challenges that would be beyond your ability without the help of a magic weapon.
I like it that way. I not always have magic weapons in my campaigns, but when I have them, I want it to represent a real advantage, not an illusory bonus built into the math of the game.
So, if a +3 weapon is increasing the efficacy of a level 20 fighter by 50%, I see that as a good thing. It's a +3 weapon, they're supposed to be special!
For people who run non-sandbox games, though, I can see the issue. If players are not deciding what challenges they want to face, the DM should be able to say how much harder his/her challenges can be based on the magic items owned by the group. 3E/4E DMs certainly have an edge on that.
That's why I expect the DMG to have some additional discussion on how much magic items effectively increase the power of PCs. It creates a fair compromise, and recognizes the fact that, at least accordingly to my own experience, most DMs don't want the existence of magic items in their campaign to follow the prescriptive pattern of 3E/4E.
dd.stevenson
Super KY
Sorry, I should have been more clear. There haven't been any cases where they're needed to hit that I can recall, but a fair smattering of creatures had resistance to nonmagical weapons in the playtest. E.g.,
Which could be pretty easily modified to "+x" magical weapons, and would ultimately have a similar effect of baking magic bonuses into the math.
Similar Threads
