D&D 5E Magic Item Inconsistencies

[GSHamster]

Don't the permanent items require attunement and thus hit the 3 item limit? Meanwhile the consumables don't count to that limit, and can always be used.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Hmmmm...then I think we have a good candidate for an errata document, either re-classifying some items, or re-writing that sentence. I vote for the latter.

+3 swords are significantly more costly and difficult to create than +1 swords, so there are far fewer of them in the world. They're both more powerful and more scarce.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Don't the permanent items require attunement and thus hit the 3 item limit? Meanwhile the consumables don't count to that limit, and can always be used.

That's a very good point. However, there are some instances where that limitation doesn't apply. Brooms and carpets of flying, for example, don't require attunement.

 

[Sir Brennen]

DMG. p. 135 "Rarity provides a rough measure of an item's power relative to other magic items."

Hmm... Well, I guess emphasis on "rough". As for the flying items, it seems that convenience and portability might be part of their "power" as well. A carpet is a big item to carry around, takes a bit of prep to use, and you can get knocked off of it. No safe decent like the other items. A potion of flying is much more convenient to hand to the party member that needs it right now than a cloak that takes a short rest to attune to, and, if wings of flying are somewhat obvious, a potion is more subtle and concealable.

Roughly.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the term "rarity" being used in this manner. +3 swords are significantly more costly and difficult to create than +1 swords, so there are far fewer of them in the world. They're both more powerful and more scarce.

That's not what people have a problem with. Its things like bags of beans being very rare (despite being terrible yet fun) while more powerful items, that should be harder to make, are more common.

I personally just ignore the rarity system, as it is pretty useless as a balance mechanism, and award what is fun. Definite swing and a miss in execution. Dividing things into power tiers would have been more helpful.

 

[Herr der Qual]

I generally disregard the rarity scale, I tend to use encumbrance rules and try to give the players an opportunity to grab a bag of holding or a heward's handy haversack by third level so they can still carry around stuff without being weighed to the floor. The encumbrance is generally used in my campaigns to determine factors in regards to how they utilize their equipment and loot a place. Anyways, potions I almost completely disregard the rarity scale it's a one off magic item, generally if I give them a really good potion, they are almost certain to not ever use it until one of them can cast that spell anyways because there's always the chance that the next encounter they'll need it and they only have one. I tend to use potions quickly when I play, but the groups I've DMed, not so much. Same goes for scrolls and all other one off magic items, I've also been known to let them find "used wands" that have an unknown number of charges anywhere from 1-5 and only avoid spells that would let them breeze through a major encounter a little too easily. Really fun when they think they have a charge or two left and the wand comes up empty though.

 

[Mistwell]

You cannot really compare potions (a single use item usually) to a permanent magic item. They're often not on the same treasure charts, or when they are their commonality within those charts varies wildly depending on the chart. So a very rare potion is really more "very rare" only relative to other potions, for instance.

 

[fuindordm]

I'm working on a more granular rarity scale that resolves some of these issues. It will be ready for sharing in 2-3 days. Stay tuned!

 

[Blackwarder]

The potion is very rare because it's more practical to make the corresponding permanat item rather than take the time to make the potion, mystary solved!

Warder

 

[CapnZapp]

Just because something is flawed in its implementation doesn't mean I can't like the general idea behind it.

The fundamental idea is borked.

Price needs to be set on utility, not rarity.