D&D 5E Magic Items Found vs Wants

[jmartkdr2]

Mostly sharpshooter. Xbow expert is fine maybe slightly OP but not game wrecking.

Crossbow expert gives them an additional attack - so they get 50% more sharpshots. Which is why they're better to powergamers.

That combo is rather nasty - and since it's at range, I'd say it's more disruptive (that is, more likely to cause spotlight-balance issues) than even polearm master + great weapon master.

 

[Zardnaar]

Crossbow expert gives them an additional attack - so they get 50% more sharpshots. Which is why they're better to powergamers.

That combo is rather nasty - and since it's at range, I'd say it's more disruptive (that is, more likely to cause spotlight-balance issues) than even polearm master + great weapon master.

I've seen it in use with a +2 handcrossbow. Since you can use it in melee as well it's more abusive than PAM.

All by itself it's fine. It's roughly on par with PAM.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've seen it in use with a +2 handcrossbow. Since you can use it in melee as well it's more abusive than PAM.

Yup. Really the only 'broken' thing I've seen in 5e that isn't a rules error.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yup. Really the only 'broken' thing I've seen in 5e that isn't a rules error.

Sharpshooter with bow is also broken.

Sharpshooter abuse is with hand crossbows and bows in general.

It's worse than PAM and GWM. Flying critter solved them.

 

[ElterAgo]

Hmm... I didn't realize the all the non-armor +AC things require attunement. If your GM is generous with stuff (and one of ours is), I can see that becoming a bit of an issue. But still an extra +1 on your AC seems like such a huge issue to you guys? So your AC goes from 18 to 19, most decently challenging enemies are still going to hit better than half of the time. I suppose it makes the mooks that do have to roll high to hit seem even less dangerous. But is that really a major concern?

I can see why you think the hand crossbow is a better weapon if-and-only-if the PC take those 2 feats. But those two feats made it powerful. A +1 to hit and damage just doesn't seem like it really adds all that much. The PC was probably already hitting most of the time. Now one out of every 10-15 shots he will hit when he would have missed. And he will do 1 more point of damage when he does hit (2 on a crit).

 

[Zardnaar]

Hmm... I didn't realize the all the non-armor +AC things require attunement. If your GM is generous with stuff (and one of ours is), I can see that becoming a bit of an issue. But still an extra +1 on your AC seems like such a huge issue to you guys? So your AC goes from 18 to 19, most decently challenging enemies are still going to hit better than half of the time. I suppose it makes the mooks that do have to roll high to hit seem even less dangerous. But is that really a major concern?

I can see why you think the hand crossbow is a better weapon if-and-only-if the PC take those 2 feats. But those two feats made it powerful. A +1 to hit and damage just doesn't seem like it really adds all that much. The PC was probably already hitting most of the time. Now one out of every 10-15 shots he will hit when he would have missed. And he will do 1 more point of damage when he does hit (2 on a crit).

People focus on the plus to much. It what it gets added to.

A plus 1 raper deals the same average damage as a +3 dagger. The dagger is still better as you gain a +2 bonus to hit over the rapier.

Plus 3 armor, OMG that's huge. Not if it's chainmail it's only as good as plus one full plate.
A rod of lordly might is versatile, it has two per day abilities but it's mostly a +3 substandard weapon.

 

[Celebrim]

I use a combination of random magic items, items that would make sense for the setting (as something someone in the past constructed), and items tailored to party needs.

Random magic items are great and you'll never be as diverse or as interesting as you could be if you don't take some cues from a random table and be willing to accept anything that you plausibly could accept.

Items that make sense for the setting are like if you are exploring an ancient abandoned temple, then it makes sense that there might be a few items sacred to the original cult that have been left behind. If you are facing a champion warrior, it makes sense that he'll have acquired and retained a few magic items suitable to his skills.

Finally, I believe that the DM has a certain duty to ensure that there are enough resources available that the party has a reasonable chance of solving the problems that are thrown at them. They don't have to be exactly what the player wants or thinks he needs, but they should give the players the tools to solve the problems.

 

[jmartkdr2]

+2 hand crossbows, polearms, great weapons and bows are gonna be worse than the rod IMHO.

I'm not sure how - the rod gives you a +3 mace, a +3 axe, a +3 spear (a polearm), and a +2d6 greatsword, as well as some other less impressive stuff.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not sure how - the rod gives you a +3 mace, a +3 axe, a +3 spear (a polearm), and a +2d6 greatsword, as well as some other less impressive stuff.

A +3 whatever is less of a problem than the sharpshooter feat and no one has the gwm feat. He hits for 1d8+10 that's not that bad in the grand scheme of things when it's only two attacks and easily countered with range and flying stuff.

If someone did I probably wouldn't put the rod in. If I had say a dual wielder and gwm type a flametongue would turn up before a +1 great anything.

I also allow some 3pp stuff that buffs the other styles.

 

[David Howery]

It's the way a +2 handcrossbow works with sharpshooter, Xbow expert and archery style. A holy avenger is less disruptive than that combo.

looking at the 5E PHB, I see that they upped the damage from 1-3 to 1-6. Add that in with 5Es notorious skills, feats, and whatnot, and I begin to see the problem...