D&D 5E Magic Items in 5e... Lackluster?

[KarinsDad]

Well, the DMG certainly changed it.

There are 27 regular named magic weapons in the DMG, 2 cursed and 11 Staffs.

2 Cursed weapons have a bonus

13 Regular ones do
14 Do not

5 Staffs do
6 Staffs do not

In total 20 named weapons have a bonus and 20 do not.

There are 15 special armours and 3 cursed ones.

5 have a bonus
10 do not

Of the cursed ones 1 has a bonus and the other 2 do not.

In total 6 named armours have a bonus and 12 do not.

Well, let's take this in context.

The Oathbow is +0 against most targets, but it is Advantage (i.e. +4 or +5 equivalent to hit and +3D6 damage) against it's sworn foe. It is typically way more powerful than even a +3 Bow and if it ignored piercing resistance, it would be nuts.

The Dancing Sword does not have a bonus, but it gives a +0 to hit extra attack per round. It's pure bonus damage.

The point is that some of these weapons might not have a bonus to hit, but they are still more powerful than ones that do.


And Staves are glorified Wands. The ones that are also magical weapons are supposed to be the exception instead of the rule.

Did you include the Rod of Lordly Might? It's the only rod that functions as a magic weapon. Personally, I would not include Rods or Staves in the "magic weapon" department at all. They are mostly magical spell carriers with charges that sometimes function as a weapon.

 

[Pickles JG]

That said, I'm all for having some limits to AC. Overly defensive characters have been a problem enough in the past. It's not like he won't get that +1 soon enough. Splint is just better AC than a Breastplate; kinda like finding magic heavy armor that isn't plate armor. It's just playing catchup.

Unless you are a barabarian - the one in my party was finally persuaded to put some clothes one once they found this.

(fully agree in principle though - who in their right mind enchants chainmail?)

 

[Pickles JG]

It certainly wouldn't have broken anything to give him the +1, but I wanted more control of when and where he got it. He's already a tank, and pretty tough, definitely the front line man.

This for me encapsulates what I hated about 1e magic items & which has been carried into 5e that is GMs having more say in character development than that characters player.

In 1e it was of course worse as fighters were mechanically pretty much just christmas trees festooned in magic items but its still there as shown here.

 

[KarinsDad]

My players just found a magic breastplate in LMoP. Per the book it was +1, and also a special ability. I removed the +1, the cleric who will use it already has an 18 AC and I don't want him to have a 19 at 4th level, and I left the secondary ability, advantage on saving throws against dragon breath, which is more than enough to make it awesome.

I had a question on this. Will you be sending a dragon against the party every 4 sessions or so?

If not, awesome is not the adjective that I would use for this nerfed magic item.



Stingy, lame, forgetable...


Btw, our 4th level group has two PCs with AC 20 and one with AC 19 (none of this with magical items). The group should have a tank.

 

[Nebulous]

Definitely. I am most likely going to use published items only as a starting point. My favourite kind of magic items is the one that:

- has a story
- has secrets to discover
- has multiple properties
- might have some penalties
- works differently depending on the circumstances
- develops over time

If the DMG includes all those tables that were in the playtest, then there is a already a lot to help me create these kind of magic items. The ready-to-use ones would be just the place to start to build upon (after removing the +1).

So remove the +1 and add more more mystery stuff to discover, i like that. I admit I've been lazy about introducing the History of the item, I'll try to incorporate more of that. Although I really don't think my players care a lot. Maybe not at all, so I wouldn't spend too much time on it.

 

[abirdcall]

Well, let's take this in context.

The Oathbow is +0 against most targets, but it is Advantage (i.e. +4 or +5 equivalent to hit and +3D6 damage) against it's sworn foe. It is typically way more powerful than even a +3 Bow and if it ignored piercing resistance, it would be nuts.

The Dancing Sword does not have a bonus, but it gives a +0 to hit extra attack per round. It's pure bonus damage.

The point is that some of these weapons might not have a bonus to hit, but they are still more powerful than ones that do.

You missed the point entirely.

I am not saying that weapons in the DMG are not powerful.

The question is whether all weapons and armour require at least a +1. They don't.

Of course magic weapons are better than non-magical ones. I might be completely missing the point of your post but I just don't get it.

Then again, I don't think I get your playstyle at all so that might be why.

And Staves are glorified Wands. The ones that are also magical weapons are supposed to be the exception instead of the rule.

Did you include the Rod of Lordly Might? It's the only rod that functions as a magic weapon. Personally, I would not include Rods or Staves in the "magic weapon" department at all. They are mostly magical spell carriers with charges that sometimes function as a weapon.

Which is why I didn't just lump them in with magic weapons and noted them separately.

I can't remember if I did with the rod, I went through it quickly.

The point stands: There are weapons and armour that don't have straight bonuses.

 

[Crothian]

No, the real issue is that there are very few "superstar" items in the DMG. Now that magic items aren't an assumed part of the math progression, do we need +X items, like cloaks of resistance anymore? They don't interest me, either as a gamer or a storyteller.

Yes, you need the basic and easy to use magical items in the game. This seems to be what most players want and use.

 

[jgsugden]

The game works fine without the basic magic items. You might want to hedge encounters down slightly, but you do not need them. They're only built into the game because most players enjoy the fun of finding magic items here and there...

 

[Staffan]

I hated in 3.X, every couple of levels I had to ditch my weapon and get a new more powerful one. I like that I could conceivably have the same weapons for the my PC entire life.

That has not been my experience with 3.X weapons/armor. My experience has been worse: every few levels you take the weapon to a spellcaster (ideally the party wizard) and have them upgrade it to a higher plus/add an ability.

 

[Nebulous]

That has not been my experience with 3.X weapons/armor. My experience has been worse: every few levels you take the weapon to a spellcaster (ideally the party wizard) and have them upgrade it to a higher plus/add an ability.

I forgot which game system it was, or setting, it might have been Midnight from Fantasy Flight, but the longer you have a weapon it slowly unlocks powers as you level up, negating the need to "find" new ones and rewarding you for cherishing what you have.