D&D 5E (2024) Martial Magic Items Thoughts?

Then why do they design monsters that are resistant or immune to damage from non-magical weapons? Particularly when such things become near universal at higher levels?
It makes sense in the fiction and to add to the challenge of the monster. Whether or not the martials can get through it like a hot knife through butter is up to the DM. They don't assume yes or no.
That IS intending either to make martial characters suck, or to make them get magic weapons. If it has any intent at all, it can only be one of those two things.
I've played martials against it with no magic weapons in 5e and not one of my martial characters has ever sucked. If you view it as sucking, that's your personal opinion and you should hand out items. The game doesn't assume that you will, though.
Unless you mean they design their monsters blindly, with no thought at all to how that design could crap all over the player's experience. I had assumed you thought more highly of the designers than that, so I ignored that possibility. Please let me know if I was incorrect to assume so.
No, they design monsters according to their design parameters and those don't include magic weapons because bounded accuracy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


It makes sense in the fiction and to add to the challenge of the monster. Whether or not the martials can get through it like a hot knife through butter is up to the DM. They don't assume yes or no.

I've played martials against it with no magic weapons in 5e and not one of my martial characters has ever sucked. If you view it as sucking, that's your personal opinion and you should hand out items. The game doesn't assume that you will, though.

No, they design monsters according to their design parameters and those don't include magic weapons because bounded accuracy.
So they genuinely don't consider the impact of their design choices.

That explains a great deal about 5e's design, actually.

Edit: Also? Only one-third of all creatures are entirely normal-damage (or better) vs the three weapon damage types. So...yeah it literally is the case that TWO THIRDS of creatures expect players to have magic weapons to attack them. And the number of creatures conditionally resistant to only one of them, not the other two, is vanishingly small, like 3 or 4 monsters in ALL of official 5e stuff.

I would definitely say that "you do half damage to 2/3 of creatures" is, yes, a pretty significant "your contributions aren't nearly as valuable as others". AKA, we are choosing to make your archetype suck. That the GM can pull a release valve to prevent this only if they want to is cold comfort at best--particularly when the designers beat us over the head with how optional items are, have we mentioned how optional items are, items are COMPLETELY OPTIONAL guys, have we reminded you sufficiently that you aren't required to give ANY items, remember items are OP SHUN AWL.
 
Last edited:

In 5.5e they can raise stats to 30, so 10 uses is not unreasonable. What is being overestimated is the timeframe of most campaigns. I can count on one hand with every finger and my thumb left over how many campaigns have gone even 100 years, let alone 1000. :p

I meant in terms of lifespan. A young elf would begin their adventuring career at 100, though it could be significantly later as well. By the time they find a very rare tome, some more time has passed. Let’s say they get their tome between 100 and 200 years old. That leaves only 5 or 6 pops before they croak at the ripe old age of 750.

Besides, while the DMG studiously avoids broaching the subject, it would make sense that any tome you find in loot be 1d100 years away from recharging. What are the odds that the foe you killed was sitting on a recharged tome that they didn’t use for themselves?

Then why do they design monsters that are resistant or immune to damage from non-magical weapons? Particularly when such things become near universal at higher levels?

That IS intending either to make martial characters suck, or to make them get magic weapons. If it has any intent at all, it can only be one of those two things.

Just a few extra angles to give perspective here…

1. If indeed the intent is that high level martials already got magic weapons, there could still be narrative value in a cinematic scene where the boss rampages through a village, slaying peasants, oblivious to the half dozen non-magical pitchforks stabbed into their body.

2. If the martial lacks a magic weapon, it does not automatically mean they suck. Damage is not the only currency in the game. They could still contribute meaningfully by tanking, tripping, pushing…

If you don’t care for the narrative value of the mechanic, and your martial character’s sole purpose in life is to dish out damage, then it’s fine to complain about the design… but if we look for ways to make the best of it (however odd it is), then we may yet have fun with the damn thing.
 

So they genuinely don't consider the impact of their design choices.

That explains a great deal about 5e's design, actually.

Once again you can run the game however you like. Thats what 5E is about.

Theres rules there for selling items etc and producing h them.

You cant force others to play your way however.
 

I meant in terms of lifespan. A young elf would begin their adventuring career at 100, though it could be significantly later as well. By the time they find a very rare tome, some more time has passed. Let’s say they get their tome between 100 and 200 years old. That leaves only 5 or 6 pops before they croak at the ripe old age of 750.

Besides, while the DMG studiously avoids broaching the subject, it would make sense that any tome you find in loot be 1d100 years away from recharging. What are the odds that the foe you killed was sitting on a recharged tome that they didn’t use for themselves?
100% because DMs want their players to have fun. ;)

But seriously, the DM just has to put a little bit of thought into it and hide it in a tomb, or in a dungeon in a secret wall hiding place, etc. where it would have been sitting unused for centuries.
 

I actively dislike +X magic items. The result is you get monsters with +X to saves and +X to AC and +X to ATK, and PCs who don't do the +X item treadmill get left behind.

The disadvantage of not maxing your ATK stat also compounds, as being -1 behind is less than half as bad as being -2 behind (etc).

So +X item treadmill just encourages rush-to-20 stat and inter-party power disparity and ... not much else. They aren't even that exciting, as they fade away into the numbers on your character's sheet.

---

As an example:

A shield that can cast shield 1/rest is a bit better than a +1 shield. Each attack on you has a 5% chance of missing due to the +1 shield. Each attack on you has a 25% chance of being a chance to be missed because the shield can casts shield, assuming you still have a use of it and a reaction.

If you are attacked 40 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 2 attacks from a hit into a miss.
If you are attacked 20 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 1 attack from a hit into a miss.
If you are attacked 10 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 0.5 attacks from a hit into a miss.
If you are attacked 5 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 0.25 attacks from a hit into a miss.

If you are attacked 40 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 0.99999 attacks from a hit into a miss.
If you are attacked 20 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 0.997 attacks from a hit into a miss.
If you are attacked 10 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 0.94 attacks from a hit into a miss.
If you are attacked 5 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 0.76 attacks from a hit into a miss.

(this assumes follow-up attacks don't occur. If they do, the shield of shield gets better by 0.25 per follow-up attack).

Even a weaker boost, like +2, is pretty close:

If you are attacked 40 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 0.99 attacks from a hit into a miss.
If you are attacked 20 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 0.88 attacks from a hit into a miss.
If you are attacked 10 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 0.65 attacks from a hit into a miss.
If you are attacked 5 times between rests, that +1 shield will on average turn 0.41 attacks from a hit into a miss.

This is already close to on-par with the +1 shield, despite the bonus being a mere +2, on a non-crazy number of attacks between rests.

The big difference is with the shield of shield, the player is doing something to make an attack miss, instead of not even noticing the effect. Higher bonuses just means you can more reliably save it for an important attack.

The player with a +1 shield probably won't ever really identify with the shield. The player with the shield of shield may be like "boo-ya, suck it DM" whenever they use it.

---

The second bit of itemization is to avoid giving too much +damage per hit. Fighters go from being good damage dealers to insane damage dealers if you scale up the +damage per hit.

Give some of that. But don't make it insane. A 1d4/1d6/1d8/1d10 at T1/T2/T3/T4 is more than enough to make fighters drool (up the die size by 1 for 2 handed weapons to d6/d8/d10/d12).

Having +damage per hit once per turn benefits fighters more than other characters, but not to nearly the same degree.

With a 65% hit chance, a 2 attack PC gets 88% yield from a 1/turn tap. A 4 attack fighter gets 98%, 1.12x as much instead of 2x as much. Throw in crits and it is even closer (if the PC can pick which attack to use it on after knowing it crits it is slightly better).

What each melee class wants differs.

In T1 and T2, the classes are pretty similar, except the Rogue. In T3 and above:

Rogues want off-turn attacks. Landing a 2nd sneak attack is really nice. Weapons that give them reaction attacks are good.

Rangers ... well, they need ranger-specific boosts, because the base class is still lacking. Not much to hook onto.

Paladins can be given a sword that does nothing but make their targets 1 more step vulnerable to radiant damage and they'll be happy. (no plus, no extra damage, just vulnerable radiant).

Barbarians are tricky. A 2 handed weapon that does bonus damage once per round is, however, pretty solid.

A Monk would probably be very happy with a weapon that gives then a 2nd bonus action, but they even like per-tap better.

Fighters love per-tap damage.

A +X per tap item (doubled on crits) is worth
monk: 3.5
fighter: 2.8
barbarian: 1.95
paladin: 1.4
ranger: 1.4
rogue: 0.7

A +X per turn item (doubled on crits) is worth (assuming you use it on the first attack that hits)
barbarian: 1.08
monk: 1.04
fighter: 1.03
paladin: 0.93
ranger: 0.93
rogue: 0.7

You'll see how this is much, much flatter. The barbarian gets 1.5x what the rogue does, while the monk got 5x (fighter 4x, barb 2.8x, paladin 2x, ranger 2x) what the rogue does with the per-tap gear.

Another benefit of the per-turn items is that OAs start being painful again.

...

Anyhow, this is what I think about when doing melee character itemization.

The next thing is to lean into utility. Having items that do something instead of just boost combat ability.

The best status condition is dead. But boosting combat ability is, to a great extent, a treadmill; monsters scale to PC capabilities. It does make "old foes" fun to revisit, and players like optimizing.

But if you give items that grant interesting effects things can be more fun. For example, Nature's Mantle; it is a druid and ranger item that grants the ability to hide when merely obscured.

Do you know what obscures? Dim light, or darkness with blindsight.

That item is rather fun to give to a rogue|ranger; they get pseudo-invisibility as a bonus action.

Other items that are more than just combat number boosts are also good.

A belt of 23 strength is mechanically powerful; a belt that grants +1d6 damage on strength-based attacks 1/turn, +1d6 on strength saves and checks, grants the siege monster feature, and increases carrying capacity 10x... that in-story is the same item, but instead of being mainly a damage boosting item it now gives the player serious options, and more if the player is creative. What more, it becomes an item that is better on a strong PC instead of the other way around.

Items that give limited flight are also great in the hands of melee characters. "Windwalker Boots: You can choose to fly with a 60' speed on your turn. At the end of your turn you fall to the ground if you are still in the air. Once you have used this, you have to spend an action recharging it before you can use it again."

This can be tweaked up and down; it can take an action to fly, a bonus action to fly, no action to fly. The recharge cost can be an action, not moving for a turn, or a short or long rest. Each of these slight changes makes the boots better or worse.

Throw in a reaction based dodge for some dynamism "If you are hit by a melee attack or fail a saving throw, you can expend a reaction and fly 30'. This movement does not provoke opportunity attacks. If this takes you out of range of the triggering effect, you are no longer subject to it. Once you use this ability you cannot use it again until midnight passes."

Such 1/day or 1/rest items aren't going to dominate combat, but they will make for neat moments. Especially because they aren't just damage boosts, but instead safe your arse options.

And the ability to fly, even for a short distance, really makes a melee PC feel less sidelined in my experience.

Simpler stuff can also be a hit. The studded leather that lets you change what it looks like is amazing in the hands of a creative player.

Boosting "lower tier" armor is also fun. A +1 on a scaled armor is just fancy half-plate; so you can toss something else on it.

The "free" AC bonus you can give on armor, then throw in an extra property that is not just "bigger numbers", is:
Plain Leather: +1
Hide: +2
Chain Shirt: +1
Scaled: +1
Ring Mail: +4
Chain Mail: +2
Splint Mail: +1

For heavy armor, those are all weaker than mithral plate armor (which also removes str requirement and disadvantage on stealth).

Giving up AC is painful; so unless the item is crazy good, players probably won't do it. So use the above to give +X vanilla items that don't cause AC-inflation while also granting some other magic property that makes them better to wear than the mundane higher tier armor.
If you're attacked 40 times in-between rests you need to sit down with the rest of your party and have a serious discussion about them running away and leaving you to fight alone. :p
 

So they genuinely don't consider the impact of their design choices.

That explains a great deal about 5e's design, actually.
They wanted magic items to be strictly better and not a treadmill requirement. It's one of the best things about 5e design.

The problem with your argument is that it requires you to be calling the designers liars, because they said straight out that they don't consider bonuses from outside of class abilities. I don't think they lied about this. The game is far too easy even with a 14 in your prime stat and no magic item bonuses for those things to be considered in the game balance.
 

Just a few extra angles to give perspective here…

1. If indeed the intent is that high level martials already got magic weapons, there could still be narrative value in a cinematic scene where the boss rampages through a village, slaying peasants, oblivious to the half dozen non-magical pitchforks stabbed into their body.
Sure, and I value such things. (I handle magic items...rather differently compared to how official D&D usually does. A topic for later, if of interest.) But this would then mean that it was a falsehood, or at least an incredibly contradictory claim, to say that magic items are 100% absolutely optional. "Magic items are completely optional unless you want to actually succeed as a martial character at higher levels" is not how most folks would understand the bare phrase "Magic items are completely optional".

2. If the martial lacks a magic weapon, it does not automatically mean they suck. Damage is not the only currency in the game. They could still contribute meaningfully by tanking, tripping, pushing…
You cannot meaningfully "tank" in 5e, because you get one and only one tool to disrupt enemy movement, and that is your singular opportunity attack. There are no mechanics for keeping attention on yourself rather than on others, and because inflation of damage output is the primary means of scaling (explicitly one of the goals of "Bounded Accuracy"), no martial character can handle that much sustained heat long enough to actually "tank" for others. "Tripping" is only available to Battle Masters who take that maneuver, which I admit is a decent maneuver, but it's not a general thing martial characters can access. And pushing? Pushing requires that the target be no more than one size category larger than you, eats your entire action, and has only a chance of inducing the Prone condition (the target must pass a Dex or Str save--target's choice, not attacker's--of 8+Prof+shover's STR).

I agree that damage is not the only currency in the game. Unfortunately, martial characters have almost nothing else to trade in. Because the rules have been "streamlined" to the degree that there's nothing left for martials to do except attack more, in most cases. Because "tanking" for a turn, in most cases, simply means "delaying final resolution", which is usually not a good thing. Because they designed martial classes to be almost entirely damage output (they even explicitly admitted as such with Fighters), while not meaningfully limiting the damage output of partial-to-full spellcasters...at all, as far as I can tell.

If you don’t care for the narrative value of the mechanic, and your martial character’s sole purpose in life is to dish out damage, then it’s fine to complain about the design… but if we look for ways to make the best of it (however odd it is), then we may yet have fun with the damn thing.
Sure, but I see that as an objective failure of game design. If the design is such that you have to, emphasis added, "look for ways to make the best of it", then the design has failed to do the thing the whole design is about: producing the desired play-experience by playing those rules. That is...why you do game design at all, to cultivate some kind of experience-of-play.
 


Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top