D&D 5E Rime of the Frostmaiden magic items

[Olrox17]

Wotc’s mistake was filling the Dmg with magic items that give plusses to attack and ac in an edition that relies on bounded accuracy.
I suppose slapping numerical bonuses on items was the easiest way to make them appealing, but now they realize they can’t give them away without throwing their adventures’ balance out of whack.

Hope they learn this lesson for 5.5/6e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Wotc’s mistake was filling the Dmg with magic items that give plusses to attack and ac in an edition that relies on bounded accuracy.
I suppose slapping numerical bonuses on items was the easiest way to make them appealing

The "+1 sword" is a core D&D trope. It's one of the things that makes D&D D&D and not some other generic fantasy RPG. The magic items in the 5e DMG is almost identical to the list in the 1st edition DMG. All they did for bounded accuracy was halve the bonus and round up.

And hit bonuses wouldn't make much difference in RotFM, but simply having a "magic weapon" could trivialise some encounters that are meant to be scary. Not that it would break anything important - it's perfectly possible to buy or craft magic items in RotFM using "down time" rules.

 

[Olrox17]

The "+1 sword" is a core D&D trope. It's one of the things that makes D&D D&D and not some other generic fantasy RPG. The magic items in the 5e DMG is almost identical to the list in the 1st edition DMG. All they did for bounded accuracy was halve the bonus and round up.

And hit bonuses wouldn't make much difference in RotFM, but simply having a "magic weapon" could trivialise some encounters that are meant to be scary. Not that it would break anything important - it's perfectly possible to buy or craft magic items in RotFM using "down time" rules.

The +1 sword, iconic and all, could just be a +1 to damage, no effect on bounded accuracy. But yes, a +1 to attack rolls is no big deal on its own, I agree that the biggest effect of a simple +1 weapon is to trivialize some specific monsters. A +3, on the other hand, maybe on a two handed or ranged weapon...

And we’re not even talking about the ridiculous effect on bounded accuracy that stacking magic armor and shields can have.

My complaint against static magic plusses is twofold: not only they’re very powerful, enough to destroy the bounded accuracy premise the game is built upon (at higher levels), but they’re also hella boring and uncreative. “I found a magic sword!” “What does it do?” “It increases my DPR by 30%!”.

 

[NaturalZero]

+1 items are a mechanical artifact. The game still feels like DnD without them. I'd be pretty happy to see a 6e where all magic weapons and armor have qualitative gimmicks instead of math.

 

[Zardnaar]

+1 items are a mechanical artifact. The game still feels like DnD without them. I'd be pretty happy to see a 6e where all magic weapons and armor have qualitative gimmicks instead of math.

Yeah na. They're a bit to iconic.

BA was a bit to tight and the -5/+10 feats don't help.

You don't see many magical great weapons, bows, hand crossbows or polearms in WotC adventures though.

 

[TheSword]

The +1 sword, iconic and all, could just be a +1 to damage, no effect on bounded accuracy. But yes, a +1 to attack rolls is no big deal on its own, I agree that the biggest effect of a simple +1 weapon is to trivialize some specific monsters. A +3, on the other hand, maybe on a two handed or ranged weapon...

And we’re not even talking about the ridiculous effect on bounded accuracy that stacking magic armor and shields can have.

My complaint against static magic plusses is twofold: not only they’re very powerful, enough to destroy the bounded accuracy premise the game is built upon (at higher levels), but they’re also hella boring and uncreative. “I found a magic sword!” “What does it do?” “It increases my DPR by 30%!”.

Magic swords don’t destroy bounded accuracy any more than ASI’d do.

The devil is in the detail. In what way is the sword magical. Does it glow red hot and cut through armour and flesh like butter? Is it preternaturally sharp, slicing through a ribbon in the air? Is it bejeweled with gems dazzle the eyes of the person you’re fighting causing them to lower their guard.

The green destiny is just a +1 sword (arguably not even that) but it’s still cool none the less.

The more I play 5e the more I feel the optional rule for identifying items is worthwhile. That last question therefore never comes up.

In our Runelords campaign a player found a ring inscribed with whirling patterns of eyes. When he put it on the world seemed to shift out of phase by a second. Now he can see things happening a second before they do, like a slowing in the air as things come towards him. It’s a ring of protection +1

 

[Olrox17]

Magic swords don’t destroy bounded accuracy any more than ASI’d do.

The devil is in the detail. In what way is the sword magical. Does it glow red hot and cut through armour and flesh like butter? Is it preternaturally sharp, slicing through a ribbon in the air? Is it bejeweled with gems dazzle the eyes of the person you’re fighting causing them to lower their guard.

The green destiny is just a +1 sword (arguably not even that) but it’s still cool none the less.

The more I play 5e the more I feel the optional rule for identifying items is worthwhile. That last question therefore never comes up.

In our Runelords campaign a player found a ring inscribed with whirling patterns of eyes. When he put it on the world seemed to shift out of phase by a second. Now he can see things happening a second before they do, like a slowing in the air as things come towards him. It’s a ring of protection +1

That's all good and fun, cool descriptions of magic items are great, but you're talking about aesthetics, while I was talking about mechanics.

An example of a magic weapon I made for a past campaign. Bare with me, it was D&D 4e so the format is different than what 5e uses.

This legendary hammer was the most prized relic of the McGillis dwarves, wielded by the king's personal bodyguard. It has a long history in the context of my campaign that I won't bore you with, but what I liked about it (and several other weapons and items I made for that campaign) was that it was also mechanically unique.
It had unique powers that I think were interesting, and since the campaign used inherent bonuses (an optional 4e rule), it didn't even need to have an enhancement bonus at all!

(Btw, I'm not implying that my way of making magic items is the be-all and-all and wotc should totally do it like me, I'm just using a concrete example to explain my personal preference)

 

[TheSword]

That's all good and fun, cool descriptions of magic items are great, but you're talking about aesthetics, while I was talking about mechanics.

An example of a magic weapon I made for a past campaign. Bare with me, it was D&D 4e so the format is different than what 5e uses.

View attachment 129862

This legendary hammer was the most prized relic of the McGillis dwarves, wielded by the king's personal bodyguard. It has a long history in the context of my campaign that I won't bore you with, but what I liked about it (and several other weapons and items I made for that campaign) was that it was also mechanically unique.
It had unique powers that I think were interesting, and since the campaign used inherent bonuses (an optional 4e rule), it didn't even need to have an enhancement bonus at all!

(Btw, I'm not implying that my way of making magic items is the be-all and-all and wotc should totally do it like me, I'm just using a concrete example to explain my personal preference)

It sounds great. I think you’ve taken the next step in truly customizing mechanics.

I guess my point was that ASI’s are simple increases and nobody says ASIs are boring. Boring is subjective and in the case of weapons the how is as important as the what.

 

[Olrox17]

It sounds great. I think you’ve taken the next step in truly customizing mechanics.

I guess my point was that ASI’s are simple increases and nobody says ASIs are boring. Boring is subjective and in the case of weapons the how is as important as the what.

I would argue that ASI's are a bit boring if feats aren't also allowed. But yes, when I say flat +x magic items are boring, that's subjective. The impact on bounded accuracy is the more objective part of my argument.

And yeah, you could argue that increasing your main attribute with ASIs also breaks bounded accuracy, but I'm pretty sure those increases are accounted for in the game's math, just like prof bonus increases. Magic item flat bonuses are explicitly unaccounted for in the game's math (and they're boring).

 

[TheSword]

I would argue that ASI's are a bit boring if feats aren't also allowed. But yes, when I say flat +x magic items are boring, that's subjective. The impact on bounded accuracy is the more objective part of my argument.

And yeah, you could argue that increasing your main attribute with ASIs also breaks bounded accuracy, but I'm pretty sure those increases are accounted for in the game's math, just like prof bonus increases. Magic item flat bonuses are explicitly unaccounted for in the game's math (and they're boring).

Hmmm. ASI’s can be in any stat and replaced with feats. I don’t believe the rules require or even expect a 20 in your attacking stat at any level of play.

Even if was true, there’s a good argument for saying a +2 sword takes the pressure off, allowing you to use those ASIs for feats or other elements of your character.