D&D 5E Two suggestions for handling magic items in 5e. (I'm sure these have all been said before but I haven't been keeping track.)

[B.T.]

1. Magic items don't provide a bonus on attack rolls or saving throws. Instead, magic items do interesting things. A fiery sword, for instance, does fire damage and can light things aflame. It doesn't need a +3 to be awesome.

2. Magic items provide a bonus on attack rolls or saving throws, but the bonus from this does not stack with a bonus from leveling. A low-level fighter might get a lot of mileage out of a +3 sword, but a high-level fighter is so good at fightan that his innate abilities supersede those of a paltry magic item.

 

[Rhenny]

I like #1. In fact, I think there is room for limited +1 items that won't break the bank.

 

[the Jester]

I think the classic +1 is just too much of a sacred cow, and I really doubt whether it will go away as a default option.

That said, I wouldn't mind (for instance) a sword that was +2 to damage, but not to attacks (or vice-versa). I like more interesting, flavorful magic item options too.

 

[Blackwarder]

I disagree with the no stacking part, a magic weapon should make you better otherwise it isn't magic, I agree that there is a place for no bonus magic weapons and armor though iirc it's very easy to make a no bonus magic weapon for your players, I honestly think that it should remain in the DM hands though.

Warder

 

[Grydan]

1. Magic items don't provide a bonus on attack rolls or saving throws. Instead, magic items do interesting things. A fiery sword, for instance, does fire damage and can light things aflame. It doesn't need a +3 to be awesome.

This is essentially how I want things. My old signature—Math ≠ Magic—stemmed from discussions of the idea back in the days between when we knew the new system was coming, but had yet to see any of the nuts and bolts.

I knew the +1 weapon was too sacred a cow to die, but to some degree I had hoped that it'd be the exception, rather than the rule: you can get a fiery sword or a +1 sword (or more evocatively, a sword of accuracy), and there's no such thing as a +2 or beyond.

No such luck.

(I do take consolation in the fact that, if they truly stick to their guns on not making the math bonuses expected, required, or essential in any way, that I can strip them out without consequence.)

… a magic weapon should make you better otherwise it isn't magic …

I firmly disagree. I'd say that a magic weapon should be magical in some way, otherwise it isn't magic. A sword that makes your 16 strength character just as accurate and damaging as the next guy's 18 strength character using a non-magical sword is, from the perspective of characters in the universe, about as unmagical as it's possible to get. It's invisible magic. Anyone not looking at your character sheet hasn't the slightest clue that your sword is more magical than his is.

A sword that's made of fire, or which glows when goblins are about, or speaks, or sings, or flies, or does your taxes is clearly magical … and not one of those effects requires that it also makes your character marginally more likely to hit and grants a tiny extra bit of damage.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think the solution is pretty simple, and they're almost there:

Each item that grants a plus to something that is normally bounded (accuracy, AC, saving throws, save DC) must require attunement (or be otherwise non-stacking, like the current bracers of defense). Attunement is somehow limited. Other magic items are not limited.

 

[howandwhy99]

I think we were using option 2 in OD&D. Basically magical swords with +#s To Hit had fighting ability, so they probably had a fighter's spirit imbued into them. The higher the level of the fighter, the higher the + of the weapon. Of course they could do cool other stuff to and had a history of why they were what they were, who had the previously, what they had done, and the personality of the spirit if you could contact it. But that's all gravy.

 

[Li Shenron]

I just hope they remove the +N to all magic weapons and armors that already have some other benefits.

 

[Rhenny]

In my last night's playtest session, I let the players find a belt of Frost Giant Strength. Now the Paladin has a +1 warhammer and the belt for an attack and damage bonus of +7. It hasn't broken the game. He feels stronger, but he is still not a killing machine.

The power bonuses might be worse on a barbarian, but I'm not sure. The irony about bounded accuracy is that it actually makes the game much more flexible than a system with expected scaled increases. I'm really digging it.

If anyone is interested, I wrote an essay in my blog about the Flexibility of Bounded Accuracy. Check it out if you are interested.

http://community.wizards.com/rhenny..._(and_freedom)_of_bounded_accuracy_in_dd_next

 

[Jester David]

I don't see the problem with +1 weapons.

They're a little more boring (read: simple) and less sexy than a flaming sword or a weapon that explodes into shrapnel or something. But not everything should be sexy. Flaming swords are cool because they have something to contrast with.

There are also far more swords in fiction that are "magic" but have vague magical powers. All the swords in Lord of the Rings, Excalibur, etc. Sometimes you just want a magic sword that is just magic without a lot of pomp.

+1 swords are also a pretty big sacred cow of the game. Even people who aren't eminently familiar with D&D have heard of "+1 longswords". And removing them would make running old modules that little extra bit tricky.

From a mechanical perspective +1 isn't game breaking. It increases your hit rate by 5%. But really this just means I reduces your miss chance by 10% as it does nothing for any die roll that would already be a hit: if you need a 12 to hit, a +1 sword just means you hit on an 11. But does nothing on a 1 to 10 or a 12 to 20.
Really, if you roll numbers evenly the +1 sword has an impact every twenty attacks. If fights last four rounds, it will mean the difference between a hit or a miss once every five or so encounters. That might only be once a session.