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.)

[Sunseeker]

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.

I don't think it's a must, but there should be some way to represent items of higher quality as well as items of magical nature, and of course, the comincation of the two. A rusty, bent, old sword can still me magically made to light on fire. But a quality, "achievement of a lifetime" sword from a highly skilled smith should not require magical abilities to represent it's quality.

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.

I don't like this idea simply because it adds complication, remembering that at level 5 you can get +3 from a weapon but at level 12 you only get +2 and at level 19 you get +0 is just needlessly complex. Also, how many low-level fighters run around with +3 swords?

A +X weapon should use that +x to represent the quality of the item, and IMO, it should apply to damage only, unless it enchanted with an "Accuracy" spell.

It also basically sets up the idea that you should be given cool stuff to start with, and then fight nude at max level.

I think it'd be simpler to just limit the maximum bonus you can recieve from any source, ie: class, stats, magical gear, and buffs.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

In 3e I didn't have problem with +5 weapons either. In a system like 5e where the total bonus over 20 levels is bounded to +10 however, it's better to limit magic weapons to a small bonus, unless there are other drawbacks or limits.

The only thing I hate with weapons magic bonuses, is the idea that most (all, in 3e) magic weapons must have a +N anyway in order to have other interesting properties. It's plain nonsense.

 

[Sunseeker]

The only thing I hate with weapons magic bonuses, is the idea that most (all, in 3e) magic weapons must have a +N anyway in order to have other interesting properties. It's plain nonsense.

I greatly, greatly agree with this. Makes no sense.

 

[Jester David]

In 3e I didn't have problem with +5 weapons either. In a system like 5e where the total bonus over 20 levels is bounded to +10 however, it's better to limit magic weapons to a small bonus, unless there are other drawbacks or limits.

The only thing I hate with weapons magic bonuses, is the idea that most (all, in 3e) magic weapons must have a +N anyway in order to have other interesting properties. It's plain nonsense.

A +1 sword in 5e should change the game as much as a +5 sword in 3e. Less really as the +1 is 1/5th of a fighter's maximum bonus compared to the 1/4th of 3e.

If a weapon is doing something else, it likely shouldn't have more than a +1 or +2 bonus. Anything doing +3 or above should only have the plus. With a few exceptions. But I'm generally okay with +1 being the baseline. It's a D&D thing to do, and you should hit more often with a magic sword. It'd feel lame if you had this rare and powerful magic sword that was only special once a day or once every other session and was otherwise identical to a mundane sword.

Drawbacks would be a fun way of balancing that, but Next seems to still have the 4e fear of adding drawbacks or penalties to characters. But that would make a spiffy magic item module.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's a D&D thing to do, and you should hit more often with a magic sword. It'd feel lame if you had this rare and powerful magic sword that was only special once a day or once every other session and was otherwise identical to a mundane sword.

But It could also be said that "it'd feel lame if you had this rare and powerful magic sword that was only +X and was otherwise identical to a mundane sword". There is no reason why a weapon must have both a bonus and some other special abilities (and keep in mind, that many - perhaps most - magic weapons in D&D actually have at-will abilities, not dailies), this is one possibility, but 3e strictly required a magic weapon/shield/armor to be at least +1 before having other properties, and 5e doesn't strictly require it but the list of example weapons still follows this idea for the majority of cases. Just like there are weapons with a + but no special abilities, there are weapons with special abilities but not a +. A weapon that deals e.g. an extra damage dice of a damage type, or that triggers something special on a crit, already IS better than a mundane sword, whether it has a bonus-to-hit or not.

A +1 sword in 5e should change the game as much as a +5 sword in 3e. Less really as the +1 is 1/5th of a fighter's maximum bonus compared to the 1/4th of 3e.

The proportions are certainly important, I was about to post a similar comment to yours in my previous post, but then I didn't because it's probably more complicated than that... Because that +5 against +20 (from class) is on one hand 1/4th only, but on the other hand the whole game scales up somewhat, and it's still a bonus against a d20 roll.

I don't want to derail the thread on discussing this, but IMO that bonus-to-hit is (like you say) quite more valuable in 5e's bounded accuracy than it used to be in previous editions. This is another reason why IMHO they should really try to avoid so many examples of weapons that offer special abilities and also a bonus. You don't need that bonus in 5 as much as you needed it in 3.0 (where the game assumed everyone got +N weapons at certain levels) to "make the game work as intended", but at the same time having a bonus-to-hit would be more valuable, so I'd be as stingy as possible with them.

 

[Jester David]

Okay, you say:

I don't want to derail the thread on discussing this, but IMO that bonus-to-hit is (like you say) quite more valuable in 5e's bounded accuracy than it used to be in previous editions. This is another reason why IMHO they should really try to avoid so many examples of weapons that offer special abilities and also a bonus. You don't need that bonus in 5 as much as you needed it in 3.0 (where the game assumed everyone got +N weapons at certain levels) to "make the game work as intended", but at the same time having a bonus-to-hit would be more valuable, so I'd be as stingy as possible with them.

But you also say:

and keep in mind, that many - perhaps most - magic weapons in D&D actually have at-will abilities, not dailies

The thing is, a +1 to attack is potent but functionally comes up once every twenty rolls, or every other session. But could be relevant with any roll, so it is always in use (plus the damage bonus). But an At-Will power will come up potentially every single round. That's significantly more powerful than a +1 or even a +4 sword (which is relevant four out of every twenty attacks [4/20] or once every 5 attacks essentially being an Encounter power).

At level 10 a good attack should easily be doing 20 damage. We'll say a min-maxed 25. So the +1 sword turns 0 damage into 25 damage once every twenty attacks. To balance with that, an At-will power of a sword would have to spread out the same damage over the twenty attacks, doing an average of 1.25 per attack or roughly 2.5 per hit. So the cool At-Will power has to be roughly equivalent to adding a 1d4 to the damage of every attack. Not exactly world shaking.
(This does mean a +2 sword is almost balanced with a +1 flaming sword dealing 1d6 fire damage with a hit. Coincidentally what 3e had for magic item design.)

There is no reason why a weapon must have both a bonus and some other special abilities this is one possibility, but 3e strictly required a magic weapon/shield/armor to be at least +1 before having other properties, and 5e doesn't strictly require it but the list of example weapons still follows this idea for the majority of cases. Just like there are weapons with a + but no special abilities, there are weapons with special abilities but not a +. A weapon that deals e.g. an extra damage dice of a damage type, or that triggers something special on a crit, already IS better than a mundane sword, whether it has a bonus-to-hit or not.

Because tradition.

This isn't just 3e, as even back in 1st Edition AD&D all magic weapons had a plus. Most magic weapons amounted to "+1, +[#>1] vs. [monster type]. The famous flame tongue spent two editions being "sword +1, +2 vs. regenerating creatures, +3 vs. cold-using inflammable, or avian creatures, +4 vs. undead."
All magic swords conferring a base bonus to hit IS D&D. And in an edition explicitly designed around emulating all editions - especially old ones - and emphasising the elements common amongst all six versions of the game it would be silly to single-out magic items for a change.

But It could also be said that "it'd feel lame if you had this rare and powerful magic sword that was only +X and was otherwise identical to a mundane sword".

This is a matter of taste. Simple works for some people. Sometimes people don't want an extra power.
Plus, again, without simple magic items the ones with amazing at-will powers don't feel as special. They become the baseline and you have to make even cooler magic items to award something special.

And not every game has the same level of magic. Many settings make lesser magic items common; Eberron for one, and Dragonlance and the Realms both seem rife with minor magic weapons. In those cases you want a simple magic item that's still magic but not not a flaming sword of fire.


In my experience, even a +1 longsword can be special if it is presented as being special. If it's just "here's a +1 longsword" it will always be lame, but if you say "here's Ice, forged of Valyrian steel over four centuries ago during the Age of Heroes." then the sword will be special and memorable even if it is just +1.

 

[Li Shenron]

(This does mean a +2 sword is almost balanced with a +1 flaming sword dealing 1d6 fire damage with a hit. Coincidentally what 3e had for magic item design.)

Yes, and so a +1 sword is balanced with a +0 flaming sword...

3e decided that it must be assumed a lot about what magic equipment the PCs should have at various levels. For example, 3.0 even had DR based on the number of +s. It works, if you accept what is essentially a gamestyle assumption on availability of magic items, for others it sucked.

If most magic weapons have a + as a baseline, this means that in a campaign using magic weapons (i.e. the majority) all weapon-wielding PCs have an additional +1 by default. If this is considered small, then we don't need it. If this is considered significant, then it's the same mistake as in 3e, albeit smaller in magnitude.

This is a matter of taste. Simple works for some people. Sometimes people don't want an extra power.
Plus, again, without simple magic items the ones with amazing at-will powers don't feel as special. They become the baseline and you have to make even cooler magic items to award something special.

And not every game has the same level of magic. Many settings make lesser magic items common; Eberron for one, and Dragonlance and the Realms both seem rife with minor magic weapons. In those cases you want a simple magic item that's still magic but not not a flaming sword of fire.

In my experience, even a +1 longsword can be special if it is presented as being special. If it's just "here's a +1 longsword" it will always be lame, but if you say "here's Ice, forged of Valyrian steel over four centuries ago during the Age of Heroes." then the sword will be special and memorable even if it is just +1.

I am totally not following you... I agree on all these things, and yet I can't get why you come to the opposite conclusion as mine.

Yes it's a matter of taste > and this is why I don't want to see the vast majority of example weapons with a +, but rather a minority (it doesn't have to be none at all, I just want this to be not the most common case).

Yes sometimes people want simple without an extra power > and this is why I think most weapons with a special ability should not have a +, and viceversa (and some have both, but the minority). So if I want the extra power only, I don't have to get the +N (note: it might feel it's free to get the +N, but normally it's not... you could have bought/found/crafted 2 items instead of the one which carries a bonus you didn't ask for)

Yes, without simple magic items the others don't feel special > but also if all weapons come with a +1 on the side, then having a bonus-to-hit never feels special either.

Yes, +N items can be special in their own way > in fact I'm not saying that I don't like +N items in the game... I'm only saying that I don't like that "+1 fries on the side" to almost every magic weapon. It just creates a "+1 floor" to all magic weapons which is not useful to the game (either it's too small, or you will adjust all monsters accordingly), and possibly makes it even more difficult to let those +N simple items feel good.

EDIT

One last comment...

Let's always keep in mind that magic items in 5e are supposed to be optional, but it's reasonable to think that the vast majority of gaming groups will at least use SOME magic items.

The magic items in the DMG are just examples that can be modified, but still a lot of groups will use at least some of them as-is (at least when they are just starting off playing the new edition).

Because of these, I think it'd be best if the examples presented will be as varied as possible without setting "trends". Right now, the majority of weapons carries a +1 for no other reason than tradition (notice -> not the majority of armors! so the reason cannot be to represent masterwork compared to the mundane counterpart), therefore sets a trend. Tradition is good, but IMHO in this case it's just a burden.

 

[Jester David]

3e decided that it must be assumed a lot about what magic equipment the PCs should have at various levels. For example, 3.0 even had DR based on the number of +s.

DR based on the magical plus comes out of 1e and 2e where many monsters might need a +2 or +3 sword to damage them. In many ways 3.0 just updated the implementation of earlier editions with standardized rules.

It works, if you accept what is essentially a gamestyle assumption on availability of magic items, for others it sucked.

There always needs to be a baseline. 3e assumed the baseline was X magic knowing that people could still choose to have have <X magic (and make the game harder) or >X magic (and make the game easier).

If most magic weapons have a + as a baseline, this means that in a campaign using magic weapons (i.e. the majority) all weapon-wielding PCs have an additional +1 by default. If this is considered small, then we don't need it. If this is considered significant, then it's the same mistake as in 3e, albeit smaller in magnitude.

Yes. Yes it does mean that a campaign where everyone uses magic weapons everyone is doing more damage and doing better. Because it is above the baseline. Just like awarding more magic than was assumed by 3e.

I am totally not following you... I agree on all these things, and yet I can't get why you come to the opposite conclusion as mine.
Yes it's a matter of taste > and this is why I don't want to see the vast majority of example weapons with a +, but rather a minority (it doesn't have to be none at all, I just want this to be not the most common case).
I'm not saying that I don't like +N items in the game... I'm only saying that I don't like that "+1 fries on the side" to almost every magic weapon. It just creates a "+1 floor" to all magic weapons which is not useful to the game (either it's too small, or you will adjust all monsters accordingly), and possibly makes it even more difficult to let those +N simple items feel good.

Then what this is essentially coming down to then is your taste versus how D&D has always handled magic items. What you want vs. what the game has done for forty years.

 

[Ti-bob]

+X weapons should be only give bonus to damage, no bonus to hit. So no mess with the To Hit probabilities. And it's less unbalancing to have big bonus at damage than big bonus to hit.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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

My solution is that +N weapons/Armor exist, but aren't magical -- they're just mundane items crafted with exceptional skill or using rare/special materials. Magic provides special effects. So you can have a +N weapon without special effects (masterwork but mundane), or a magical weapon with special effects but no +N, or a +N magical item with special effects.