D&D 5E What Magic Item do you want to see most in the DMG?

[Lancelot]

Every magic item I've used so far in my two 5e campaigns has been above-and-beyond a normal +1 magic item.

For example: A +1 magic longsword bearing an ancient dwarven name. The possessor of the sword starts growing a thick beard (regardless of race or gender). Once every 3 or 4 combats, the wielder (unconsciously) utters a dwarven oath in battle. After performing a side-quest to honor the dwarven gods, the wielder may actually attune themselves to the blade and gain either darkvision or resistance to poison. Similarly, a +1 magic battleaxe made of transparent crystalline steel, and weighing only one pound. The axe becomes invisible the first time it is swung in combat, granting the wielder Advantage on their first attack roll unless the target has Blindsight or Truesight. After hitting a creature, the axe must be scrupulously cleaned and polished (taking a Short Rest) before it regains its ability to become invisible on the first strike again.

So, what I'm looking for in the DMG is more of the same. I want items with quirky powers. If we're talking "old favorites", I'm thinking sunblade, sword of the planes, rod of lordly might, cube of force, decanter of endless water. All of those items had multiple functions, and are going to be the most likely to have the level of "quirk" that I'm looking for.

 

[Joe Liker]

Each item that a PC has should either be +x weapon/armor (possibly with riders), or something else cool.

To me, that's a worst-case scenario. Plus x is about the most boring thing a weapon or armor can do, and it defeats the purpose of bounded accuracy.

 

[KarinsDad]

To me, that's a worst-case scenario. Plus x is about the most boring thing a weapon or armor can do, and it defeats the purpose of bounded accuracy.

It might be boring for some people, but it is stock and trade D&D. 4E introduced the world of "bigger, better, badder" when it came to magic items (many of the magic items had several things that they could do, including armor and weapons).

It's more difficult for players to keep track of all of the things they can do if every single magic item has a plethora of things it can do. 4E bogged down with that stuff.

KISS.

Not that some weapons cannot be flaming or anti-undead or whatever, it's just that there should also be many just plain simple +1 D&D weapons.

 

[Paraxis]

Not that some weapons cannot be flaming or anti-undead or whatever, it's just that there should also be many just plain simple +1 D&D weapons.

I couldn't disagree more, +1 weapons and armor are boring, they become a number in a math formula on a piece of paper, there is nothing "magical" about that at all.

Not saying every weapon needs to catch on fire or drip acid, but they should do something more than provide a +1 to hit and damage.

Examples
Serpents Tongue, dagger +1 allows the wielder to speak with serpents, it is a silvered blade stylized to look like a serpents tongue coming out of a hooded cobra hilt.

Thorn, a longbow +1, the holder of this bow moves through briars and other damage dealing natural plant areas without taking any damage or needing to slow down.

Thunk, a warhammer +1, this hammer gives advantage on strength ability checks when used to break down doors, break open chests, or in general damage wooden inanimate objects not being worn or carried.

Shell, shield +1, this shield and it's wearer floats in water if they wish, it is made from a large tortoise shell.

Basicly give every magic weapon and armor something that makes them feel magical.

Simple +1 items have the feeling of coming off an assembly line, and have lost all sense of magic.

 

[Joe Liker]

It might be boring for some people, but it is stock and trade D&D. 4E introduced the world of "bigger, better, badder" when it came to magic items (many of the magic items had several things that they could do, including armor and weapons).

It's more difficult for players to keep track of all of the things they can do if every single magic item has a plethora of things it can do. 4E bogged down with that stuff.

KISS.

Not that some weapons cannot be flaming or anti-undead or whatever, it's just that there should also be many just plain simple +1 D&D weapons.

Not sure why you're dancing on the edge of an edition war, but "4e did it, so it must suck" isn't much of an argument. "Stock and trade" is even weaker -- as we all know, a lot of D&D traditions have been left behind, and I think most of us here feel 5e is better for it. Sure, the first +1 weapon you ever got was cool because it was better than anything you had ever owned. After that, BORING. A +3 fire brand wasn't awesome because it was +3; it was awesome because it could burst into flames.

Anyway, I don't recall advocating a "plethora" of powers for every item. I think one really cool, thematic power per item is plenty. Coupled with the fact that you can only attune three powerful items at a time, and you have some interesting character decisions in the works.

What bogs things down is when every character has to have every slot filled, so that you become a walking magical arsenal. Pluses only add to the misery because, when pluses are common, a lot of players feel like they are being penalized if they don't have them.

But nowadays, that's all in the hands of the DM. Magic items are no longer an integral part of a character's build; they are once again a wonder and a privilege rather than an entitlement. I'd rather have them be truly magical and wondrous -- to me, putting pluses everywhere moves the needle back toward the entitlement zone. It's math where no math is needed, and I feel like 5e is a game that has worked very hard to strip that away.

 

[KarinsDad]

Not sure why you're dancing on the edge of an edition war, but "4e did it, so it must suck" isn't much of an argument. "Stock and trade" is even weaker -- as we all know, a lot of D&D traditions have been left behind, and I think most of us here feel 5e is better for it. Sure, the first +1 weapon you ever got was cool because it was better than anything you had ever owned. After that, BORING. A +3 fire brand wasn't awesome because it was +3; it was awesome because it could burst into flames.

Anyway, I don't recall advocating a "plethora" of powers for every item. I think one really cool, thematic power per item is plenty. Coupled with the fact that you can only attune three powerful items at a time, and you have some interesting character decisions in the works.

What bogs things down is when every character has to have every slot filled, so that you become a walking magical arsenal. Pluses only add to the misery because, when pluses are common, a lot of players feel like they are being penalized if they don't have them.

But nowadays, that's all in the hands of the DM. Magic items are no longer an integral part of a character's build; they are once again a wonder and a privilege rather than an entitlement. I'd rather have them be truly magical and wondrous -- to me, putting pluses everywhere moves the needle back toward the entitlement zone. It's math where no math is needed, and I feel like 5e is a game that has worked very hard to strip that away.

I think that magic item pluses are the "bad game design" du jour bandwagon. People jump on it because it sounds better to have flaming sword than a magical sword. How often does a flaming sword really get used for the fire aspect of it compared to the damage aspect of it? Given a choice between a +0 flaming sword and a +1 to hit and damage magic sword, I'd take the magic sword every time. Are you advocating for magical swords that do not have any bonuses at all, just their special ability?

I know players who would love to get a +1 magic weapon in a magic light world. They don't need the Icepick of Death, they just want something that works for them.

No doubt, 2E had the 4 books of magic items that was just so much stuff to wade through. Do I hand out the cool xxx, or the cool yyy, or the cool zzz item? 4E did not introduce the plethora of magic weapons and armor special abilities, it was just the version where item distribution no longer had tables of percentages, so DMs were encouraged to hand out anything that caught their fancy within a given set of "levels". No tables of 1% chance of finding this uber item. Also, magic items where put into the PHB and thrown into the faces of players. 3E Magic Item Compendium had 40 different types of magic armor. 4E Adventure's Vault had 100 different types (300 in the 4E compendium). So when one combines a long list of items with no good guidelines on rarity / chance of finding, it can become a problem.

Now, an experienced DM can usually tell if a given magic item is a bit game breaking for a given group. Inexperienced DMs, not so much (our current new DM handed out a magic dagger that is too powerful for 3rd level 5E PCs since it allows for Moonbeam 3 times per day, so at the hint of a tough fight, that spell comes out).

I'm glad that 5E is maintaining the common, uncommon, and rare aspect of magic items, combined with attunement.

But the concept that players should not strive to acquire (via finding, creating, or even bartering) for as many magic items as they can get their hands on seems alien to D&D. Sure, magic rare campaign, few items. But there is nothing wrong with a given PC getting a new magic item every other level in some campaigns. Not every one of those items should be "super cool", some can just be a common item like a +1 sword.

Nothing wrong with a common magic item. It seems more of an entitlement issue that a player would expect only cool magic items with a thematic power like you advocate than it seems that a player would expect some magic items.

 

[Joe Liker]

Are you advocating for magical swords that do not have any bonuses at all, just their special ability?

Absolutely I am.

With bounded accuracy, I think it's bad for the game to give permanent bonuses to hit. The proficiency bonus is more than enough to keep things fair. Once your to hit bonus gets to a certain point, you stop caring about it -- you no longer need help from spells or friends to gain advantage or temporary bonuses to hit. You no longer have to try, because your chances of missing are tiny to nonexistant. That's bad for the game.

Look at the Kraken, a CR 23 monster. Its Armor Class is 18. Are you really suggesting that someone with a proficiency bonus of +6 and a Strength modifier of +5 needs additional help from a magic weapon?

Damage bonuses, on the other hand, I'm very much in favor of. An icy weapon that deals 1d4 extra cold damage? Perfect. But that ice doesn't make it any easier to hit the target.

 

[KarinsDad]

Absolutely I am.

With bounded accuracy, I think it's bad for the game to give permanent bonuses to hit. The proficiency bonus is more than enough to keep things fair. Once your to hit bonus gets to a certain point, you stop caring about it -- you no longer need help from spells or friends to gain advantage or temporary bonuses to hit. You no longer have to try, because your chances of missing are tiny to nonexistant. That's bad for the game.

So the 17th level fighter with +11 to hit fighting the ancient red dragon with 546 hit points and AC 22 should only be hitting half of the time, not 60% of the time. I fail to see a significant difference. Sure, the Fighter gets 4 attacks per round, but Barbarians, Bards, Rogues, and Rangers only get 2 per round.

And the Frightful Presence of the Dragon makes hitting (or even approaching) a whole heck of a lot less probable.

I think that the game has to be looked at as a whole, not just a thin slice. I suspect that the game designers took into account the fact that PCs would often have +1 to +3 to hit more at mid to high levels and adjusted monster hit points, AC, and abilities accordingly. It's not as if the PC spell casters cannot just drop round after round of save or suck spells onto tough foes. But allowing the melee/ranged PCs a bit more umph hardly seems game breaking.

Look at the Kraken, a CR 23 monster. Its Armor Class is 18. Are you really suggesting that someone with a proficiency bonus of +6 and a Strength modifier of +5 needs additional help from a magic weapon?

Absolutely. Krakens are immune to non-magical weapons.

Damage bonuses, on the other hand, I'm very much in favor of. An icy weapon that deals 1d4 extra cold damage? Perfect. But that ice doesn't make it any easier to hit the target.

To each their own. I'll trust the game designers on this until I see that the game really does implode handing out +1 to +3 weapons.

 

[steeldragons]

Absolutely. Krakens are immune to non-magical weapons.

Ah! Now, ya know....I am certain that you would not be suggesting that a weapon that bursts into flames or ice or that is +3 to damage (maybe even only against giants) is a "non-magical weapon" simply because it does not offer a +X to a hit roll?

woooooh...I think I just blew my own mind...

I'm coming at this not caring about the +X weapons at all...always been in the game, like 'em, never thought twice about them. But now...Why NOT have magic weapons be "damage only" [and/or some other helpful attribute like shedding light or returning or allowing flight, etc...]? Is that +x to hit really necessary at all when, as @Joe Liker points out, you're already getting +8/10/12 [on a d20] to hit from other means?

Yes...mind definitely blown.

 

[Astrosicebear]

While I like the flavor of specific weapons doing damage to monster types without a native bonus... I do think bonuses should be in there. I am not saying I want +1 and +3 vanilla swords. But rather Icy Breath, a dagger that does 1d4 cold damage per hit and functions as a +1 dagger. The plus is a complete afterthought, but still a factor.