How many magic items should a typical 5e campaign have per PC?
Common Expectations
Table F:
17% chance of +1 weapon or bracers of archery
12% chance of +1 implement or additional slot capability(Rod of Pact Keeper, Wand of the War Mage, Wand of Magic Missiles, Wand of Web, 3 instruments of bards, Pearl of Power)
Table G:
20% chance of +2 weapon or giant/dragon slayer, flame tongue, maces that are magical weapons, sun blade, swords that are interesting, dagger of venom
17% of implement or additional slot capability(2 bard instruments, Necklace of Prayer Beads, Ring of Spell Storing, Rod of pact, 4 staves, 8 wands)
Table H:
24% chance of +3 weapon or scimitar of speed, staff of striking, sword of sharpness, belt of giant str above 20, frost brand, dancing sword, dwarven thrower, manual of attack stat above 20, Nine lives, Oathbow
18% Rod of pact +3, 4 staves, bard instrument, 3 items of attack stat above 20, 2 wands
Table I:
32% Defender, Hammer, Luck Blade, Sword of Answering, Holy Avenger, Vorpal, Belt of str above 20, Rod of Lordly Might
8% Instrument of Bards, Tome, Staff of Magi, Robe of Archmagi, Talisman(and 8% is potentially high due to obvious conflicts with alignment). Still though, Tome for bonus action Wish without using up a spell slot?
Number of magic weapons per party:
4th: Kind of random, no expectations, basically rounding errors.
10th: Would expect 2 magic weapons, about a 50/50 chance of having something better than +1.
16th: Would 3-4 magic weapons, probably 2 of them better than +1, and 1 of them a +3 or better.
20th: Would expect 5-6 magic weapons, 2 of them at least +3 in quality.
Numbers:
4th: 2.1*.17 = 0.36. 0.21*.2 = .04. 2.1*.12 = 0.25, .21*.17 = .03.
10th: 8.4*.17 = 1.43, 2.01*.2 = .4, 0.36*.24 = .09.
16th: 9.36*.17 = 1.59, 4.41*.2 = .81, 3.36*.24 = .81, 0.96*.32 = .31
20th: 9.36*.17 = 1.59, 5.21*.2 = 1.04, 4.96*.24 = 1.19, 4.96*.32 = 1.59
Just remember the game is not supposed to be balanced around magic items. If you are going to give out magic items it becomes the DM's job to do the balancing not WOTC. That said, have fun with the magic items rather than worry about game mechanics as long as you can still build challenging encounters for them.
There is no typical. Magic items are plot devices and completely outside the bounds of the game's math. It's up to the DM to keep a lid on things.
arnwolf666 wrote:
I think your assessment is correct and it seems to match the understanding of magic distribution for adventure league, so there is probably a correlation between the two..
However, I don't think there is an actual expected magic item distribution in the game, so there is no way to define a typical game. What you have here is a nice analysis of what if all item distribution for your players was based on the random magic item tables presented in the books, (also given average level appropriate challenges and levelling based on given XP for specific challenges represented in the monster manual, etc.) That's fine and fair, and is probably a good basis for further discussion on magic items in parties. Yet, these tables are not assumed to be used by players/DM's any more than having any magic items at all are assumed.
It's a bit dangerous to get to a place of expectation based on these numbers, as that can easily lead to player discord or just belly-aching on these forums about balance being skewed if the number is too high or too low relative to the expectation. 
The question you will want to be asking is can too many magic items wreck the game in some way (beyond just needing minor challenge tweaks, etc), and is an expected distribution needed to make the game run smooth?
I think it all boils down to what the magic items add to the game and what each individual play group might construe as too much. There's probably a limit that most can agree is too much and a lower bound that all can agree is not significant enough to matter. For example, if an effect of a magic item is minor and only can be applied once per action (or attack like +1 damage) then maybe that's fine and doesn't break anything since no matter how many of these items you have you can only use one at a time, and so the power balance of the player or party is only shifted a tiny bit and can either be accounted for or not based on the desire of the players/DM.
Yet, if the effect is large, like the equivalent of a caster's major spell slot, then clearly being able to use such an effect each round, is a significant boon to that player and would seem to break any attempt to balance the player's class via long-rest and short-rest spells/abilities (which might still be okay if the players don't care about items overshadowing their own classes, but I'd suspect that most would agree that's probably too much.) If the only mitigation for this is to limit the use of the item itself (charges, x-per-day, etc) then clearly the existence of these items can still cause the same situation if the number of items is not constrained in some way. (in this way an expected distribution comes in handy.)
However, the 5e designers have also given us a separate way to control spam abuse of high-powered item abilities: attunement. This allows players to have as many physical items they can lay their hands on, but the best abilities are still limited since they can only be attuned to a fixed number of them, and even these are generally constrained to x-per-day or charges. That means there is a finite limit on the "good stuff" without needing to hold to any specific distribution of items in general, which makes it easier to DM the game and not worry too much about players finding that dragon hoard.
Wuzzard wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
The day magic mart started offering there own rewards card I knew the game was going down hill.
arnwolf666 wrote:
At 6th level in my campaign, the party has found about 10-12 potions (many of which they've used already), 3 magic weapons (a +1 warhammer necessary for story purposes, +1 mace that does more damage vs. reptiles, and one magical longspear that transforms from 10' pole to longspear on command and it lets user wield with Dexterity instead of strength -It has no bonuses to it, but it is considered magical), one magical shield, a slightly broken wand of magic missile (only has a few charges and won't recharge)...I think that's it. This amount doesn't seem to be upsetting game balance.
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
The game assumes some degree of typicality, but the tables it describes aren't baked into the math. This means that you're perfectly fine having every 1st level scroll and +1 sword have storied histories the length of War and Peace with a significant role in your campaign's story, or you're fine having magic items being readily available. The game just provides a suggestion of typical treasure amounts as a guideline, and people get their knickers in a twist.
MwaO, you can actually go one step further - it's not that hard to show that these items conform very closely to a Poisson distribution with λ=the expected values you found upthread. You can use the Poisson equation to figure out the exact probability of getting particular numbers of particular items or classes of items to appear in particular treasure hoards, and from there it's pretty easy to figure out the likelihood of, say, N items by level M. I've only looked at this so far with scrolls, but it's consistent with your results.
MechaPilot wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because Trolling/Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
MechaPilot wrote:
and doesen't the table n page 38 on the DMG sugest what amount of magical items you should have at certain levels ?
and doesen't the table n page 38 on the DMG sugest what amount of magical items you should have at certain levels ?
edwin_su wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
As far as I'm aware, it IS expected that you will get magic items during the game.
The whole "not part of the math" bit came about from the decision to not make +X weapons and +X armor part of the monster math treadmill. In 3e, you needed a +3 weapon by level 9, lets say. Something similar in 4e. This was absolutely critical to make the game work. In 5e, they took that "you need +X" out when working out the monster CRs. As far as I know, that's all that happened.
MechaPilot wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
You bring a party to my table. That party is level 10, I create a CR 10 encouter. Two options:
You don't have magic items: Fine, you're on par.
You have magic items: That pack of monsters were easier with the aid of magic equipment.
You tell me you have a level 15 fighter. I "expect" he has a magic weapon. Oh, he doesn't? Ok, he can still hurt a CR 15 monster.
Why is this a big deal? Working outside what is "expected" does not mean it doesn't work. And no, "if level 7 characters should have 10,000 gold worth of magic items, then a new 7th level character should get that, because that's what he needs to compete." is just nonsense. Why don't you compare to the rest of the party..? The panic in response to this OP is highly exaggerated. I say well done analyzing what the result of a "standard campaign" is. I still believe the christmas tree is dead.
Lokiron wrote:
kalil wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Lokiron wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
EthanSental wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
With the exception of a few pre-planned treasure hoards, I let the players roll and the dice fall where they may on the hoard tables. If I introduce a vorpal weapon to my 5th level players, it isn't the end of game balance. Rather, it's another interesting twist in our campaign. I have no concern or desire to track expected items per level other than to watch if my players are having a good time.
With the philosophical aspect aside, found the post an interesting deconstruction into the odds generated by the game designers. But like Vegas, just because odds are in your favor doesn't mean you're entitled to anything. If useful magic items were supposed to be a guaranteed part of the game, odds would be unnecessary. However, there probably is a "minimum" concept built into player's minds, that is no matter how unlucky die rolls may be, a character should have at least ____ magic items by level ____. Hence, circling back to "are the players having a good time?" If they're not, the DM has the authority to override the odds and introduce something into a treasure hoard. No math needed for human behavior.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Pre-emptive to Aarnwolf: If you're rolling a die, you're basically generating a random number from a particular distribution, and those are described through probability theory. Unless you're doing a diceless game, there will be some mathematics underlying how your game unfolds, and understanding how those behave is not a bad thing.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Kangodo wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
You don't compare across different dimensions, any more than you ask what the best color of the alphabet is. Pretending that this means that the numeric portion of the game doesn't exist is disingenuous at best.
It sounds to me that what you want is D&D to be a game completely free from the numbers game, which solely rewards narrative creativity and cannot reward numeric proficiency. The problem is, D&D isn't that game - its core engine is more numerically-driven, even in an edition as "story-first" as 5e.
However, those games do exist, to a point - they're explicitly more narrative-driven than crunchy. An extreme example is FATE; a more moderate example is Legends of Wulin. There are dozens of others out there. You just want to run them in a classic D&D-style setting, which is easily done by a capable DM. After all, all it takes to express the concepts of D&D in those rules is enough narrative creativity, the very trait you wish to reward, no?
I'm not saying don't play D&D. I'm saying accept the game for what it is - in this case, there is a standardized numeric component to the game, and that appeals to some people who are not you. That is far from the only part of the game, naturally - but pretending it doesn't exist or badmouthing everyone who likes it just reeks of poor sportsmanship (or its tabletop equivalent).
It's like complaining that there's too much math in GURPS, or too little math in creative storytelling.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
It seems you're only ever reading and replying to our very first sentences, even when you quote whole replies, and most of your replies do not follow from the remark to which you're replying.
In this thread alone, MwaO says that he's looking into typical campaigns, and the subset of typical campaigns that use the tables that WotC made (i.e. an investigation into what WotC considers "typical" and what guidelines they provide). You then reply that if you include any magic items, it's the DM's job, not WotC's, to balance it. This is a non-sequitor.
Later, FFSAA says that some items are assumed to be in the game, with no implication that the players have any choice in which ones they are and no implication that there's any rigid standards beyond loose guidelines. You reply by complaining about Pathfinder wealth by level curves and magic marts. This is a non-sequitor - which MwaO pointed out (taking the time to elaborate on the same basic point) and you responded by doubling down on magic mart complaints and remarking about a decline in the hobby, which is another non-sequitor (both from the original point and from MwaO's elaboration on it).
Next, MwaO points out in one sentence that Pathfinder magic items varied from game to game (a debatable point), and then moved on to discuss 5e for the bulk of his reply. Your response ignores all the remarks on 5e and latches on to the first sentence about Pathfinder, which was only tangential to his remark.
After a brief exchange, MechaPilot weighs in saying that DMs still have control over what items are in the game, to which you reply that this is exactly how it should be. This exchange is very brief, so it doesn't factor in to my "you're not reading what we write" argument. Mecha's response, however, is a bit longer, noting that things that are left up to the DM should still have some loose guidelines from the developers (and I would hope an engineer knows the difference between a loose guideline and a hard-and-fast rule!). Your reply waxes poetic about how you don't need it therefore no one needs it (translation: "I got mine, up yours!"), and dagnabbit no one's RPing anymore. Notice that this is not productive, nor does it follow - it's a non-sequitor.
Now, I weigh in. I elaborate that item guidelines work in games with storied histories and those with random loot, which addresses your concerns and relates them back to the topic. (Incidentally, when Aaron gave an example of combining the "storied history" approach with the random tables we're looking at, you liked it even though it employs random treasure, which you later expressed intense dislike for!) I make an off-hand remark to MwaO about predicting how those tables behave (his original topic), which includes the word "equation". Guess which you latch on to - hint, it's not the one that addressed your concerns, and it misread my discussion of the tables as if I were making a DPR calculation. Total non-sequitor.
I then write two paragraphs explaining my position from two different perspectives, and include an off-hand concluding remark about shop talk. Again, you ignore everything aimed directly at you and latch on to the phrase "shop talk" with a passive-aggressive remark suggesting the Good Old Days were always better. You'll note this is yet another non-sequitor combined with not reading what we write, which I call you out on immediately after - and you let the discussion drop without so much as acknowledging that you'd misread me.
Instead of acknowledging your error, you instead find a remark discussing how many magic items the game's tables put into treasure hoards, and immediately misinterpret it as talking about magic marts. Does that follow? No - it's another non-sequitor.
Then I put up a detailed example of how to use the information in this thread to answer questions about a treasure table. (Incidentally, that method works at any treasure table, including hypothetical low-magic ones for Mystara, common-low-level-magic / rare-high-level-magic like Eberron, or redonkulous magic marts like Sigil. I just used the example table in the DMG that we all share.) I include an offhand remark about statistical literacy - a point on which bestsellers have been written - and suggest that the game could be a vector for promoting statistical literacy, just like it has been a vector for promoting traditional literacy. Your response basically ignores my whole point about it being a useful teaching aid of a good skill, and instead says that the game is too mathematical. Note the non-sequitor again?
When I point out that any game with dice obeys the laws of probability even if the table is completely story-driven, you point out that.... you've met people who play the game entirely numerically. You didn't read anything I wrote at all, and instead assumed that any discussion of probability meant DPR calculations. (I should note that in addition to this being a non-sequitor, you are the only person in this thread up to this point talking about different players' playstyles and issues with min-maxers. The thread is instead teaching us the consequences of using the DMG's particular magic item table in what WotC calls a "typical" campaign. Nothing about min-maxing here - it's akin to learning how random encounter tables work.)
At this point, you stopped reading entire posts. Here, I expressly ask what I'm doing wrong, since I can't seem to communicate a point to you without it being ignored. Right on cue, you ignore that point and respond to my setup sentence. Later, Kangodo wrote that understanding the math of the game can help an individual DM gauge whether he's handing enough enough or too few items for his individual campaign's needs. You ignore that point and reply to his opening sentence, except you ignore that a guideline is not a rule. Then, you respond to MwaO's discussion about the RP chops of his group with... a remark on balancing different mechanical game elements? How does that follow from anything? Again, non-sequitor, non-sequitor, non-sequitor.
I then try to get to the root of the problem, by pointing out that D&D does not seem to conform to your tastes but other tabletop games definitely do. You.... completely ignore that (likely) helpful discussion, and instead treat my entire reply as if it were an elaborate discussion on balancing game mechanical elements against similar game-mechanical elements (which I did mention, but only as a throwaway remark - I guess, to me, comparing like with like (a principle I used to teach in first-year intro engineering*, by the way - it's why you can't compare speed with mass, for instance) is as trivial as immediately knowing exactly the right items to place in games is for you.). I don't doubt you were sleepy, but it perfectly fits the pattern established in this thread of ignoring what people write, and replying to a tiny unrelated portion of our remarks with a non-sequitor.
That's what this is - a pattern of behaviour, of ignoring what people are trying to say, and of replying with non-sequitors. And that's just in this thread - I see it from you in others as well.
For someone pining for the Goode Olde Dayes of high roleplaying and absolutely no numbers, complaining about these young whippersnappers with different playstyles, and expressing great respect for the literary aspect of the game, you really don't exhibit much reading comprehension of your own. And it's getting really, really frustrating.
kalil wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
'
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Oh niice.
guy at enworld came up with about the same #'s
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?395770-Analysis-of-quot-Typical-quot-Magic-Item-Distribution
awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
I'll try to be more proactive.
At a quick look, those numbers seem very spot on to me. I am definitely more generous with common to uncommon consumables in my home game. And my groups will probaly hit a legendary consumable much earlier. Other than that as I review character sheets and inventories, I am pretty close to that. My planescape game a few years ago was more heavy. My "darkness falling" definitely had fewer.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
I suppose the designers should be applauded for making a game that doesn't need Magic Items, and works just fine without them.
I suppose, because I'll never find out. Every game of D&D I've ever been invited to ( ... or invited to leave 
... ) has had magic items.
But there are people who buy the DMG and immediately tear the magic item pages out of it --- bad magic items bad --- like the opening scene in Dead Poets Society. I mean it's their money, they can waste it in any way they choose. I'd choose to not thumb my nose at the designers, but that's just me.
awaken_D_M_golem wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Sorry, sometimes I shorthand WRT.
As for the maths...
Are you guys still buying that he doesn't understand the distinction? That he doesn't get how magic item bonuses sit outside the system design on purpose?
I'm not. He's trolling.
Our party just hit level 3. Collectively, as a party, we have found one potion of healing. That's it.
This has been deflating. We barely bother looting the monsters we kill anymore.
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Reading those quotes, I don't think it is saying that all monster equipment is unusuable, and it strongly suggests that loot from humanoid enemies is lootable (and sells for half-cost). What it is saying is that monster loot is up to the DM, and NPC loot sells for half. Some monster loot will be unusable-- a 'battered' set of armor. How about the monster's sword? Up to the DM.
And sorry, but I find the idea that most monster loot is entirely useless to stretch the bounds of suspension-of-disbelief. Why can't you use a monster's sword? You can try to figure out a reason, but it looks to the players like sheer vindictiveness due to poor game design. There's no reason why you can't loot a sword from another humanoid enemy. There's nothing in the Players Handbook that says a human can't use an elven sword. In the real world, crusaders used Muslim swords and vice versa. And even a battered suit of monster armor could be used for the metal and reforged.
Sorry if I sound harsh, and I appreciate your comments, but the rules are just plain silly if they tell you all monster loot is useless, especially for intelligent monster races that are also PC races who have no restrictions on equipment use when they are played as PCs. At the very least, it comes across as sheer GM vindictiveness due to poor game math.
I never said useless. I said "'rarely' in good enough condition to sell". The blade's worn and shows signs of corrosion; it's usable (but the party has enough swords already) but not saleable. The armor's been obviously repaired multiple times, and is sized for an orc (reforging is expensive). The boots smell like hobgoblin and no amount of cleaning gets it out. The costs needed to restore these things to a saleable state are greater than their value - they're write-offs.
I prefer it this way, because I actually motivate my players with things other than money and put on time pressure to raise adventure stakes. Taking time to pinch every goblin knife from something they kill detracts from the plot, encourages Dungeons and Beancounting where you track the value of everything you see (the usual answer to this, hinted upthread, is to actually enforce encumberance, which is answering beancounting with even more beancounting; my solution is to give them a reason to skip the kleptomania in the first place and not feel like the're being cheated if they do), and is ultimately irrelevant because the treasure hoards at the end are more valuable and more meaningful (and if you decided to enforce encumberance anyway, they'll probably have to dump out the bags of scavenged loot at the end anyway to make room for the gold and artwork). If the need arises (via plot or mechanics) for the players to use a recovered sword, then they recover a sword, but I'm not about to reward them for procrastinating on the plot because they're accounting for the value of that goblin's belt buckle (one copper out of the thousands of gold that await at the end).
This approach is actually more believable in 5th than it has ever been before. I used to use plot framing devices in 3.5 to explain why you'd skip over the magical gear the monsters had - you were working for an army on a tight timeline, didn't have letters of marque (so any loot would be legally forfeit), but were paid handsomely and could freely requisition gear you wanted, for instance. In 5e, since magic items aren't found on every orc, hobgoblin, or gnoll, the opportunity cost of not picking the bodies is minimized. Great, another battleaxe - you already have one, and it's just as good as all the ones you'll find today (except probably cleaner). Stuff like that.
Hurin88 wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
I could not legitimately tell my players that they can not sell the weapons that theire enemies used against them. I generally don't allow armor to be resold as I normally determine that the PCs hacked their way through them. If an enemy has a horse, it becomes the players horse. The loot is not really game breaking at those levels, and generally insignificant at higher levels. And horses are rarely encountered at the low levels. I don't like it when a table clashes with pragmatism (too much). It just seems to videogame for me to not allow the players to do that. I really try to avoid having a video game or board game feel to things.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Basic Rules wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
5ft wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
5ft wrote:
I am happy to hear the end of characters scrounging around (mugging) for every last bit of metal they can find after every encounter and running back to town to sell it.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
5ft wrote:
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
5ft wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I like reselling used weapons, I generally figure that when a creature is killed so is his armor. Note I said generally, drowning, certain death spells may be otherwise. I also like abstract wealth sustems like in Fantasy Craft and am fine doing such things.
Hurin88 wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Hi,
It's been a while, but I found the original post very interesting. Obviously, that post is absolutely worthless if a GM or scenario author never uses the random treasure tables.
What I find especially interesting, though, is that the GM offers two different determinations of magic item rarity: 1) Most obviously, the descriptors Uncommon, Rare, Very Rare, and so on; 2) The treasure tables, from which actual probabilities can be determined, as has been done here. (Again, both systems are worthless when a GM decides to go his own way.) The two systems often agree, but often diverge wildly.
Some of my thoughts and observations about a 'normal' campaign:
A character gets so few magic items that attunement is not likely to matter all that much.
Weapons are about as common as expected. +1 weapons show up on table F, every subsequent table offers (for the most part) better and ostensibly less common (with a few exceptions) weapons, and a goodly percentage of every table will provide a weapon of some kind. Special weapons are usually swords, and that +3 club might not be the longbow you were hoping for, but there is no table for that. So a warrior is likely to get a magic weapon but not necessarily one that is useful to him if his fighting style is overspecialized. A 'build' that requires one specific weapon type (such as a hand-crossbow, rapier or whip) to shine might be forced to rely on mundane weaponry for the entire game. As usual, dual wielders are especially woeful.
Good armor is extremely rare! Armor that provides better AC than mundane plate only enters play on table H (Dwarven Plate); +3 leather and +1 plate live on Table I!!! This makes mundane heavy plate an especially good bargain by comparison; available light and medium armors will not be as good for much of a character's career. To recap: The tables are based on the absolute AC that a magic armor provides, so magic armor that actually provides better AC than mundane armor is always Mythic Rare. Don't count on finding any.
Magic shields, however, boost AC starting right from Table F, though they are a lot less common than magic weapons. A character is more likely to see a boost to AC from things like shields, Bracers of Defense or a Cloak of Protection than from magic armor. Each kind of item isn't particularly common, but they start showing up early and never stop.
The tables are extremely unkind to a party with redundant classes... and I do mean classes, rather than roles: If a sorcerer, wizard and warlock meet at a bar, they might be able to cover most of the "roles" but are also likely to notice that many magic items will be useless and that the one magical arcane focus will be a focus of contention. (And there will probably be at most one Banjo of Banjo.) This has always been the case, but the scarcity of magic items makes the situation more acute. I don't think a party can consider itself optimized if good magic items are often sold because they aren't useful.
By the way, it is extremely rare for no useful magic weapon to show up, but some games might never see an item that boosts accuracy with spells. DPR calculations comparing spell (or EB) attacks to weapon attacks should not assume a level playing field. +1 weapons and +1 pact rods are both "Uncommon," but there are 7.5x more of the former. The great advantage that warlocks have is not that pact rods go up to +3, but that they exist at all: A warlock can use wands of the war mage, staves of power (ha!) and the magi, so has more chances to get *something* than wizards or sorcerers. (Bards get nothing, which is something to consider if you find yourself in a game where the treasure tables are used.)
Though not directly related to the original post, and though probably obvious upon inspection, Gauntlets of Ogrekind and Headbands of Intellect are not very useful for dedicated warriors and wizards, respectively, but might be very useful for gishes and other hybrids who mix magic and melee.
Anyway,
Ken
In general, threads that are linked to by the main guide of a forum are not forgotten or lost to the ages. Every time someone looks at the 5e Guide to Guides, they should expect to see this thread noted and those threads tend to get commented on from time to time.
And the poster made some valid points that I didn't really cover - namely that AC tends to get boosted rather rarely, but early and parties with a lot of overlap can get really screwed on the rolls. I'd argue with the Bard part - instruments of the Bards are reasonably common and grant a lot of free spell slots/known spells(essentially), which are useful.
I don't use any defined rules on the subject, but here are some guidelines I use for my game.
- Use the table in the DM guide (p135 'Magic Item Rarity) to determine what rarity the party should be getting in their loot. Never give them anything rarer than what they are supposed to get, unless you make it a big deal in game, either to acquiring it or otherwise, and never give more than 1 of those rarer items per 4-level tier, and preferably only 1 grade higher on that chart than their current level permits.
- Never make non-potion magic items available in any store unless it is very rare to see it, and in very low stock (like the blacksmith has one greatsword +1, and that's all there is in the city unless a traveling trader might have something else). It's nice to give them something to spend their money on, but it doesn't feel as rewarding to me as finding it on a monster or in a treasure room. Optional rule in higher level campaigns.
- Before level 5, Uncommon Magic items should only be available in treasure hoards (1 hoard per dungeon), and occasionally on bigger more important enemies (a great way to showcase an item to make identifying it easier).
- By level 5, each player should have no more than two magic items attuned to them, with the rest of the magic items being non-attuning items, perhaps only a couple of expendable or 1 time use items. Each player should have either a magic weapon with a +1 bonus (or special effect), magic armor with a special ability or effect, or something that increases the potency/efficiency of their spells or spell versatility.
- By level 9, each player should have 3 attuned items, with older less potent magic items being sold, traded, or passed on to other party members by this point, as well as a collection of effective, random, non-attuning magic items that should be close to twice the number of player characters. Each player should have either a magic weapon with +2 bonus, magic armor with +1 AC, or some pretty big game changing charge items of equal effectiveness. They should also have something that would have qualified for the previous "By level 5" description above, in addition to their new gear.
Honestly, I haven't had a party reach the next tier yet (level 13), but you can just increase things at that rate. I feel it is fair to their expectations, without bogging them down in a bunch of useless gear, and without making them under/over powered. My advice is don't make it formulaic, and just use some simple guidelines like I detailed here, and re-evaluate it every character level advancement to make sure you are on track. Adjust accordingly.
Without a good CR system, considering magic items are mute. The DM has to figure out how to balance the game, any impact, or what is challenging straight out the door.
Uchawi wrote:
In my game I simply drop magical items as I see fit. I never use a forumla and I don't appreciate systems that dictate one. In my game, locations and npcs will have what makes sense for them to have, and they will most certainly use those items on the PCs.
I think handing out magical items is a bit of an art form. It's a balancing act that it s not strictly mechnical in nature. For example, in my game a min-maxer would be the last to find anything of value. IMO, such players have already taken their reward. In fact, the underdog of the party is usually the one who is rewarded first. Players who develop their characters as persons are also more likely to find nice things.
I think the designers of 5e did a great job with magical item distrubution by empowering DMs. Some campaigns require less magical items than others. In fact, a legendary historical campaign might only contain a few artifacts. It just doesn't make sense for a system to dictate such things. Leave that to the DM. Let the DM have fun handing out magical items without concern for restrictive mechanics.
I have never used a random magic item table, I am notoriously stingy with magic items, all items are bequeathed, found (rarely), stolen, or quested for, and all chosen with deliberation. A 10th level character in my campaign would be flush to have more than 2 (permanent) magic items.
Hi,
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
scythebladex wrote:
scythebladex wrote:
Yeah, I prefer the +2 Astral Robes (and what that entails) to the +1 Dagger.