Hi folks,
I'm curious to know what people think of the magic weapon spell (see Basic Rules, pg 96). The devs have stated several times that magic items bonuses are not an expected part of the game and therefore have not been factored into the game's basic math.
Yet the magic weapon spell would seem to suggest otherwise ~ considering that it can (temporarily) turn a weapon in a +1 weapon from 3rd level, a +2 weapon from 7th level, and a +3 weapon from 11th level.
This would seem to suggest that the devs do have a specific idea as to when a given magical bonus is appropriate and perhaps even expected.
Discuss.
~ Jonathan
No such suggestion is made by the spell existing and doing what it does.
The only suggestion that the scaling of the spell can make is the suggestion that the developers wanted every spell that could scale its effects when cast at a higher level and not "break" their base assumptions of the system to scale to some degree. Hence the majority of spells scaling in some way, with a few exceptions such as mage armor that would prove problematic if made to scale.
Magic Weapon is a spell - a temporary effect that costs daily resources.
A Sword +2 is a permanent magic item - a constant bonus on every attack you make for the rest of the campaign.
While the two might provide the same effect, they're very different sources and in overall implications for the game.
So you guys don't think that the spell is suggesting that the game's math expects PCs to have a +1 weapon at 3rd level, a +2 weapon at 7th level, and a +3 weapon at 11th level?
If the average gap between to-hit bonuses and the AC of monsters increases by 1 at 3rd, 7th and 11th levels, then yes, you could make a case that +x weapons are expected.
No, I think that the spell is suggesting the players should probably NOT have a +1 weapon before 3rd level, a +2 weapon before 7th level, or a +3 weapon before 11th level.
That's a very different implication.
pukunui wrote:
Interesting. Thanks for the feedback, folks.
I haven't looked over the figther but it seems more to imply that the magic weapon is to compensate for other classes' features and the scaling bonuses they get and the scale in challenges of creatures. Since it doesn't scale beyond 11th and traditionally magic items go to +5 I don't think the temp bonuses from the spell are meant as a reflection of the availability of magic items. It may indicate the rough bonus that items of that level are likely to have but nothing about their prevalence or the party's likelihood of having them, especially as WotC has stated magic items are meant to be rare in 5e by default and everything else was designed around that. This might actually indicate the magic weapon was meant to be more useful as the party is less likely to have magic items so the spell is a way to temporarily make up for the lack of magic weapons.
It's a nice spell and I am glad it exists. If you expect a lot of small scale combat during the duration, it's a great value- it can add up to a lot of extra damage. It's best used to benefit a fighter with multiple attacks, of course. However, it's bonus can be deceptive. For example if a game involves clearing out some kobold den, where all the monsters have at most 5 hp, and the fighter already has +4 damage bonus due to strength, the bonus damage of magic weapon is largely wasted (the hit bonus still helps, but you are losing out on half of the spell's benefit).
I like it because it's a spell that requires a little bit of thought and planning. It's not a default best choice in every situation, but it does reward the players when used correctly.
DemoMonkey wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Nautilus wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Honestly, I think the spell shoulda been 5th,9th, and 13th levels.
pukunui wrote:
I often run damage comparisons and post my findings. The most common thing I am told is that "the fighter will obviously have magic weapons by X level".
In fact, if you follow the adventure modules we have been given, this is confirmed. Magic weapons are plentiful in 5e. At least as much as they were in 2e.
Here is what I believe we will see in regards to magic items by certain levels.
Level 5
low end: none
high end: +1
Level 11
low end: +1
high end: +2
Level 17
low end: +2
high end: +3
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
I'll primarily be using it to bypass the Heavy Armor Master feat - which reduces all damage from non magical weapons by 3 per hit.
I don't think the spell implies anything except what it does. And the fact that bounded accuracy makes it very good means that the spell will make me feel very blessed. 
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Sturmunddrang wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I still think the whole bounded accuracy/magic item problem would have been greatly simplified if they had made +X items only apply their bonus to damage (or DR for armor etc).
pukunui wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Kalani wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
masterfat78 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
@ At the OP: The magic weapon spell doesn't mean magic items are part of the math. The spell competes with other spells of the same levels for direct damage and generally isn't a superior choice for damage. The benefit of the spell is in enabling heavy damage melee classes vs opponents who need magic weaponry to fight effectively. The math itself with actual magical weapons is a neutral gain simply by giving important enemies magical armor so there doesn't need to be math adjustments.
Ashrym wrote:
Kalani wrote:
The game doesn't assume the PCs have access to magic items either, leaving it solely within the modules or DMs control whether such items are handed out, and at what frequency. The fact that even uncommon items (including +1 weapons/armor) are assumed unavailable for purchase further reinforces this fact - as it puts the power squarely within the DMs control - magical item availability being a setting they have full control over, and which they can dial up (or down) as preferred.
4E took that power out of the DMs hands and gave explicit rules regarding assumed magical item acquisition. If a DM wanted to dial back magic items in their campaign, it required them to alter the monsters stat blocks, and reduce Attack Bonus, Ability Scores, Defenses, etc to accomodate their choice.
5E has returned the power to the DM. You may disagree with this statement, but it is a matter of fact. The fact that +1 armor counters +1 weapons is also a completely irrelevant point and does nothing to disprove that the power over magical item availability has been returned to the DM, nor does it counter the stated design goal that the game's math does not factor numerical bonuses (outside proficiency bonus) into the equation - math upon which all monsters are derived.
Kalani wrote:
OK, so if the magic weapon spell doesn't suggest that certain bonuses are expected at certain levels, would it still seem reasonable to use those levels as guidelines for when to hand out +x items, should you be so inclined to do so?
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
That works, Lawolf. Thanks.
While the thread has gone past this point, I think the Magic Weapon spell is meant to be balanced against using any other 2nd, 4th, or 6th level spell for damage.
Now, I want a more codified system for magic items in my games. I like 3E and 4E's item systems. I'm expecting a "high magic" module to be in the DMG, to offer guidelines for this (how much it affects the challenge of enemies and the likes). For instance, if the PCs are all decked out in +1 weapons, armor, and saving throw items, maybe they can handle a CR 1 level higher (and not for bonus XP). This wouldn't exist as a rule, so it isn't a shifting goal post, but a measurement for the DM to know how easy or hard an encounter will be.
pukunui wrote:
I have to say, I'm pleased that the consensus seems to be be "no". I admit I was expecting everyone to go "Oh noes!!!!1! The sky is falling! Bounded accuracy is dead!" I'm glad that's not the case.
pukunui wrote:
Having read the spell i think this discussion is a bit premature. The spell has a huge opportunity cost and a maximum duration of 1 hour(concentration). If the weapon user can convince a caster to give up a level 6 spell AND then give up the use of any concentration spells for that hour AND manage to not get concentration broken while in combat, then I think this is a pretty balanced offensive bonus to give them. This is a pretty limited spell and will probably be reserved for special villains the party is expecting to come across and has some foreknowledge.
Beyond that permanent magic items may show up with plusses but that is within the control of the DM. A 15% hit bonus sounds huge but if the defenses of the enemies are not over the top it will have less impact anyways.
I like the spell, and it might be more necessary than we think. True, in a low magic campaign it's much more useful than in a high magic campaign.
But, think about the MM, which we no almost nothing about right now. What if (like in some older editions) there are lots of monsters that are either immune to mundane weapons, have resistance to mundane weapons, or cause disadvantage when attacked by mundane weapons.
All of a sudden, this spell is really cool.
It'd be even cooler if you could cast it as +1 on 2 or 3 PCs at a higher slot instead of just being able to cast it as +2 or +3 on one PC. I'd seriously consider house rule that, personally.
On a side note, I don't plan on handing out too many basic '+' weapons. I want to introduce magic items that don't have a '+' necessarily, but still do cool things, like cause elemental damage, bleeding damage, or DoaM. I did a lot of that in 4e, and my players liked it. One popular low level item was a hand crossbow that had no '+', but created and fired a burning bolt that just did ongoing 5 fire damage (save ends).
Just remember that with bounded accuracy, a +1 magic sword is close to the equivalent of a +3 magic sword in 3e.
pukunui wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Regarding a different aspect of the Magic Weapon spell... is it still in the transmutation school? If so, does the Eldritch Knight have a feature that lets them treat their weapons as magical for bypassing DR? Since EK's don't get transmutation, the Gish class still needs a "real" Mage to cast it for them. If this is true, then I will be... displeased.
I'm not sure I'm all that keen on the notion that, "gishes should be one man armies who can do it all themselves". Maybe there should be a few things they need to rely on others to do? Just a thought.
Plus, with magic weapon being concentration, you can't have that and haste on yourself at the same time anyway...
Sailing_Pirate_Ryan wrote:
pukunui wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Sailing_Pirate_Ryan wrote:
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Tarrasque CR 30
http://imgur.com/a/jq3au
Looks like my suggested AC and attack bonus calculations hold up pretty well for it too.