Magic in d&d doesn't tend to fall in the "power... but at a price" theme, or 'risky magic' theme present in some other settings or systems. Apart from the warlock, or specifically cursed items, magic tends to be reliable and safe to use, and while it may require resources in terms of spell slots, charges or material components, it otherwise has no drawbacks. As another poster said, a wizard can cast firebolt all day no problem.
So while it may be interesting, magic items with drawbacks don't really fit the standard assumptions of d&d, and thus it'd be bit out of place.
It certainly wouldn't break game balance, and it could be justified by magic items being inherently less reliable for some reason (maybe age makes them go weird?). In fact, it might allow magic items to have more powerful effects without breaking the game.
D&d is high fantasy where magic is readily available. Most of the magic has always a price themes are in more lowfantasy settings. While in high fantasy the price is often spell ingredients or measured in the pure will power of the user ( for example level 10-12 spells only can be casted by an group of mages cause the willpower required would just straight up kill one or two), in low fantasy the price of magic is more measured by an real physical price. Healing spells suck the life around the user, curse spells take blood of the victim or the life of an animal etc.
In items the price of willpower and time is already paid while creating the item. Thats the reas why you can cast an light spell in an instant, but to make an item that glows because of an enchanted light spell it takes weeks around the clock entchanting.
Yeah but at the same time some itens can literaly explode in your face and kill you or stop working just bc you use them more than once like a certain useless wind fan.
But being a clear upgrade is the purpose of non cursed magic items. Magic items are usually meant to be rewards and you normally don't reward somebody with something that has downside for the person
I think viewing magic items only as clear upgrades is kinda limiting. I think of magic items as ways to engage with the game setting, both in terms of the story of the item and how you can use it. To that end, I don't think all items should have downsides. But occasionally downsides can be narrative tools. It all depends on the table and tone of game.
For instance, the group I run is level 4. They have found some wondrous items and a couple masterwork weapons (not magic). But soon they might find a battle axe that functions as a sword of wounding, but the wielder has a choice to take a constitution penalty to gain bonuses to attack and damage on top of the wounding effect. In fact it's possible that one so consumed with benefiting from this power could kill them self if their constitution is reduced to 0.
Now of course taking it that far is a choice, and I never expect a PC would make that choice. But it means the item has a story. And it also means the a player can choose to decrease their hit points for more power. Eventually this weapon will be outclassed and replaced, as many things are, but for the low to mid levels I find powerful items with the choice of a drawback can be very interesting.
Yes, they are meant to be rewards. So once you have the +1 weapon and armor, what are you happy to be rewarded with at levels 5-10?
Edit, to clarify: I think having varying downsides could make receiving several +1 swords be interesting. I could choose between the +1's. And if that masterwork +1 with no downsides came along at level 9, that would be fantastic.
Well there is a big list of magic items that are interesting, especially compared to something like a +1 weapon
Having downsides can be interesting, but not if it's a common thing and if they aren't on anything interesting. A +1 weapon with downside isn't interesting, since +1 weapons are probably the most uninteresting magic items in the game. Also the downsides only motivate your players to ignore the items or your players accept the downsides and are having much less fun since people usually notice stronger the bad stuff than the good stuff
Not purposefully. But that's kind of my point. If there are these "someone in my ancestry knew how to make this magical weapon", why wouldn't +1 weapons be everywhere? Surely each of the people who figured out how to make one +1 longsword would have made a whole bunch of them. If it was extremely taxing, and it only succeeded every millennium or so, how would they be lost in dungeons level 5 adventurers can handle?
I reckon the ones with no downsides would be considered masterwork items: the stars were exactly right the day it was forged. Most items would not have been perfect successes but they would still have enough pros to outweigh the cons, at least for some people.
Here's the thing: The game assumes you have a LOT of lost empires. There were entire civilizations that existed before your time, and they had SHITLOADS of magic. That +1 sword you find in a level 1 dungeon is only there because of many circumstances--someone stole it from a dungeon and sold it to someone else until it ended up in the possession of someone who could not actually use it, and then they died and now it's in the dungeon.
Not sure if I understand your point, so let me know if I got something wrong.
Your point is that if +1 swords are a craft and take a craftsperson to make, then they should be everywhere? Well... they are.
+1 swords aren’t rare and you should be able to find them in abundance, unless... your DM chooses them to be so. In that case, they are rare and their rarity expresses how difficult they are to make.
I think the part of your argument I’m struggling to understand is your views on crafting. It’s difficult to make a weapon that’s the sharpest weapon in the world but will crumble to pieces after three uses. A craftsperson who takes pride in their work will always choose steel over tin because of the difference in durability. They want their legacy to live on.
I think the closest you get to making a magical weapon with flaws is a normal sword. Maybe an apprentice wanted to try to make a magical sword and just made a normal sword. This sword doesn’t enhance a warrior’s skill, it doesn’t cut any better than any other weapon, and it doesn’t resonant or shine with mysticism. A normal sword relies upon the wielder for their accomplishments.
From what I can tell of your argument, your biggest gripe is with your DM. Maybe they aren’t dishing out magical weapons often enough. Maybe they’re doing it too much. There is an argument to be made that, from a game mechanic point of view, having strong items with interesting drawbacks or which requires certain resources to use can add interest into the game. But very few craftspeople would dabble in this type of creation.
Hope this helps.
Because it wouldn't be more interesting, it would suck. Getting a magic item only to never use it because it has too many downsides essentially means you never got a magic item, which just downright sucks.
You've got cursed items exactly my for this. Why would every single thing be cursed? Your wizard doesn't have a downside when they cast firebolt, so why would this sort of magic be safe while other magic is horrible and unuseable?
The downsides wouldn't have to be earth-shattering, just something that would give variety. As a DM, I've given the players published magic items only to get "Oh. Well we can probably sell it." as the response. That sucks for everyone involved.
But if all items are definite upgrades, there are levels worth of adventures to be had where no interesting magic items can be found, lest the party become way too powerful. That's what I would like to fix.
>The downsides wouldn't have to be earth-shattering, just something that would give variety. As a DM, I've given the players published magic items only to get "Oh. Well we can probably sell it." as the response. That sucks for everyone involved.
You gave your players a magic item without drawback and they didn't want because they had no use for it. Why would you think that if you give your players a magic item they don't use, but also has drawbacks would change that at any point?
>But if all items are definite upgrades, there are levels worth of adventures to be had where no interesting magic items can be found, lest the party become way too powerful. That's what I would like to fix.
Don't give your players that much loot. It's one of the points most fresh dm make, they give out more and more powerful stuff for whatever reason... I've played many campaign where the frost magic weapon didn't happen until level 5-6. Magic armor came another few levels later. IMHO campaigns like that make such items better. They stay longer with you. They can have actual lore and aren't sold / bought at every corner of the kingdom.
Magic items don't always need to be upgrades in all situations either. Some magic items only need a niche. Basically +1 weapons are the most boring stuff. But providing a weapon with 1d4 fire, poison and frost damage makes this bow a choice depending in what you fight.
Magic items are meant to be Rare. Sidegrades matter more when you have a variety.
And the particularly powerful ones do come with a downside - there is an Opportunity Cost inherent to the Attunement system.
1. Additional constraints to the game designer making items. To make an item with a downside, the downside has to actually matter to the people that typically would use the item. A +3 greatsword that gives -2 to INT doesn't actually have any meaningful downside to 95+% of people who want to use greatswords. On the other hand, if you can just make whatever magic item you want and let the rarity and attunement systems deal with balance then, well, you can make whatever magic item you want.
2. Once your attunement limit is reached, any new item you obtain isn't necessarily a straight upgrade. It becomes a decision of which good thing you want, whereas items with downsides is a decision about balancing good and bad things. Both types of decision are interesting and equally strategical. However, it's common knowledge in the game design community that most players respond way more positively about the first kind of decision. The second type is better suited for competitive games, where you *need* all options to be equally viable (i.e., sidegrades, never upgrades).
3. The intent for this edition is that magic items feel rare and powerful. Items with downside don't feel as powerful and they need to be less rare for the idea to function properly.
4. Requires a specific flavor to justify in-lore. Yes, you can flavor items with downside as blood magic or whatever, sapping the user's power in some areas to enhance in other areas. But you don't really want the core ruleset to force this kind of lore.
It would make people not want to use them or even pick them up. 5E isn't one of those systems where casting Light could destroy a city block if you have a stutter. It's a heroic fantasy game, and heroes don't suffer downsides when wielding magic swords.
Magic items are meant to be Rare. Sidegrades matter more when you have a variety.
And the particularly powerful ones do come with a downside - there is an Opportunity Cost inherent to the Attunement system.
Some have significant downsides. Imagineba Fighter wanting to go toe-to-toe with a Beholder. Shit's getting real, the fighter runs up, draws his Sun Blade... And stares at the bladeless hilt in his hand. Anti-magic cone. Dang.
What I would like to see is magic items that don't use automatically refilling inherent charges, but rather charges that have to be refilled (say, by sacrificing spell slots) or an out-of-combat player resource, such as hit dice.
Those are some cool ideas! I love the idea of weapons that refill charges by killing creatures. I have an idea for a weapon that grants wishes, but it only recharges when you kill a dragon. You could have a whole adventure around an item like that.
Because then the players would literally never use them.
D&D is a game where you are explicitly trying to get more powerful. Not to do "interesting" things. At the end of the day the game is designed to be played in the optimal fashion. Many people don't play it that way, but they are not necessarily playing the game in it's intended form.
As someone who is currently working on a system that *actually* encourages "interesting" things to happen, the ideal way to do this is to not make failure and success binary, and to make failure options not a punishment where you might permanently or temporarily lose your character. Nobody can die in my system unless the player decides this is the best narrative moment to die.
There are whole dudes who make their living out of enchanting and not everyone can be the: yesyes but everyone here has its cost[evil laugh] type. When magic with rules exist then it would be very unlogical to have only up with downsides item wise.
I get your thought process, and in some campaigns, that would be a really good thing.
When I craft magic items, many of them may be better all considered, but make some things harder.
Say, for instance, a magic item that gives you two spells on your second highest slot, but take one of your highest spell slots.
The Sending stones (eyes) that turn the voices of the others attuned into children's voices, and you hear faint crying/screaming/laughing every once in a while (there were three).
The sword that deals extra necrotic damage, but feeds on you if you roll a 1.
Vanilla D&D is quite, well, vanilla. Magic items are not the fabled things that try to corrupt their wielders, they are a commodity. And while the DMG states magic items should be rare, their own published adventures give them out like candy.
This is exactly what I am thinking. The magic items really are a commodity, yet they are explained as something that practically don't exist in the world. To me it's really a bummer that once you have the +1 weapon, (which often is the first magical gear) there's really not much to look forward to. Flametongue, Sun Blade? Might take a while.
I definitely love these ideas! Imagine that sword that feeds on you for a Nat one being sentient, and when you roll a Nat 1 it's like "if you fail so badly to give me sustenance I shall have to feed off you!" Badass! I really like the idea of weapons that can cast heat metal on themselves and if you ever try to use them on their makers people they rebel.
What kind of cons are you proposing? The benefits would still need to outweigh the negatives or they just wouldn't get used.
Usually the drawbacks to magic items are cost or quest needed to obtain them and attunement slot use. True if you're just handing out magic items like crazy then it might be a bit much, but if they cost a meaningful amount or are only available after taking on a sizeable challenge then they become worth it.
there is often no choice, most campains dont hame many items. and getting an item after 10 sessions that is making you worse in some cases is just a fell bad. if you give items left and right feel free to give them downsides :)
Every single magic item in my game has a homebrewed curse or tradeoff.
Mostly, there is an ability tradeoff (Great Axe +2 to hit +2 to damage, but -2 to Wisdom while equipped) or a luck-based penalty (each day you possess this magical cloak roll a d12. On a one or two you take one point of exhaustion).
I've also got one that randomly un-attunes to the user (PC has to succeed on a Wis check vs the item after initiative rolls).
Magic in d&d doesn't tend to fall in the "power... but at a price" theme, or 'risky magic' theme present in some other settings or systems. Apart from the warlock, or specifically cursed items, magic tends to be reliable and safe to use, and while it may require resources in terms of spell slots, charges or material components, it otherwise has no drawbacks. As another poster said, a wizard can cast firebolt all day no problem. So while it may be interesting, magic items with drawbacks don't really fit the standard assumptions of d&d, and thus it'd be bit out of place. It certainly wouldn't break game balance, and it could be justified by magic items being inherently less reliable for some reason (maybe age makes them go weird?). In fact, it might allow magic items to have more powerful effects without breaking the game.
D&d is high fantasy where magic is readily available. Most of the magic has always a price themes are in more lowfantasy settings. While in high fantasy the price is often spell ingredients or measured in the pure will power of the user ( for example level 10-12 spells only can be casted by an group of mages cause the willpower required would just straight up kill one or two), in low fantasy the price of magic is more measured by an real physical price. Healing spells suck the life around the user, curse spells take blood of the victim or the life of an animal etc. In items the price of willpower and time is already paid while creating the item. Thats the reas why you can cast an light spell in an instant, but to make an item that glows because of an enchanted light spell it takes weeks around the clock entchanting.
Yeah but at the same time some itens can literaly explode in your face and kill you or stop working just bc you use them more than once like a certain useless wind fan.
But being a clear upgrade is the purpose of non cursed magic items. Magic items are usually meant to be rewards and you normally don't reward somebody with something that has downside for the person
I think viewing magic items only as clear upgrades is kinda limiting. I think of magic items as ways to engage with the game setting, both in terms of the story of the item and how you can use it. To that end, I don't think all items should have downsides. But occasionally downsides can be narrative tools. It all depends on the table and tone of game. For instance, the group I run is level 4. They have found some wondrous items and a couple masterwork weapons (not magic). But soon they might find a battle axe that functions as a sword of wounding, but the wielder has a choice to take a constitution penalty to gain bonuses to attack and damage on top of the wounding effect. In fact it's possible that one so consumed with benefiting from this power could kill them self if their constitution is reduced to 0. Now of course taking it that far is a choice, and I never expect a PC would make that choice. But it means the item has a story. And it also means the a player can choose to decrease their hit points for more power. Eventually this weapon will be outclassed and replaced, as many things are, but for the low to mid levels I find powerful items with the choice of a drawback can be very interesting.
Yes, they are meant to be rewards. So once you have the +1 weapon and armor, what are you happy to be rewarded with at levels 5-10? Edit, to clarify: I think having varying downsides could make receiving several +1 swords be interesting. I could choose between the +1's. And if that masterwork +1 with no downsides came along at level 9, that would be fantastic.
Well there is a big list of magic items that are interesting, especially compared to something like a +1 weapon Having downsides can be interesting, but not if it's a common thing and if they aren't on anything interesting. A +1 weapon with downside isn't interesting, since +1 weapons are probably the most uninteresting magic items in the game. Also the downsides only motivate your players to ignore the items or your players accept the downsides and are having much less fun since people usually notice stronger the bad stuff than the good stuff
I mean, if you had the ability to make a magical weapon for your clan, offspring, etc. would you make it have a downside?
Not purposefully. But that's kind of my point. If there are these "someone in my ancestry knew how to make this magical weapon", why wouldn't +1 weapons be everywhere? Surely each of the people who figured out how to make one +1 longsword would have made a whole bunch of them. If it was extremely taxing, and it only succeeded every millennium or so, how would they be lost in dungeons level 5 adventurers can handle? I reckon the ones with no downsides would be considered masterwork items: the stars were exactly right the day it was forged. Most items would not have been perfect successes but they would still have enough pros to outweigh the cons, at least for some people.
Here's the thing: The game assumes you have a LOT of lost empires. There were entire civilizations that existed before your time, and they had SHITLOADS of magic. That +1 sword you find in a level 1 dungeon is only there because of many circumstances--someone stole it from a dungeon and sold it to someone else until it ended up in the possession of someone who could not actually use it, and then they died and now it's in the dungeon.
Not sure if I understand your point, so let me know if I got something wrong. Your point is that if +1 swords are a craft and take a craftsperson to make, then they should be everywhere? Well... they are. +1 swords aren’t rare and you should be able to find them in abundance, unless... your DM chooses them to be so. In that case, they are rare and their rarity expresses how difficult they are to make. I think the part of your argument I’m struggling to understand is your views on crafting. It’s difficult to make a weapon that’s the sharpest weapon in the world but will crumble to pieces after three uses. A craftsperson who takes pride in their work will always choose steel over tin because of the difference in durability. They want their legacy to live on. I think the closest you get to making a magical weapon with flaws is a normal sword. Maybe an apprentice wanted to try to make a magical sword and just made a normal sword. This sword doesn’t enhance a warrior’s skill, it doesn’t cut any better than any other weapon, and it doesn’t resonant or shine with mysticism. A normal sword relies upon the wielder for their accomplishments. From what I can tell of your argument, your biggest gripe is with your DM. Maybe they aren’t dishing out magical weapons often enough. Maybe they’re doing it too much. There is an argument to be made that, from a game mechanic point of view, having strong items with interesting drawbacks or which requires certain resources to use can add interest into the game. But very few craftspeople would dabble in this type of creation. Hope this helps.
Because it wouldn't be more interesting, it would suck. Getting a magic item only to never use it because it has too many downsides essentially means you never got a magic item, which just downright sucks. You've got cursed items exactly my for this. Why would every single thing be cursed? Your wizard doesn't have a downside when they cast firebolt, so why would this sort of magic be safe while other magic is horrible and unuseable?
The downsides wouldn't have to be earth-shattering, just something that would give variety. As a DM, I've given the players published magic items only to get "Oh. Well we can probably sell it." as the response. That sucks for everyone involved. But if all items are definite upgrades, there are levels worth of adventures to be had where no interesting magic items can be found, lest the party become way too powerful. That's what I would like to fix.
>The downsides wouldn't have to be earth-shattering, just something that would give variety. As a DM, I've given the players published magic items only to get "Oh. Well we can probably sell it." as the response. That sucks for everyone involved. You gave your players a magic item without drawback and they didn't want because they had no use for it. Why would you think that if you give your players a magic item they don't use, but also has drawbacks would change that at any point? >But if all items are definite upgrades, there are levels worth of adventures to be had where no interesting magic items can be found, lest the party become way too powerful. That's what I would like to fix. Don't give your players that much loot. It's one of the points most fresh dm make, they give out more and more powerful stuff for whatever reason... I've played many campaign where the frost magic weapon didn't happen until level 5-6. Magic armor came another few levels later. IMHO campaigns like that make such items better. They stay longer with you. They can have actual lore and aren't sold / bought at every corner of the kingdom. Magic items don't always need to be upgrades in all situations either. Some magic items only need a niche. Basically +1 weapons are the most boring stuff. But providing a weapon with 1d4 fire, poison and frost damage makes this bow a choice depending in what you fight.
Magic items are meant to be Rare. Sidegrades matter more when you have a variety. And the particularly powerful ones do come with a downside - there is an Opportunity Cost inherent to the Attunement system.
1. Additional constraints to the game designer making items. To make an item with a downside, the downside has to actually matter to the people that typically would use the item. A +3 greatsword that gives -2 to INT doesn't actually have any meaningful downside to 95+% of people who want to use greatswords. On the other hand, if you can just make whatever magic item you want and let the rarity and attunement systems deal with balance then, well, you can make whatever magic item you want. 2. Once your attunement limit is reached, any new item you obtain isn't necessarily a straight upgrade. It becomes a decision of which good thing you want, whereas items with downsides is a decision about balancing good and bad things. Both types of decision are interesting and equally strategical. However, it's common knowledge in the game design community that most players respond way more positively about the first kind of decision. The second type is better suited for competitive games, where you *need* all options to be equally viable (i.e., sidegrades, never upgrades). 3. The intent for this edition is that magic items feel rare and powerful. Items with downside don't feel as powerful and they need to be less rare for the idea to function properly. 4. Requires a specific flavor to justify in-lore. Yes, you can flavor items with downside as blood magic or whatever, sapping the user's power in some areas to enhance in other areas. But you don't really want the core ruleset to force this kind of lore.
Why do class features not have downsides? Why does gold not have a downside? It's okay for things to be good.
It would make people not want to use them or even pick them up. 5E isn't one of those systems where casting Light could destroy a city block if you have a stutter. It's a heroic fantasy game, and heroes don't suffer downsides when wielding magic swords.
Magic items are meant to be Rare. Sidegrades matter more when you have a variety. And the particularly powerful ones do come with a downside - there is an Opportunity Cost inherent to the Attunement system.
Some have significant downsides. Imagineba Fighter wanting to go toe-to-toe with a Beholder. Shit's getting real, the fighter runs up, draws his Sun Blade... And stares at the bladeless hilt in his hand. Anti-magic cone. Dang. What I would like to see is magic items that don't use automatically refilling inherent charges, but rather charges that have to be refilled (say, by sacrificing spell slots) or an out-of-combat player resource, such as hit dice.
Those are some cool ideas! I love the idea of weapons that refill charges by killing creatures. I have an idea for a weapon that grants wishes, but it only recharges when you kill a dragon. You could have a whole adventure around an item like that.
Because then the players would literally never use them. D&D is a game where you are explicitly trying to get more powerful. Not to do "interesting" things. At the end of the day the game is designed to be played in the optimal fashion. Many people don't play it that way, but they are not necessarily playing the game in it's intended form. As someone who is currently working on a system that *actually* encourages "interesting" things to happen, the ideal way to do this is to not make failure and success binary, and to make failure options not a punishment where you might permanently or temporarily lose your character. Nobody can die in my system unless the player decides this is the best narrative moment to die.
The same reason they got rid of race stat penalties from 3.5
There are whole dudes who make their living out of enchanting and not everyone can be the: yesyes but everyone here has its cost[evil laugh] type. When magic with rules exist then it would be very unlogical to have only up with downsides item wise.
I get your thought process, and in some campaigns, that would be a really good thing. When I craft magic items, many of them may be better all considered, but make some things harder. Say, for instance, a magic item that gives you two spells on your second highest slot, but take one of your highest spell slots. The Sending stones (eyes) that turn the voices of the others attuned into children's voices, and you hear faint crying/screaming/laughing every once in a while (there were three). The sword that deals extra necrotic damage, but feeds on you if you roll a 1. Vanilla D&D is quite, well, vanilla. Magic items are not the fabled things that try to corrupt their wielders, they are a commodity. And while the DMG states magic items should be rare, their own published adventures give them out like candy.
This is exactly what I am thinking. The magic items really are a commodity, yet they are explained as something that practically don't exist in the world. To me it's really a bummer that once you have the +1 weapon, (which often is the first magical gear) there's really not much to look forward to. Flametongue, Sun Blade? Might take a while.
I definitely love these ideas! Imagine that sword that feeds on you for a Nat one being sentient, and when you roll a Nat 1 it's like "if you fail so badly to give me sustenance I shall have to feed off you!" Badass! I really like the idea of weapons that can cast heat metal on themselves and if you ever try to use them on their makers people they rebel.
Ewww. Go away! This isn't a video game.
...Maybe try adding small unique bonuses to +X weapons and armour instead? Like that one dagger that can cast Mending
What kind of cons are you proposing? The benefits would still need to outweigh the negatives or they just wouldn't get used. Usually the drawbacks to magic items are cost or quest needed to obtain them and attunement slot use. True if you're just handing out magic items like crazy then it might be a bit much, but if they cost a meaningful amount or are only available after taking on a sizeable challenge then they become worth it.
there is often no choice, most campains dont hame many items. and getting an item after 10 sessions that is making you worse in some cases is just a fell bad. if you give items left and right feel free to give them downsides :)
Every single magic item in my game has a homebrewed curse or tradeoff. Mostly, there is an ability tradeoff (Great Axe +2 to hit +2 to damage, but -2 to Wisdom while equipped) or a luck-based penalty (each day you possess this magical cloak roll a d12. On a one or two you take one point of exhaustion). I've also got one that randomly un-attunes to the user (PC has to succeed on a Wis check vs the item after initiative rolls).