D&D 5E Magic Item Inconsistencies

[Falling Icicle]

First off, I just want to say that for the most part, I really like what they've done with the magic items in this edition. I like the rarity ratings, attunement limits, etc. However, I've noticed some strange inconsistencies with the magic items. Some magic items are better than others with the same or lower rarity ratings. For example:

The staff of fire and staff of frost are both very rare items, yet they are nowhere near as good as the staff of power, which is also very rare.

The potion of flying only lets you fly for 1 hour, but is a very rare item. Yet the carpet of flying, also a very rare item, lets you fly as much as you want. The broom of flying is uncommon and also lets you fly as much as you want. Also, the winged boots (uncommon) and wings of flying (rare) are both inferior to the broom of flying because they have time limits on their use. But they're still far better than the potion, since they recharge after being used.

A potion of the storm giant and belt of the storm giant both are legendary items and both give you a strength of 29, but the potion lasts for 1 hour while the belt is a permanent item.

In general, the consumable items fare the worst. Potions, scrolls, fireball beads, etc. are all inferior to items like wands, staffs, belts, etc. of similar rarity ratings because they are consumed after being used. One would think that a consumable item would be more powerful than a permanent item of the same rarity, but that often isn't the case.

 

[Paraxis]

First off, I just want to say that for the most part, I really like what they've done with the magic items in this edition. I like the rarity ratings, attunement limits, etc.

I don't see how you can "like the rarity ratings" and then go on to list many reasons why it isn't a good system. I agreed there are many inconsistencies with the rarity rating system enough to the point that no I do not like it.

There are many more than the few you point out, leather armor +1 (AC 12) is basicly the same as a suit of non magical studded leather in fact in dead magic/anti-magic areas the suit of studded leather is the better choice, the magic leather +1 is also the same rarity of glamoured studded leather +1 which is AC 13 base and lets you change its appearance.

Then you have the ioun stone of +2 strength which is capped at a Max of 20, being very rare. A belt of stone giant strength is a 23 and fire giant strength is a 25, both of those are very rare.

So sure the words common, uncommon, rare, very rare, and legendary all sound fun and cool but since they don't mean anything at all they are useless and don't work for any real purpose.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

With a measure as coarse as rarity, we should expect some items to be "worth" as much as 10X as others in the same category. If you want to do better than that, you probably want a "price guide" or moral equivalent.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't see how you can "like the rarity ratings" and then go on to list many reasons why it isn't a good system.

Just because something is flawed in its implementation doesn't mean I can't like the general idea behind it.

 

[keterys]

I suspect they could have used slightly more granularity. Like indexing by tier, as well, so that you have an apprentice tier rare item vs. an epic legendary item. I get the impression they wanted the rarity to do that automagically for them, but then didn't put quite enough rigor into verifying everything.

At any rate, consumables are more common than permanent magic items, regardless of their stated rarity, so yes a rare consumable can be less powerful than a rare permanent item, and that still be consistent.

Similarly, items which require attunement can be better than items which don't, though that theory is lousy in games which are stingy with items.

 

[Falling Icicle]

With a measure as coarse as rarity, we should expect some items to be "worth" as much as 10X as others in the same category. If you want to do better than that, you probably want a "price guide" or moral equivalent.

I think the rarity rating system can work just fine. I don't think the system needs to be any more granular than it is. I just think they mistakenly gave some items the wrong rating.

I don't expect every item with the same rarity rating to be exactly equal. I only have an issue when one item is significantly and objectively better than another item of the same rarity, especially when they do similar things.

For example, I think that a limited-use item should generally be one rating lower than a permanent item that constantly gives the same power, and a one-use item should be two ratings lower. If a carpet of flying is very rare, for example, then a winged cloak that lets you fly for only a couple of hours per day should be rare, and a potion of flying should be uncommon.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Or, you know, maybe rarity simply doesnt directly correspond to power level. There might be other factors considered.

 

[Gecko85]

Or, you know, maybe rarity simply doesnt directly correspond to power level. There might be other factors considered.

This.

A Civil War era rifle is rare, but a common AK-47 is a lot more powerful.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Or, you know, maybe rarity simply doesnt directly correspond to power level. There might be other factors considered.

DMG. p. 135 "Rarity provides a rough measure of an item's power relative to other magic items."

 

[Gecko85]

DMG. p. 135 "Rarity provides a rough measure of an item's power relative to other magic items."

Hmmmm...then I think we have a good candidate for an errata document, either re-classifying some items, or re-writing that sentence. I vote for the latter.