Talk:Obsidian Dagger (5e Equipment)

WotC

Where does WotC say that you can have +5 magic items in 5e? I'm genuinely curious because if this is true, I have been mistaken for a while. --PJammaz (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2020 (MDT)

I saw it somewhere before for 5e (It wasn't official material, but a twitter post from one of their people, possibly Jeremy Crawford), but can't find it now. Upon further inspection however (This item is kinda new and my newest stuff is notoriously not always correct), in the DMG, chapter 9, Pg 284, "Creating a Magic Item" section, it recommends no higher than a +4 bonus for a Legendary item, but doesn't make the suggestion that the item have no other magical properties. I wouldn't be too nonplussed about it if it were changed, but I don't know if I agree that a +4 dagger with no other properties is grounds for Legendary rarity. I did invent a Unique item rarity ruleset that could also be applied to make it stick if we follow the trend the DMG sets of an item with one higher bonus having one higher rarity. --Supersmily5 (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2020 (MDT)

I've went ahead and made the change to Unique rarity, at least until I find the tidbit that said otherwise. The existing trends in official magic items never having a +4 bonus in spite of the DMG's allowance for it implies that a +4 item should have no other properties, making it kinda boring. I've updated the Unique item rarity ruleset accordingly, improving it in a way I didn't think about before, so thank you bringing this to my attention. If you do see that ruleset, note that the items, other than this one and most of the Permanent Potions (What the ruleset was originally created for), were not made by me. --Supersmily5 (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2020 (MDT)

Whether or not +5 is allowed, there is really nothing here to justify keeping this page. It's just a +5 weapon with some flavor added. --PJammaz (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2020 (MDT)

"It's too boring" is a fascinating possibility I hadn't considered since I usually have the opposite problem. I already have the info saved to my computer, so if the mods make that decision I won't fight the page being removed. --Supersmily5 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2020 (MDT)

I didn't say it was boring. I think it is an interesting item to have in a campaign, but there isn't enough to it mechanically for it be on the wiki. --PJammaz (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2020 (MDT)

If the item was just a +4 weapon, there really wouldn't really be a reason for this to exist. However, because the item uses the unique variant rule and gives a +5 bonus, the item is unique in its function in that no other weapon does what this dagger does in giving a +5 bonus to attack and damage rolls. It is hard to say whether the weapon is balanced though as it doesn't deal much damage but a +5 bonus to attack rolls is ridiculously good. Either way though, after this item the design space for a +5 weapon has been taken so there is no need to create more +5 weapons(a singular piece of +5 armor using the unique variant ruleset should be fine though).--Blobby383b (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2020 (MDT)