D&D 5E When should our warriors see their first +1 longswords?

[oxybe]

the problem i find with the random "this is a sword made by... fire dwarves and it.... glows yellow when you pick your nose" is that for the most part a +1 sword its still just the same old sword, only marginally better.

we've had more then a few magic items with histories and backgrounds. i remember a campaign where after saving a noble's family, one we interacted with quite often, they gave us their magic trident that was passed down from generation to generation. we kept it safe and still had it when the campaign ended, but it might have been used once or twice and then permanently put in a bag of holding as the weapons we had were either on-par or we quickly got better ones and just didn't feel like it would be right to part with the trident... it had some sentimental meaning for the party and we respected the guys who gave it to us.

we just didn't have any use for it. so it was bagged until we got a base, where we put it on display and kept it clean.

part of the problem is that D&D just doesn't treat magic weapons in interesting ways or that they often become obsolete quickly enough. a 12 page backstory doesn't make me want to use the +1 sword, it just makes me want to keep it around because it's a curious thing. weapons are tools and D&D doesn't really do much to show familiarity with a given weapon over it's usefulness (IE: if i'm working with 2 tools, the first of which is technically a better tool then the second, but i'm far more used to the second, i'll probably use the second since i can better use it, while experimenting with the first until i become familiar with it).

mechanically speaking, you have no reason to use a +1 longsword over a +2 longsword, even if you've used the former for years and the latter was found 2 minutes ago.

the other is that +1 swords that occasionally glow or scream obscenities aren't really something that are useful outside of the limited scope of helping to detect what makes it glow and offending people. a magic item that changes how the player interacts with situations is far more interesting in play and should be the goal of the system.

you can give a flowery description and backstory to virtually anything. you can't really make addition interesting though.

 

[Blackbrrd]

[MENTION=80033]oxybe[/MENTION] that's relevant information for earlier editions of D&D, but I am not sure if it's relevant for 5e.

As far as I understand, that +1 weapon might be the only one you get in that campaign (probably depending on how far you run, it but for a level 1-10 campaign, it seems quite likely to me). Then it makes sense to add some backstory and some minor properties to it. I would go for less than twelve pages though. Maybe eleven?

The threadmill of earlier editions where you went from +1 to +5 (or +6) weapons, armor (shields and ammunition) never was a big success in my eyes and not something 5e needs to repeat. Fewer, more significant items something I think will work out well.

 

[Mistwell]

the problem i find with the random "this is a sword made by... fire dwarves and it.... glows yellow when you pick your nose" is that for the most part a +1 sword its still just the same old sword, only marginally better.

Why is that a problem? It has a name, an origin, a minor power, perhaps a minor drawback, this all feeds role playing and character development and possibly an adventure plot. Why would that be a problem?

we've had more then a few magic items with histories and backgrounds. i remember a campaign where after saving a noble's family, one we interacted with quite often, they gave us their magic trident that was passed down from generation to generation. we kept it safe and still had it when the campaign ended, but it might have been used once or twice and then permanently put in a bag of holding as the weapons we had were either on-par or we quickly got better ones and just didn't feel like it would be right to part with the trident... it had some sentimental meaning for the party and we respected the guys who gave it to us.

we just didn't have any use for it. so it was bagged until we got a base, where we put it on display and kept it clean.

See, that to me is much more interesting that trying to just sell the trident for a quick buck that is forgotten after the next adventure.

part of the problem is that D&D just doesn't treat magic weapons in interesting ways

I would say the current playtest package treats them in very interesting ways

or that they often become obsolete quickly enough.

It also deals with this issue. You don't get beyond +1, except for a few extremely rare items.

a 12 page backstory doesn't make me want to use the +1 sword, it just makes me want to keep it around because it's a curious thing. weapons are tools and D&D doesn't really do much to show familiarity with a given weapon over it's usefulness (IE: if i'm working with 2 tools, the first of which is technically a better tool then the second, but i'm far more used to the second, i'll probably use the second since i can better use it, while experimenting with the first until i become familiar with it).

You're basing all of this on the assumption the weapon is surpassed later by a more powerful weapon. That's not how bounded accuracy works, and it's not how 5e appears to work. There is no +5 weapon. You don't get increasingly more powerful weapons over time.

mechanically speaking, you have no reason to use a +1 longsword over a +2 longsword, even if you've used the former for years and the latter was found 2 minutes ago.

Right. There is no +2 sword. That's not how this edition seems to be going.

the other is that +1 swords that occasionally glow or scream obscenities aren't really something that are useful outside of the limited scope of helping to detect what makes it glow and offending people. a magic item that changes how the player interacts with situations is far more interesting in play and should be the goal of the system.

you can give a flowery description and backstory to virtually anything. you can't really make addition interesting though.

Again, have you read the 5e rules for magic items such as these? They DO do something outside of a limited scope of detecting. You should read them.

In my current game, based purely on random rolls, we have these three items:

Azril Helmcleaver: This hardened true-silver battleaxe is of ancient Dwarven make. It bears ruins of power along the shaft, and gives off a silvery-blue sheen when exposed to moonlight. This battleaxe must have belonged to a leader of the dwarves. In addition to striking truly (+1 attack and damage), it imbues an unusual trait on the bearer: he can cause his voice to carry clearly for up to 500 feet. Unfortunately, this battleaxe does have one side effect. The item’s bearer tends to become obsessed with material wealth, increasingly so the longer he owns it.

Glaive: It bore Elvish design, with a variety of leaf-like patterns along the blade. It seemed lighter than expected, and a bit more flexible than a normal glaive (+1 attack and damage). Along the hilt was the symbol of a known Elvish mage known as Marian Darksbane. Luther also discovered a small word carved into the weapon, "Áre". When spoken, the glaive would light up, with bright light for a 10' radius and an addition 20' of dim light [Two plot points there - Marian Darksbane, and the foe who had it, and how he got it].

Leather Armor: This leather armor is of exotic design. It is covered with seashells that are sunk into the leather, and seem as hard as rock to the touch. Where metal buckles would normally be found, a worked pinkish coral is instead, similarly hard as steel (the armor is +1). The mage determines, after a variety of rituals and study in his tomes, that it hails from the Elemental Plane of Water, from a sect of magical users that are not known to him. Anyone wearing the armor will float well while in a body of liquid (advantage on any Strength: Swim checks while wearing it). However, for some unknown reason, the armor also makes it's wearer unduly confident - feeling a sense of invulnerability while wearing it (though such a sense is not overwhelming and still subject to normal logic - like being hit as a sign it's not indeed invulnerable). Perhaps there is some story as to why this urge was placed within the magical energies of the ritual which crafted the armor to begin with.

So far, for our game, this system works much better than the disposable +1 Long Sword method that was common in some prior games.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Never!

But starting from 1st level characters should have to opportunity to find swords like Warbreaker, the legendary sword of General Tso who ended the war between Sembia and Cormyr, which retains its sharpness and glows when brandished in anger (and provides a +1 bonus to attacks and damage).

 

[Kobold Stew]

+1 doesn't amount to being very magical.

Never. +1 weapons are boring.

when i give PCs a magic weapon or armor, i try to make sure it possess interesting powers along with numerical plus...

a +1 sword its still just the same old sword, only marginally better.

I'll admit that several comments so far seem to be based on previous editions, and not about the material in the Next rules as we have them. None of the above claims are true, in my opinion.

The magic rules are great at making every +1 sword a unique object. It's such a straightforward and inventive system.

As the players in my Next campaign approach 8th level, their To Hit modifiers have gotten out of control ... +2 Magic Weapon

But looking back, maybe the +2 sword wasn't necessary at all. I wonder how the final product handles the math.

To my knowledge, there is only one +2 weapon in the test pack is an attuned Hammer of Thunderbolts. (There might be more in the modules; I've not gone and re-checked since I don't have them all.) It does not surprise me that a +2 weapon is not needed, but...

mechanically speaking, you have no reason to use a +1 longsword over a +2 longsword, even if you've used the former for years and the latter was found 2 minutes ago.

...this objection is no longer the case (IME). Players will keep the weapon they have used for multiple sessions, since they like or at least understand the side effects.

In answer to the thread: I'd be happy for a character I was playing to have either a +1 weapon or some +1 armour between levels 4 and 7. That means it probably should come between levels 5 and 10.

 

[oxybe]

alright, time for a deep breath...
[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION]
you've raised several points and i'll try to address them to the best i can. i might not have been as clear as i hoped or simply forgot to write some stuff down as my train of thought kept chugging along in my mind so i'll try to tackle what you've brought up.

Why is that a problem? It has a name, an origin, a minor power, perhaps a minor drawback, this all feeds role playing and character development and possibly an adventure plot. Why would that be a problem?

the main problem is that while the fluff engages on a story perspective, gameplay wise it's often forgotten or the mechanics fail to impress at the scope the fluff tries to get at.

case in point: i can give a name and origin to a mundane longsword, but that won't make me actually use it over a generic +1 longsword that has better stats. it just means i probably won't sell the longsword and it'll end up like many modern day swords: decorative pieces.

if all i wanted was character development and plot, i'd simply be freeform roleplaying. i tend to want the fluff and the mechanics to work together to tell the story, not have one be lackluster and hope the other can pull the wool over fast enough.

See, that to me is much more interesting that trying to just sell the trident for a quick buck that is forgotten after the next adventure.

yes, but again, the fact that it was a magic trident didn't matter one lick. we kept it for sentimental purposes but it wasn't used much for anything. it could have been a mundane trident and we would have given it the same amount of respect.

I would say the current playtest package treats them in very interesting ways

and i don't. i'll agree to disagree since this is entirely a matter of taste. i'm not saying it's wrong, and for some playstyles or genres it's great... the items it generates tend to be akin to the more "common" ones (if you can call them common) you'll find littered in The Lord of the Rings. it's just not what i care for when presented with D&D that, for the most part, tends to go beyond the assumed scope of LotR.

It also deals with this issue. You don't get beyond +1, except for a few extremely rare items.

i was speaking in a general sense with D&D as a whole, but 5th ed allows for items of higher +'s. and i'll eat my hat if that won't cause players to be asking for them or chomping at the bits for the next and better magic sword. magic items were supposed to be rare in 2nd ed, but i still remember more then a few +2s and the odd +3. most games died out before we got higher then that, but i'm not so blind to think that players will go "gee, i have a +1, guess there's nothing better for me" or settle.

by making it a slightly better sword then the last one it does somewhat create an air of "if there is a slightly better longsword the the one i have now, there should be one even better then it!"

You're basing all of this on the assumption the weapon is surpassed later by a more powerful weapon. That's not how bounded accuracy works, and it's not how 5e appears to work. There is no +5 weapon. You don't get increasingly more powerful weapons over time.

which still means that i'm going to be throwing my dad's ancestral longsword into my bag of holding for the magical longsword of Fhqwhgads since it has the better stats.

i would say in the realm of bounded accuracy we shouldn't even HAVE to deal with the +1 to begin with as that's a clear deviation of the concept. let the weapon or item change how the game is played, rather then let the players assume an item treadmill.

Right. There is no +2 sword. That's not how this edition seems to be going.

from the document i have (Oct 14 2013) Magic items, page 10:
"Weapons with a bonus higher then 1
A basic magic weapon can have a bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls that is greater then 1, but such a weapon is unusual. Typically a higher bonus appears in magic items such as the rod of lordly might, which has additional properties"

so yes, the game fully accepts the possible existence of such items even if it doesn't stat them... not that there is much difference between a +1 and +2 weapon in terms of what needs modified... it's a +2 to hit and damage. it even gives a similar paragraph under the armor section of page 8.

Again, have you read the 5e rules for magic items such as these? They DO do something outside of a limited scope of detecting. You should read them.

here is where i'm going to start ranting, so i'm going to put it in a spoiler box to keep the post a bit more on topic. anyone should PM me if you want to go more into detail or exchange thoughts as i don't want to off-topic this thread.

[sblock]i guess what i should have made clear is that i prefer my magic items to have an impact on play beyond the superficial trappings of "ooooh... it's magic! see how magic it is... it glooooooows!". i want my magic items to scream "game changer". i want magic items to change how the player or character assesses different situations. a magic item should be a veritable force of nature in the hands of a character.

i grew up reading a big 'ol collection of myth and legends and fantastic stories, where we have swords that hew mountains (caladbolg), scabbards that prevents bleeding/wounding (excalibur's), cloaks/hats/rings/whatnot that grant invisibility (like harry potter's or the tarnkappe), various things that grant immortality (philosopher's stone, apple of hesperides). later i learned of stuff like the amenonuhoko of japanese lore that raised an island or the kusanagi sword that controls the winds when swung.

i want magic items to feel magic in play, not "just like my old sword but slightly better and comes with a built-in flashlight". the items i referenced are all weapons or objects of magic in "real" lore that each have their own backstory and legends behind them, but IMO were they items in a game they would be far more impactful in actual play then simply giving the player a minor boon like "does not get dirty" or "can always know the next staircase leading to the surface" and hoping the player fawns over it. those abilities are a neat afterthought, but again, hardly something i'd fawn over in-game.

the +1 to hit or defense that the "magic" weapons and armor of 5th ed gives out simply doesn't do enough for me thanks to the wild swingy-ness of the d20 when compared to the overall stats the game assumes and does little to nothing to make the item feel "magic" beyond strait up telling me "it's magic"

to use your glaive as an example, unless the name Marian Darksbane was one i had heard about or thought to be relevant to one of our ongoing quests/plots, i probably wouldn't investigate it any further then knowing it's a bit of lore should anyone ask. the spear would, gameplay-wise, simply be a slightly better spear with flashlight attachment. this isn't meant to sound mean or anything, but as a player i can't be interested or invested in every bit of lore or fluff that's thrown at me especially if i'm focused on some other task at hand. I'd probably use the glaive simply because of it's +1 and ability to light up the area, freeing me from ever having to carry a torch again over it's lore and "uniqueness".

that your players found that bit about Darksbane interesting is great and if it led them to further adventures, it served it's purpose and more, but lore does not alone magic make, especially in a game where there are characters who make magic their prime specialization.

because, quite frankly, lore and "uniqueness" is NOT hard to make. i don't need a random chart to make magic items interesting lore-wise. hell, i don't even need a chart to figure out if there's a magic item in a horde or not. i just don't see how the system presented in the package i have is supposed to be some sort of boon for me as it does nothing i can't do myself, or wouldn't have done anyways.

they're nice to have around if i'm in a rush, but almost never use random charts... most things i show players are very much pre-planned in advance and if anything "presented" as random.

and i get that the story is important... i wouldn't have stayed in some campaigns (or some systems) as long as i did if it weren't for the interesting story and camaraderie between me and my gaming buddies (hell, i haven't game with them for about half a year now and they went out of their way to invite me to go out to eat at our province's yearly burger love event). but story only carries it so far... it's still a game and the mechanics matter to me, so what the last package i have has shown me when it comes to the magic item rules leave me wanting.

they could have done SO much more with with how they handled magic items: a wide variety of truly magic gear, a better model of the Weapons of Legacy (IE: weapons that grow in scope with the wielder)... items that changed the scope of the game rather then simply giving more +'s. the current "magic" weapons simply feel like they're well-made mundane ones and the various boons like some additional features you could get tacked on to a "real" magic item or cast on a generic thing to make a slightly special, rather then something truly "magic".

but they decided to settle with near-insignificant bonuses and often-forgettable abilities tied to a random fluff generator as the go-to we're going to see in adventure design from now onwards. i've played with mechanically boring "magic" items in 2nd edition, 3rd edition & 4th edition and simply making the bigger +'s rare or campaign-unique DOES NOT actually raise my interest in them or make me value them on some greater level.

the +1 [weapon] is boring. a spear that when swung surrounds the user in a protective dust devil and allows him to fly at the speed of a hurricane's gust? magic.

i guess i make the personal distinction with that
-a +1 sword with a backstory is basically just a well-made weapon made for some important reason.
-a "magic" cloak that never gets dirty is a wonderous item, a neat curio that's uncommon in the wilds or a conversation piece in a metropolitan area.
-the Spear Fujiin is a magic item worthy of awe as whoever uses it becomes a force of nature.
[/sblock]
as for what level, which i seem to have forgotten to put down in my actual post, i would expect one within the first 5-7 levels at least.

admittingly, it also varies based on the overall scope of the campaign, but from what i expect of D&D and it's bretheren, 5-7 is the latest i expect for my first magic item

 

[Aluvial]

I wouldn't give players a +1 weapon until 5th level. +2 at 9+, +3 at 14+, +4 at 18+

The odd thing about +1, whatever the edition, it means a 5% better chance to hit. That's a bigger deal then many people think. How many times do you miss by 1? (as a DM, I only miss by 1 if it means CERTAIN DOOM for a character who has been battered unfairly by the dice already. Otherwise, I never miss by 1. Drink.).

Anyhow, 5%s can add up!

 

[Thaumaturge]

When the things crash into their faces.

And not a moment sooner.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Savage Wombat]

How does your opinion correlate (is that the word I want?) with the thread that established that a 20th level character should only have about 5 permanent magic items?

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

@oxybe that's relevant information for earlier editions of D&D, but I am not sure if it's relevant for 5e.

As far as I understand, that +1 weapon might be the only one you get in that campaign (probably depending on how far you run, it but for a level 1-10 campaign, it seems quite likely to me). Then it makes sense to add some backstory and some minor properties to it. I would go for less than twelve pages though. Maybe eleven?

The threadmill of earlier editions where you went from +1 to +5 (or +6) weapons, armor (shields and ammunition) never was a big success in my eyes and not something 5e needs to repeat. Fewer, more significant items something I think will work out well.

Indeed. Before 3.5, the need of overcoming ever increasing damage reduction demanded that your character had his +1 longsword substituted as soon as the +2 version was available, and the DM should make it available if he wanted to challenge the group with the stronger opponents.

In 3E and 4E, the plus is part of the math of the game. You're expected to have +X to hit by level Y, and your magic weapon is part of that. Your DM should make the +2 version available if he wants to keep the game running as designed.

5E has none of that. I invest my time on the backstory and minor qualities of +1 weapons because I don't expect players to go far beyond that. Some of the finest weapons of fantasy, at least in appearance, have none of the properties described in the 3.5 DMG, for instance. In my group, a weapon with a lot of backstory and some minor unique and flavorful properties can have more traction that a flaming/keen/whatever weapon.