D&D 5E Should the +1 Sword Exist in 5E?

[Leatherhead]

They should stay, even if you don't call it a "+1 sword" anymore.

A sword sharp enough to cut through most things is just the kind of thing a warrior would ask for.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I have to say, while I'm not fond of +X items, I do like the idea that +X represents a masterwork bonus rather than magic. Couple it with a cap of +2 or +3, and I could get behind that. Something like:

+1 is "normal" masterwork, what a really good smith can make by spending a whole lot of time on it.

+2 is the work of ancient smiths whose like is not known in the world today, meteoritic iron, a weapon forged in dragonfire, etc.

+3 is the handiwork of a legendary hero-smith, demigod, archangel, etc.

This to me is good, IF the game needs the + weapons it is best if they are simply good weapons and not magic weapons...

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I do like the idea of items 'unlocking their power' as characters increase in level. I certainly hope to see this as a module at some point (a special magic items supplement with lots of awesome ideas please, not just moar stuff!).

However, I fear that to save mathematics, a +1 sword shouldn't give a bonus to hit. OR all magic weapons give +1 to hit, but that part of their power NEVER gets better.

 

[Iosue]

I don't just want to keep +1 swords, I want to make all magical swords +1. Anything beyond a +1 is a "+1, +x" or a "+1 and rider". E.g., +1, +3 Sword of Dragon Slaying. Or a +1 Sword of Fire (+2 fire damage on a hit). Cap AC at 30, and keep bonuses to a minimum.

 

[KidSnide]

I don't just want to keep +1 swords, I want to make all magical swords +1. Anything beyond a +1 is a "+1, +x" or a "+1 and rider". E.g., +1, +3 Sword of Dragon Slaying. Or a +1 Sword of Fire (+2 fire damage on a hit). Cap AC at 30, and keep bonuses to a minimum.

I really like the idea that the "to hit" bonus of magical swords would have a very limited range. I'd say that +1 to +3 is better than +1 only, but either way the great idea here is providing more impact (as it were) on the damage bonus side and reducing the total effect on the to-hit math.

-KS

 

[drothgery]

The problem isn't +X weapons.

The problems are
(1) The expectation built into the rules that every character will have a +X weapon by level Y.
(2) If characters can't find +X weapons, they can just create them with ease.

You cannot have a mathematically balanced game with relatively common +X items* where the math of the game doesn't assume PCs will get them at a certain rate. It is not possible. You can apply some smoke and mirrors to try and hide the assumptions from players, but it doesn't change the math.

* Where +X items give a bonus to hit, and to-hit is determined by rolling a d20

 

[Kannik]

I would prefer to see this: + swords are + only to damage... ie, a +4 sword is +4 to damage. So the iconic name can stay, but the effect is a bit different.

Masterwork swords, of which many magic swords are, are +1 to hit, max.

Most swords also have much more interesting effects and abilities.

peace,

Kannik

 

[WheresMyD20]

You cannot have a mathematically balanced game with relatively common +X items* where the math of the game doesn't assume PCs will get them at a certain rate. It is not possible. You can apply some smoke and mirrors to try and hide the assumptions from players, but it doesn't change the math.

* Where +X items give a bonus to hit, and to-hit is determined by rolling a d20

I don't think that having perfect mathematical balance is important. Only a rough sense of balance is important, and that balance comes from the DM just as much as from the rules.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't think that having perfect mathematical balance is important. Only a rough sense of balance is important, and that balance comes from the DM just as much as from the rules.

The wider the range of magical bonuses, the more mathematically unbalanced it becomes (absent proscribed equipment, careful shepherding, etc.). Moreover, the wider the range, the less flavorful the lower end becomes, relatively. That is, if you only go to +2, +1 is pretty nifty. If you go to +10, +1 is a speed bump on your way to something better. Somewhere in between you maximize whatever flavor +N brings (whether that is a lot of flavor or a little; if we are going to have it, we'd like to have most of it).

The narrower the range, of course, the less variation you have to improve equipment straight. Some people will see this as feature, not a bug, but it is undeniably there. Presumably, the deficit will be made up by things other than +N: Trading in your +1 longsword for a +1 flaming longsword becomes the upgrade. (And then later you get a +2 longsword and have an interesting choice to make, but that is neither here nor there.)

I think by +5, you've definitely wrung ever last tiny shred of flavor out of +N. The push to go to +6 or higher seems to be merely a needless symmetry with having 20 or 30 levels. So to me, the real argument is does +3, +4, or +5 bring more to the table than what they cost in balance and stylistic hoops? (For example, having to jump through too much "equipment churn" could be a stylistic issue for some groups).

A side question is how much variety can be introduced in between +N and +N+1 that will be seen as an "upgrade" for those that like to improve their equipment on a regular basis? For example, if two clear "upgrade" tiers can be identified between weapon +1 and weapon +2 (whether glowing, flaming, secret door detection, etc.), then you can easily have 6 to 9 levels between getting the first +1 weapon versus finally replacing it with a +2.

 

[WheresMyD20]

I think by +5, you've definitely wrung ever last tiny shred of flavor out of +N. The push to go to +6 or higher seems to be merely a needless symmetry with having 20 or 30 levels. So to me, the real argument is does +3, +4, or +5 bring more to the table than what they cost in balance and stylistic hoops? (For example, having to jump through too much "equipment churn" could be a stylistic issue for some groups).

I don't see a problem with +3 to +5 weapons existing as long as they are rare and very difficult and very costly for PCs to make. In the campaign that I played in the longest, which was 1e, +3 weapons were rare for characters to posses until the high teens. +4 weapons were highly prized and even rarer. I think there was only one or two +5 weapons in several years of gaming.

By the high teens, fighters would almost always hit, so the bonus really just had the effect of helping them boost their damage output. By then, magic-user and cleric spells were quite powerful, so high-plus weapons mostly just helped fighters keep up.