I think you peeps are not thinking about+n swords properly!

[Savage Wombat]

My nebulous idea was that you could attach, say, flaming to any magic weapon - but what effect the flaming bonus had was dependant on the plus of the sword.

+1 flaming sword just converts the weapon to fire damage.
+2 flaming sword gives +1d10 fire damage on a crit.
+3 flaming sword does double damage to undead.

Not that this sounds like a good fit for either 4e or 5e. But I felt it was clever.

 

[kevtar]

4th Edition didn't do anything to solve the problem of +X weapons until it provided an option that mostly eliminated them. Suddenly characters were free to improvise and use a variety of pieces of equipment, or to hold on to a favorite, instead of always having to trade up to the next +X item that fell into their hands in order to keep up with the expected math. 5% of the time, a +1 bonus to hit is the difference between landing a daily power, and not. Passing that bonus up once is iffy. Passing it up more than once puts you at an increasing disadvantage.

If you are responding to my earlier post, then you'll notice I didn't say 4e solved the problem of +n weapons, but that the design of 4e suggested that the designers began to think about +n weapons and other forms of treasure and its distribution in new ways. So, to that degree, we are essentially making the same argument. Where we differ is in the inclusion of +n weapons in D&D and their impact. To that point I'm saying that I believe the core rule mechanic should allow for options (modules, whatever) that allow those who want +n weapons to have +n weapons, and those who don't, well... don't. The thing that fuels that flexibility,as I mentioned above, is the designers' approach to how to treat player/DM preferences with treasure distribution.

 

[Incenjucar]

My nebulous idea was that you could attach, say, flaming to any magic weapon - but what effect the flaming bonus had was dependant on the plus of the sword.

+1 flaming sword just converts the weapon to fire damage.
+2 flaming sword gives +1d10 fire damage on a crit.
+3 flaming sword does double damage to undead.

Not that this sounds like a good fit for either 4e or 5e. But I felt it was clever.

That concept is perfectly sound, but as you more or less said, it's not a good fit for the d20 system. Something that is going to compete with a +X to hit has to make up for the difference. The math of this can get rather complex for a single character, and after a few plusses worth of bonuses you end up with an item more powerful than the character who wields it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

We have +1 Weapons that are beneficial and that are cursed.

One adds a spouse or SO to the character on a crit (they are there when they get home), the other adds an additional enemy on a crit.

The reader is allowed to decide which is the cursed version.

Obviously the +5 versions got out of hand.