A *better* magic sword?

[der_kluge]

I've come to the conclusion that this idea of +2, +3, +4, and +5 magic swords just doesn't sit well with me. To be more precise, the idea of a +1 magic sword is lame, and I prefer a +2 magic sword, but nothing else.

Let me explain.

In every fantasy genre I can think of, the magic sword is a common fixture in those realms. Even LoTR has a magic sword. But Bilbo's short sword is never described as "being better than other magic swords" or being +2 or better, or something equally inane.

The idea that you could have a magic sword, and then a magic sword that was better than the first one is, well, weird to me.

guy 1: "Behold, look at my shiny new magical sword!"
guy 2: "Eh, I've got a better one."

To me, the "magical sword" should just be that - a magical sword. The idea of gradations, or levels of magic sword is silly. So, I'm removing them from my next campaign. There will be normal weapons, and masterwork weapons which grant +1 to hit, vicious weapons which grant +1 to damage, and magic weapons, which are +2/+2. And maybe, just maybe superior masterwork which do +1/+1 but those will be like Hikari Hanzo swords, and would be extremely rare, almost as rare as magic swords.

Period.

Anyone else done something similar?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Better do the same thing with armour too and any other magic items that scale in power (rings of protection, bracers of armour, amulets of natural armour).

Sounds to me like you just want to run a low magic game.

 

[Enkhidu]

...The idea that you could have a magic sword, and then a magic sword that was better than the first one is, well, weird to me.

guy 1: "Behold, look at my shiny new magical sword!"
guy 2: "Eh, I've got a better one."...

Try looking at it just a tad differently, using Tolkien as a backdrop.

Bilbo's magic sword is really just an elven dagger (more of a sidearm, really), and doesn't have a huge amount of magic in it. On the other hand, the two swords found along with it (Orcrist and Glamdring) were more powerful - so powerful that when the goblins of the Misty Mountains saw them they knew them from legend and called them by name. In d20 terms it might be possible to say that the former was a simple +1 dagger that glowed in the presence of orcs, and that the latter were +3 orcbane swords.

Or, to bring it even further, Ringil (Fingolfin's sword) is famed for permanently laming Morgoth in the first age - wouldn't that indicate that it is a more powerful sword?

In other words, is this a problem more with scope and with background than with mechanics?

 

[Tatsukun]

Right, and if you do that, or run the affore mentioned low-magic-item game, don't be shocked when nobody plays a fighter. You will have a world of clerics as tanks and mages as the only hitters.

It seems like you are fixing a flavor issue with a rules change. That can be a huge can of worms.

Why not have different cultures' magics represent the levels? Have an Elf-crafted magic blade be great, but not as good as a Dwarf-crafted one. Maybe even go with something like titan-craft or some outsider crafted for the powerful ones.

Nobody would ever say "I have a +5 Holy Sword", they would say "I have a Solar-craft blade, smithed on the heaven forges from the metalic bones of devils" or something; and evenyone would know that was much better than the "I have a magic sword a Dwarf friend made for me" sword.

-Tatsu

 

[francisca]

I've come to the conclusion that this idea of +2, +3, +4, and +5 magic swords just doesn't sit well with me. To be more precise, the idea of a +1 magic sword is lame, and I prefer a +2 magic sword, but nothing else.

Let me explain.

In every fantasy genre I can think of, the magic sword is a common fixture in those realms. Even LoTR has a magic sword. But Bilbo's short sword is never described as "being better than other magic swords" or being +2 or better, or something equally inane.

The idea that you could have a magic sword, and then a magic sword that was better than the first one is, well, weird to me.

guy 1: "Behold, look at my shiny new magical sword!"
guy 2: "Eh, I've got a better one."

To me, the "magical sword" should just be that - a magical sword. The idea of gradations, or levels of magic sword is silly. So, I'm removing them from my next campaign. There will be normal weapons, and masterwork weapons which grant +1 to hit, vicious weapons which grant +1 to damage, and magic weapons, which are +2/+2. And maybe, just maybe superior masterwork which do +1/+1 but those will be like Hikari Hanzo swords, and would be extremely rare, almost as rare as magic swords.

Period.

Anyone else done something similar?

I feel the same way, in a kinda-sorta fashion. I don't care much for the idea that "magic" swords are strewn across dungeons all over the world. I like the masterwork approach for +1, and even considered a masterwork made in a special manner* (see below) up to +2.

I like the idea of swords being storied, and wrapped with lore, like Narsil, Excalibur, etc.. But am at a loss to express it mechanically beyond just bonuses. (Yes, I have seen Swords of our Fathers, no it doesn't quite do it for me, though I think it is a good product.)

Perhaps an approach where you assign action points to the sword, which the wielder could expend would work. Maybe Arthur burned through all of Excalibur's points to defeat Lancelot, and it needed to be returned to the Lady of the Lake to be recharged.

But yeah. Simple mechanical bonuses have gotten kinda tiresome to me too.

*If a a Dwarven craftsman of highest reknown forged a sword of adamantine, in a volcano, and quenched it in white dragon's blood, then I'd probably make it a +2 masterwork.

 

[Thanee]

How about simply not letting your players known the exact properties (except those, that can be perceived)?

Don't tell them, just figure in the bonuses yourself. Tell them to remind you, that they wield a magic weapon, so you don't forget.

Then just give the magic items flashy names instead of the rather sterile terminology used to describe their effect.

Maybe that would do what you are looking for, without changing the rules (well, except for Item Creation maybe, but I'm sure one could find a nice way to make that work in this context, too).

Bye
Thanee

 

[VirgilCaine]

I feel the same way, in a kinda-sorta fashion. I don't care much for the idea that "magic" swords are strewn across dungeons all over the world.

Perhaps an approach where you assign action points to the sword, which the wielder could expend would work. Maybe Arthur burned through all of Excalibur's points to defeat Lancelot, and it needed to be returned to the Lady of the Lake to be recharged.

*If a a Dwarven craftsman of highest reknown forged a sword of adamantine, in a volcano, and quenched it in white dragon's blood, then I'd probably make it a +2 masterwork.

I think of the generic pluses as the weapon feeling lighter, being sharper, more well balanced, etc--generally better than any old mundane weapon.

I thought that was Mordred in the final battle? Or was it Mordred that came and killed Arthur after the fight with Lancelot?

 

[eris404]

I was thinking of making all of the magic items in my next campaign (except expendable things like wands, potions and scrolls) unique. So, the party wouldn't find just a +1 magic sword, it would be a +1 magic sword with a minor ability or two and an interesting past that could be determined with a little research, a knowledge roll or bardic knowledge roll. I'd still keep the normal bonus scale though, because I'm learning first hand in one game how tough it can be to overcome DR. :\ I'm also going to use some of the legendary items (and prestige classes) from the Game Mechanics line. I really like the idea of leveled items, but I don't know if any of my players would actually expend xps to improve their items.

 

[FireLance]

Anyone else done something similar?

No, but it seems to me that you are being unnecessarily limiting simply because you don't like the mechanical progression of +1, +2, +3, etc.

Would it feel better to you if you look at it this way:

1. Come up with ten names of weaponsmiths, maybe: Rogan, Pratar, Briyan, Marsal, Vindal, Chapat, Murtab, Wroati, Aloo, Tabak.

2. These are the only ten weaponsmiths in the entire world who have created magical weapons of greater than +1 value. Pick one to be the greatest (maybe Briyan), assign the others as having made +4 weapons, +3 weapons and +2 weapons.

3. Now you have a system of comparing the power weapons (and how well they are crafted) without using numbers. Everyone knows that a Briyan blade is the finest ever made by mortal hands. A Vindal blade is the equal of a Rogan blade, and superior to anything made by the other weaponsmiths. On the other hand, an Aloo or Tabak blade is only slightly better than the weakly enchanted weapons crafted by minor mages.

These rules can also add flavor to a PC magic weapon crafter. Making a simple +5 weapon is boring, but becoming famous for equalling the craftsmanship of Briyan is something to brag about.

 

[der_kluge]

In doing this, I can more comfortably implement the 3.5 concept of DR "magic", versus "/+3", or "/+4" as it was in 3.0.

Plus, I intend to do the same to armor, so armor can be masterwork, or magic. It keeps the scale from getting out of hand, and it returns it to a more qualitative level, and not so much of a quantitative one.

And there aren't any demons with huge DRs walking around in my world, so that's really a non-issue. But even if there were, I could just use DR 10/magic and it would be a feared creature.

Thanee, that doesn't really work, players will figure it out eventually.
player without a magic weapon: "what's his AC?"
DM: "20"
player with a magic weapon: "wait a minute, my roll before magic bonuses was a 17 last round, and you said I hit, but prior to that the 16 missed, so I must have a +3 sword!"
DM: *sigh*