A *better* magic sword?

[Hand of Evil]

Earthdawn comes to mind, it is not that the sword was magical +1, the sword has a history and name, you had to become attuned to it. If it was your sword you invested into it, making the sword a part of your legend, it was not a +1 sword but the Sword of the Stan the Swift, as carried by Drum the deadly, and Willow the wicked.

 

[Turanil]

Anyone else done something similar?

I think you are too radical. I mean, the game is simulated through numbers, so must magical items. Now I have read novels where a character just had some "enchantments" laid on his weapons, why others had magical swords or demon weapons. As such, it makes sense having +1, or +2, or +3, etc.

The problem is with the players who metagame and don't act in-character. Let them be subject to a magic weapon letting them believe they have got a +5 sword while it is just +1. Then, don't forget to increase the AC of the things they hit by +4, and remove 4 of all points of damage they deal. That should be enough I think.

Another point: a magical sword should be something extraordinary. It's "magic" not a blade with a better cutting edge. The problem with +something, is that the game is geared at getting more with levels. Change things: have fewer, much fewer, magical items. But each item should be something special with powers that activate in certain circumstances, side effects, history, renown ("What are you doing with the axe of the King of the Mountain in your possession!"), etc. Of course it adds work to the game, as you must take them into account. However it is an opportunity for events, plot devices, etc. On the other hand, the adventure is no better because you have a +3 sword rather than a +1.

 

[francisca]

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

I'm thinking of when Arthur first meets Lancelot, who was holding a bridge against all comers. Arthur was beaten and called upon either the The Lady of the Lake, or the sword itself (depends on who you read and what interpretation) to give him the power to defeat Lancelot. He ends up breaking the sword (in most accounts) while doing so. Lancelot then swears fealty to Arthur, then bangs his wife, etc....

Dunno off the top of my head if Arthur has Excalibur in hand when Mordred confronts him.

But anyway, I think action points tied to the weapon, with some sort of limits could be a nice flavor thing. Dunno why that occurred to me, I might have read it somewhere, but there you go.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

What is silly about a magical sword with greater magical power than another sword? Sword X was enchanted by the High Magus Modin, it can cleave through armor like butter on a warm day. Sword B was enchanted by his apprentice. It can cleave through armor like butter on a cold day.

The problem to me sounds like the fact that your players like to metagame and calculate bonuses based upon what hits and misses a specific armor class, and give up on the flavor aspect of magic weapons. Making all magic weapons generic does not really solve the problem, it just makes everything the same bland flavor.

I'm just curious, do you have this issue with the spellcasting system as well? Should spellcasters only have cantrips, fourth level spells and ninth level spells? Because it seems just as silly to me that spellcasters have all these spells that keep getting more powerful.

 

[der_kluge]

HARP removed spell levels for me, so I didn't have to.

I don't think having "magic sword" is bland at all. It depends on the campaign. Certainly saying, "you find 1,000gp and a magic sword in the chest" is bland, but that's contrary to my whole point. The magic whatever should be fabulous and unique, and have a long history, and be special. Not everyone would have one. I think that was the intent with the DR in 3.5. If a magic sword +5 is good enough to cut through a Dragon's DR, then a magic sword +1 should be too. I think that was their thinking (I'll give them credit for that, rather than just being lazy). In my thinking, I'm just going one step further, and removing the actual variations in magic pluses.

I also don't like the idea of characters becoming their equipment. So, if a 20th level fighter can't make do with a "magic sword" then something is wrong. He shouldn't constantly have to wine "this would be easier with a +5 sword of demon slaying!".

Bah.

 

[jmucchiello]

Thanee, that doesn't really work, players will figure it out eventually.
player without a magic weapon: "what's his AC?"

DM: AC? How would your character know that?

And even if he uses the rolls of other players to guestimate the AC. So what?

I think you just don't want to play D&D and should find another system. +X swords and armor are part of the assumed world in D&D. Just like spells have levels and characters have levels, so to do magic swords. Do you feel that wizards in your campaign do or do not know that fireball is higher "level" spell than flaming sphere? Do wizards know that someone who can cast fireball is also someone who could cast lightning bolt, but not necessarily cone of cold? If that is okay, what is wrong with swords having pluses?

 

[drnuncheon]

Here's an idea:

Just ditch enhancement bonuses altogether - it's not clear what they represent anyway. Instead, just add magical properties onto the weapon as logical. Flaming swords are simply flaming. Swords that are magically sharp are keen

You may have to create a couple of new properties. A balanced/i] weapon might be treated as being one size category smaller, allowing a longsword to be used with Weapon Finesse, or a bastard sword to be used one-handed even without a feat. Another property might add a die size to the weapon's damage.

J

 

[Umbran]

To me, the "magical sword" should just be that - a magical sword. The idea of gradations, or levels of magic sword is silly.

Why is this silly? There's people in the world who use magic, cast magic spells, right? Aren't some of those spells of varying powers? Fireballs are more powerful than Magic Missiles, right? If those who use magic can use it over a range of powers, why can they not make magical items that have a range of power?

 

[Crothian]

I also don't like the idea of characters becoming their equipment. So, if a 20th level fighter can't make do with a "magic sword" then something is wrong. He shouldn't constantly have to wine "this would be easier with a +5 sword of demon slaying!".

Bah.

One thing that I found works great is weapons that improve with the characters. They can custom them to their liking, there is a feat in Complete Warrior that is along this idea. I also agree that characters depend on their equipment and get attached to them way to much in d20. But it's an easy fix with stealing items or havingt them have to sell it or give it away.

D&D has some assumptions people don't like, actually all games do. But I've always found it easy to change the assumptions and it does change the game but never really messes it up.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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?

That's a post worth re-quoting...it's the best example to look at the whole thing in the light of a classical source of fantasy inspiration.

And as Thanee mentioned, if you keep the actually boni of the sword to yourself, and only tell your players the magical properties of their weapons, it will keep the sense of wonder for them.

On another note...could it be that you, as a DM, simply are a bit disenchanted by the bookkeeping? That, to you the sense of wonder of a +3 flaming demonbane longsword in comparison to a simple +1 dagger is robbed away by the numbers? Because that's what happens to me sometimes. it's at moments like these that I have to sit down and think about what th weapon's numbers actually represent in the game, and how those plusses are only a way to keep track of it in game terms. And hey...coming up with a nice background story for most weapons shouldn't be too hard, should it?