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

[Yora]

While I see the fact that passive bonuses are bland and boring, I still prefer them most of the time. Other stuff just seems rather weid most of the time. Boots of flying, hat of diguise, horseshoes of speed... I don't really know how to incorporate such things into a low-magic world.

 

[Szatany]

the reaction should be"Finally I got a PLUS 1 SWORD! Yea Im great,Im awesome!"

I never had such a reaction when I was playing. This is a mere +1, the smallest possible amount of bonus. Meh.

 

[Starbuck_II]

every body is discussing this from a math/DM perspective-it should be thought of from a player perspective,and from that perspective they should be there but
the reaction should be"Finally I got a PLUS 1 SWORD! Yea Im great,Im awesome!"

I was never excited by a +1 Sword in 2E as a Fighter. Not even when I was a Jedi, granted I had a light saber, but nonetheless that +1 sword wasn't interesting.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Back in 2e me and my friends had ALOT of house rules, one was +x weapons. We tried to use this in 3e as well (with mixed results based on game)

instead of getting a +1 longsword that adds +1 to hit and +1 to damage you instead get a + 1 long sword that adds +1 to hit, and on a hit does 2d8 (+ 1 die of damage). a +2 does 3d8, a +5 longsword did 6D8 damage on a hit.

Now with 4w attacks we were not going to try that, but I think 4e magic items are a major wekness of the system.

 

[Nimblegrund]

One thought...

Rather than just giving a sword a +1, what if we gave weapons a series of descriptive qualities?

For example:

Well-Balanced: +1 to hit
Exceptionally Well-Balanced: +2 to hit
Dwarven Make: +1 damage, twice as heavy
Elven Make: +1 to hit, half weight
Magically Sharpened: +2 damage on a crit
Bloodseeker Enchantment: +2 to confirm a crit
Mithril: Half weight, does damage as mithril and silver
Adamantine: Good against hardness (however that will work)

etc.

Each weapon might have three quality slots, as it were: Material, Craft, and Magic.

While this seems like maybe an unnecessary complication, it gives weapons a bit more personality, and if designed right, makes them a lot more customizable. It also encourages players to name their weapons, rather than say "Dwarven Make, Mithril, Well-Balanced, Flaming, etc."

 

[FireLance]

Elmo had a +1 axe, +1 Chain, +2 shield and +2 dagger.

Sorry, but pop culture associations being what they are - did anyone else think of a furry red monster wearing chainmail, waving an axe and shield and laughing?

"Who wants to tickle me now? Hahahahahaaa."

 

[Tovec]

Wooooosh.

I didn't know that "fire" was a number.

lol, Yep, 1d6/round.

Well, since these involve a video game, they can actually be codified.

In The Legend of Zelda: a Link to The Past, each sword upgrade generally doubles the damage dealt - the basic sword does 2 damage with a swing, while the final sword upgrade does 16. The Master Sword (and each upgrade beyond it) additionally offers increased reach and the ability to shoot beam attacks when at full health.

In general, the sword upgrades in Zelda games function much like sequential +N weapons - they have a linear upgrade path, offer increased reach (thus, accuracy) and damage, and confer generally only minor benefits beyond that.

Well, yes Zelda is from a video game but the other two weren't. I'm sad to see no one had any ideas how to handle the other two.

As for Link - doubles damage could mean a lot of different things in DnD. That is part of the problem.
A sword that "doubles damage" could look like ..
Base: Fighter (18 STR) with a longsword
Attempt 1: Sword is +4 so.. 1d8 + 4(str) + 4(sword)
Attempt 2: sword is +str so.. 1d8 + 4(str) + 4(str)
The problem is both of these are the same and the only example we have is for Link, where it "doubled" his damage.

Granted we could go with GMforPowergamers' idea (which I kind of like) of 1d8 + 1d8 + STR but that doesn't always work. It certainly wouldn't work on my low HP system I'm working on.

Imperialus' idea (which I also like) of "castle forged" steel is good. But it doesn't solve the problem of +5 (or +4) bonus or how you MAKE them. For example, how you make them in a low-magic or low-plasma setting. Nor does it explain how it is better, other than it is. Masterworked it understood to be a superior quality, but now castle forged is even better?

 

[Incenjucar]

lol, Yep, 1d6/round.

Nope. "All untyped damage dealt by weapon attacks using this weapon changes to fire damage."

 

[Tovec]

Nope. "All untyped damage dealt by weapon attacks using this weapon changes to fire damage."

You may be referring to a rule about the flaming quality of a weapon. At least that's what I'm guessing.

What I quoted and what you replied to was that "fire" isn't a number - when it is. It is 1d6/round. Flaming is a quality, fire is a number.

Also, how does it work if it is flaming and frosting? "All untyped damage dealt by weapon attacks using this weapon change to X damage."? Is it fire, ice or both?

 

[Incenjucar]

Dealing fire damage instead of untyped damage isn't a number. It's a non-numerical property.