MagicWeapons

[shadowoflameth]

Some Magic weapons don't include an enhancement bonus. i.e the giant slayer which is (any axe) describes doing 2d6 extra damage to giants on a hit but not adding an enhancement bonus to hit or damage. This could make them less effective outside of the intended target or with some weapons just make them less effective than a simple +1, +2, or +3.

How do the DMs here feel about for example a +2 Giant Slayer with a cost that emulates a +2 weapon and the giant slayer based on rarity. Or would you figure the cost/value some other way?

 

[jgsugden]

There are weapons, like the Sunblade, that combine basic pluses and special abilities as well as weapons that have abilities *or* bonuses. They all work - but 5E was designed to limit the power of magic weapons compared to prior editions - and simultaneously making them rarer and more special.

I trust the design, although I think there are a few problems with it. There are not enough 'non-sword' magic weapons in the books. There are a few weapons that deal woo much damage with their special abilities for their rarity (Flametongue). There are generally not enough options in the books to allow us to not see repeating items throughout campaigns.

However, I see no need to make a Giantslaying axe do anything special when facing other foes, although it doesn't hurt to give a weapon like this some minor quirk or benefit that allows it to do something fun every session, even when no giants show up. Perhaps a once per day spell or something along those lines...

 

[Satyrn]

That way of pricing looks as good as any other you might come up with. Since there's no concrete prices on anything, I just wing it the rare time I need to price something.

Whatever you do is gonna work.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How do the DMs here feel about for example a +2 Giant Slayer with a cost that emulates a +2 weapon and the giant slayer based on rarity. Or would you figure the cost/value some other way?

Honestly, that's probably the best way to do it, if you're going to include a system for pricing magic weapons. Don't make the +2 Giant Slayer much more expensive than a regular +2, because the +2 is the part that actually matters and the Giant Slayer is just a fun ribbon.

The hard part is when you get to something like a Flametongue or a Frostbrand, where their special power is more than just a ribbon and actually affects its basic utility. A +2 Flametongue quite possibly is more valuable than a +3 Giant Slayer. I guess you could solve that problem by making those specific weapons ultra-rare to the point of being non-purchasable, though.

 

[Bardbarian]

This is fine and there are weapons lie this in some of the hardcover printed adventures. For balance consider the addition of a +1 to increase the rarity of the item by 1. So if a giant slayer is rare, then a giant slayer +1 would be very rare, a plus 2 would be legendary. Read the magic item section in the DMG for more ideas but there is nothing wrong with this idea, however it may lead to a very high power curve when the designated foes appear.

 

[shadowoflameth]

The rub is that at say 10th-11th level suppose you have a +2 Greataxe and acquire say a Flametongue with no +2 on it. The player may love the idea of the Flametongue and want to use it but losing 2 point to hit makes it less valuable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Some Magic weapons don't include an enhancement bonus. i.e the giant slayer which is (any axe) describes doing 2d6 extra damage to giants on a hit but not adding an enhancement bonus to hit or damage. This could make them less effective outside of the intended target or with some weapons just make them less effective than a simple +1, +2, or +3.

Sure, but it's still more effective than the non-magical version, which is all that counts. Is it magical? Yes. Does it make you 'just better?' Yes.

That's all you need. Might a +3 weapon be better, even against a giant? Sure, but players shouldn't be choosing magic weapons from a golf bag, they should be using the ones the DM places, and there probably shouldn't be that many, less than one per PC that might use a weapon, for instance. Also, a 'slayer' weapon comes up in a story arc that culminates in slaying a very challenging example of the thing it's meant to slay, and it's served it's purpose. It doesn't /need/ to be competitive with the next weapon the party finds in the next story arc.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Make them rare enough and have enough backstory and you gain double the adventures, emulating many great fantasy stories. Evil Giant Bjorn Bigstacks is terrorising the land. Legend has it that there is a magic weapon that he fears, an axe created from the tears of Bjorn’s father when he was slain by the famous adventurer Leopold the Arcane. It is known to be a terrible bane to Giantkind and goes by the name of Hrothfar’s Lament. It is guarded by Neville the Naga of Doom.
Quest 1: get Hrothfars Lament
Quest 2: kill Bjorn
I like limited/favoured Enemy type weapons. Plus One Swords are a POS, indeed. Anything to capture the sense of a story over a game is good in my book.
Does Hrothfars Lament get busted out all the time? No. Is there adventure potential in recovering it from its place above Sally the Paladin’s fireplace where it’s hung for 2 years when once again a giantkin threat arises, but time is of the essence? Absolutely!

 

[Blue]

I never give "plus X" weapons. They are boring math modifiers that really aren't needed with bounded accuracy.

 

[Li Shenron]

The rub is that at say 10th-11th level suppose you have a +2 Greataxe and acquire say a Flametongue with no +2 on it. The player may love the idea of the Flametongue and want to use it but losing 2 point to hit makes it less valuable.

That's pretty much one of the trade-offs that can make the game tactically more interesting. Do you prefer a flat permanent bonus or a "burst" bigger bonus that is otherwise situational?

I don't think there is much problem in combining the two, but then clearly the weapon becomes a no-brainer unless you find a flat one with an even bigger bonus.