D&D 5E Renaming +1, +2, +3

[Achan hiArusa]

We have all this wonderful names for items like the Apparatus of Kwalish and yet we still call most of our weapons and armor by their plusses. Some people take the time to craft histories and give specific names for their weapons, but I don't always want to do that. So I went through the 4e Player's Handbook and the Adventurer's Vault and coopted the names of the special armors to replace the +1, +2, +3 moniker:

Type	+0	+1	+2	+3
Clothing	Basic	Feyweave	Astralweave	Starweave
Padded	Basic	Feyweave	Astralweave	Starweave
Leather	Basic	Feyleather	Astralleather	Starleather
StuddedLeather	Basic	Feyleather	Astralleather	Starleather
Hide	Basic	Feyhide	Darkhide	Elderhide
Chain Shirt	Basic	Forgemail	Weavemail	Spiritmail
Scale Mail	Basic	Drakescale	Wyrmscale	Elderscale
Breastplate	Basic	Legionplate	Warplate	Godplate
Half-plate	Basic	Legionplate	Warplate	Godplate
Ring Mail	Basic	Forgering	Weavering	Spiritring
Chain Mail	Basic	Forgemail	Weavemail	Spiritmail
Splint	Basic	Forgesplint	Layeredsplint	Rimefiresplint
Plate	Basic	Legionplate	Warplate	Godplate
Shield	Basic	Legionshield	Warshield	Godshield
Weapon/Ammo (metal)	Basic	Feyforged	Starforged	Godforged
Weapon/Ammo (nonmetal)	Basic	Feywood	Darkwood	Starwood

And yes, I know some of the names will evoke jokes, but hey, it's all in fun.

 

[Rune]

Spiffy, Nifty, & Keen.

 

[Charles Wright]

I think it's a good idea for what it is.

But I would rather use it as special materials that, when used properly, have intrinsic bonuses equal to arcane meddling. This would make items made with these materials (in my hypothetical situation) more desirable than magically augmented items as they would (in my hypothetical world) still work in a null-magic zone.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Weapons:

+1: Might
+2: Potence
+3: Puissance

 

[Charles Wright]

Of course, the reason why it's NOT done this way is so that you don't have to consult a table every time to figure out how many plusses a sword has.

 

[SirAntoine]

I like the +1's. I use the old magic items, including +5's and +6's.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of course, the reason why it's NOT done this way is so that you don't have to consult a table every time to figure out how many plusses a sword has.

Yup. Which is why it never bugged me.

 

[GMMichael]

I was thinking this for the hide armors:

Wyvern

Magiwyvern

Star Wyvern

 

[Minigiant]

+1 Ichimetal
+2 Dosium
+3 Tri-steel

 

[Jester David]

I don't name the pluses, I name the weapon.

 

[LostSoul]

The AD&D DMG says:

Armor of +3 bonus is of special meteorite iron steel, +4 is mithral alloyed steel, +5 is adamantite alloyed steel.​

 

[Cernor]

I don't name the pluses, I name the weapon.

This. Why would you go around proclaiming to curious tavern-goers "This is my +1 sword!" when it being +1 is a purely metagame concept? It's far more interesting (and far better RPing) to call it "Rhokh-nath, Slayer of Dragons", "Hailfury, Bow of a Thousand Arrows", or "Sheepbiter, enemy of all things wooly"!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sheepbiter, enemy of all things wooly

Want.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This. Why would you go around proclaiming to curious tavern-goers "This is my +1 sword!" when it being +1 is a purely metagame concept?

It's not, though. The fact that it is 5% more likely to strike true (in an absolute sense), and causes more grievous wounds, is a fact that can be measured and understood in-game. If you have a series of otherwise-identical swords, each one with a greater bonus than the last, then someone in-game could test them and order them based on their efficacy. Referring to the middle sword as a "sword +2" would be eminently practical!

 

[Celtavian]

I don't name the pluses, I name the weapon.

I do this. Or I let the player name it. It's a high quality magic sword. No need for more than that.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's not, though. The fact that it is 5% more likely to strike true (in an absolute sense), and causes more grievous wounds, is a fact that can be measured and understood in-game. If you have a series of otherwise-identical swords, each one with a greater bonus than the last, then someone in-game could test them and order them based on their efficacy. Referring to the middle sword as a "sword +2" would be eminently practical!

Not really. Without relatively high-tech monitoring equipment, it's exceedingly hard to measure the exact striking force of a weapon, and it's even harder for a human being--even an expert--to swing with the exact same force, strength, and angle multiple times in a row. Sure, eventually you might figure out that a sword is 5% more likely to hit the same target, but it would take averaging things out over the course of years. Or else artificial testing methods, like having a golem swing it with the precise same strength and angle. And even then, you have no way of knowing if this reed target was exactly as tough as the prior one.

 

[Riley37]

Sheepbiter, enemy of all things wooly

Not just any generic "Sword of Shearing +1". Sheep-biter can be recognized by its ram-horn hilt and pommel, and by the engraving along blade, which reads (for those who know the script) "QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS OVES"

Cortana, Excalibur, Durandal and Gram make fun of Sheep-Biter, but that's just because they're jealous.

The wielder of Sheep-biter has double HP for purposes of their resistance to the Sleep spell. Wake up, sheeple!

 

[Mouseferatu]

And he gets a +2 bonus to Wool saves.

...

I'll show myself out.

 

[MechaPilot]

I don't name the pluses, I name the weapon.

I agree with that sentiment, but there have been times where it hasn't held up in practice. In 3e, I recall rolling many +X weapons as treasure, and it became tedious to attempt to name and characterize them all (especially if I knew the players wouldn't care about a given item since they already had better gear).

 

[RangerWickett]

I don't name the pluses, I name the weapon.

NSFW (and kinda vulgar)

[video=youtube;zwSBWN6b-1g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwSBWN6b-1g&t=35s[/video]