D&D 5E Scared Cow: magic Weapon & Armor plusses

[Corwin]

I still agree with the other person who said you can use +1 weapons AND add interesting story and abilities to make them cool.

If I was creating a magic sword, making it hit better would be one of its abilities, or otherwise whats the point....get it...point...

Yep. That's my take.

 

[Sunseeker]

I do this all the time. I prefer to provide "neat" weapons over mathematical weapons.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The problem with neat or fun abilities is that they are often too trivial or situational to ever matter. If I have a sword that glows in the presence of dragons, then that might be useful under a very narrow set of circumstances, but it's unlikely to ever come up. It's probably more bookkeeping than it's worth. If the only useful property of a sword is that it can hurt things that resist non-magical weapons, then that doesn't seem very magical. It just feels like bookkeeping. (It's also kind of silly if you have such a specific enchantment, and the enchantment only matters because it's an enchantment at all, rather than because of anything about the enchantment itself.)

To contrast, a sword +1 is always useful in every situation. It's an amazing weapon, and the fact that it can also hurt many creatures that would resist normal weapons is simply a testament to how amazing it is.

 

[merwins]

To contrast, a sword +1 is always useful in every situation. It's an amazing weapon, and the fact that it can also hurt many creatures that would resist normal weapons is simply a testament to how amazing it is.

I feel most people miss this completely.

Magic, like science, has to be learned at some point. You can't just say, "It's magic, stupid. Just roll with it."
Well, you can, but some folks like to do more. In the world, characters are constantly learning, evolving and that process involves trial and error.

As GMs, we try to apply some logic and consistency to our world, even if those qualities aren't immediately apparent to our players. And I'm only human, so I bring those things that are part of my experience to my game world.

My experience says that unless I've "industrialized" magic, almost everything I do will be a personalized undertaking.
Book standard spells are reliable BECAUSE they've been repeated and only those aspects that work have been recorded. All the "flaws" have been removed from the process. But then there's no room for flexibility.

That's why sorcerers and metamagic are so powerful, IMO. They can improvise spell variants on the fly.

By the same token, people creating items are creating them one at a time. It's not like adding 2+2, or memorizing a spell. In a developing world where item creation is not reliable, you're not necessarily going to find a "perfect" +1 item. I think back to stories I've heard about the old West, where guns and bullets were originally individually manufactured, and mismatched tolerances were one of the reasons they were so unreliable. (I don't know how true that is.)

Such a simple creation, that provides a perfectly reliable effect with zero drawbacks? In my world, that's nearly an artifact unto itself. No software bugs. No ink that runs out. Doesn't talk back or stick in the holster? Doesn't have some heraldry or smith mark that someone could come at you for? Just a +1, every time. Amazing.

Imagine, for a moment, that a wizard has to create an item to "graduate" his apprenticeship. Something minor, or at least contribute to the creation of another item. His thesis, so to speak. Trust me, that item isn't going to be perfect. And even the experienced artificer? How many bad designs did he have to wade through before he succeeded? Did they all get destroyed? I'm figuring a LOT of flawed items are out there before you find a good one.

This isn't necessarily how items were created (or come into being) in my world, but it's one possibility. But I do have a REASON things are they way they are. Most items come with a price to pay or constraint to manage. Pure, perfect items are extraordinarily rare, or mundane to certain locations only.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

This isn't necessarily how items were created (or come into being) in my world, but it's one possibility. But I do have a REASON things are they way they are. Most items come with a price to pay or constraint to manage. Pure, perfect items are extraordinarily rare, or mundane to certain locations only.

I remember GURPS rules tended to produce magic items that had quirks, and that could be another way to address this issue.

A magical sword that detects dragons and makes you fluent in Draconic, but doesn't give a bonus to hit or damage, is kind of neat but mostly situational and boring.

A magical sword that gives +1 to hit and damage, but forces you to only speak in Draconic while you are attuned to it, is an interesting choice that a lot of players will choose to buy into.

 

[merwins]

Love that last one. I'm always struggling for simple constraints. Like Yladrin's Hammer, everything seems to get overcomplicated really quickly.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Exactly. Of course, they're still there in 5e, we just call them ASIs now.

This.

The point of this thread is even more true in the context of ASIs.

IMO there should be no ASIs, just Feats, maybe some of which happen to give +1 to a stat.

 

[Salamandyr]

Personally, I would miss the heck out of the +1 sword. It's one of the things that says I'm playing D&D.

Like fireballs, ubiquitous healing potions, and useless fighters, it just wouldn't be the same game without them.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm finding there are two definitions of neat/fun getting discussed here in this thread. Some of us are talking about things like "the sword glows" while others are talking things like "the sword hurls fireballs."

Of course a +X sword is better than a glowing sword.

But how is that +X compared to hurling fireballs?

 

[merwins]

LOL. That's like asking whether you like warlock always-on invocations or high-level wizard spells. They're both pretty dang cool.

Sometimes you just need a flashlight, not a flamethrower.