D&D 5E Should the +1 Sword Exist in 5E?

[Dausuul]

Simple question. Should there be such an item as a +1 sword in 5E? No special effects or mods, no background or flavor except that which is provided by the DM, just yer basic +1 sword.

And if so, should it do what such things have traditionally done (+1 to hit, +1 damage), or something else?

Clarification on the poll: The "something else" option means anything other than, less than, or in addition to the traditional +1 to hit, +1 damage. That could mean granting +1 to hit/damage and some other effect; or granting +1 to hit but not damage; or +1 to damage but not to hit; or +1 to something else altogether; etc.

 

[FireLance]

Certainly! And if it didn't, I'd put one in my games, anyway, math be damned!

Experienced players may be jaded at the idea of yet another +1 sword, but it's almost the ideal first magic item to be found by a beginning player: the effect is simple to understand, it isn't excessively powerful, it encourages active use, as opposed to a passive item such as +1 armor, and the protagonist finding a magic sword of some sort is such an iconic fantasy trope almost anyone with even a passing familiarity with the genre can relate to it immediately.

 

[Tallifer]

I voted yes. But I have a great reservation: I never want to see any weapon above +2. Not even an artifact.

I want to see more colourful effects. I want to see more story. I want to see the mathematics of combat flattened out over the thirty levels through the epic tier.

 

[Quickleaf]

Yes, it's a classic part of D&D, so it should be in the game.

To accomodate a tighter bandwidth of scaling attack bonus & defenses, I think the +1 bonus should apply to damage and not to attack. Maybe damage and initiative?

 

[TwinBahamut]

I think the +1 bonus is unnecessary, and tends to be problematic for the game for all kinds of reasons. It forces magic item dependancy, it leads to the magic item treadmill, it thus in turn messes up the entire economy of PC wealth, and so on. It is also a rather awkward problem for magic item naming, since it just sounds bad. The name also tends to overly reduce the identity and flavor of magic items down to the generic and mechanical. The game would be better without them.

 

[Kzach]

I've always liked the way 3e did it with mastercraft weapons giving a +1 to hit and magical weapons giving the +1 to hit & damage, without the bonuses stacking.

Although recently I've been thinking along a slightly different line where mastercraft weapons could give a +1 to hit & damage and still not stack with magical items, but only magical items could hit certain creatures, making the magic still a valuable addition but not necessarily required for most situations.

My real issue with bonuses is when they exceed the +2 mark and stack with a bajillion other things and they're incorporated as part of the math balance of the system. In my opinion, having a bonus should be a BONUS. It should put you AHEAD of the curve, but at the same time, you should never be able to get so far ahead of the curve that the curve becomes irrelevant.

 

[Essenti]

+X items are ridiculously easy to add back in if anyone wants them... If WoTC doesn't put them in the game I won't mind at all, especially if they focus on magic items that do things that make them special instead (ex. ring of the ram, horn of blasting, wand of wonder)

I would lean more towards something like a <weapon> of Sharpness, that lets a player re-roll a missed attack roll, or maybe does extra damage when you bloody a creature or critical, or some other nifty mechanic.

Instead of just stacking on another plus, maybe a high level <weapon> of Sharpness can cut through metal, and thus bypasses armor. Essentially a +5 weapon did bypass armor, but it bypassed speed and darn near anything else that affected a creature's armor class too.

Ideally, I prefer magic items that are less obviously game-y and perhaps trigger the imagination of the players. I would like to see WoTC focus on magic items that are more flavor than flat bonus.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like +1...+N weapons.

What I don't like it that (a) they are treated as technology/commodity and (b) there are way too many of them around.

Also, I don't see a fundamental reason why a weapon must give the same + to both attack and damage. There could easily be a magic weapon "that strikes true" and gives a +X to hit with no damage bonus, and another "that strikes hard" and gives a +Y to damage with no attack bonus, or different +X/+Y. Heck, there should even be magic weapons that give you a penalty to hit and a bonus to damage at the same time. Variety is the enemy of boredom.

 

[delericho]

I would prefer to see them removed, but I suspect they're just too iconic to D&D for WotC to do that.

If we must have them, just giving them a bonus to damage (not to hit) would be better - this is less troublesome from a math perspective.

 

[Incenjucar]

While I doubt it'll go away, I dearly wish it would. A sword of sharpness, which acts as a +1 sword, and that's it, which has no greater version, fine (the ability to target reflex on occasion would be better). Beyond that, pass.