Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
The supernaturally good sword, without other special effects, is iconically D&D.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Should the +1 Sword Exist in 5E?
- Thread starter Dausuul
- Start date
tlantl
First Post
'Should the +1 Sword Exist in 5E?' Hell yes!!!
Sacred cow or not, they are important. A slight increase in power versus what? A +1dx added damage with an orange peeling effect that is so over powered on comparison that players would whine about until you gave then one. If it makes players drool when they read about them, then they are too powerful. Boring is a good thing.
Perhaps describing the lowly +x weapon as something useful and to be desired is a better way of dealing with vanilla items than doing without them in favor of crunchy, creamy, and gooey things that will ultimately ruin your game.
3e is pretty messed up in this area, and I'd not like a repeat of the problem.
Besides, if D&DN is supposed to bring numbers bloat under control wouldn't a simple +1 be more desirable than something that adds multiple dies of damage or some other effect that results in the same thing?
Sacred cow or not, they are important. A slight increase in power versus what? A +1dx added damage with an orange peeling effect that is so over powered on comparison that players would whine about until you gave then one. If it makes players drool when they read about them, then they are too powerful. Boring is a good thing.
Perhaps describing the lowly +x weapon as something useful and to be desired is a better way of dealing with vanilla items than doing without them in favor of crunchy, creamy, and gooey things that will ultimately ruin your game.
3e is pretty messed up in this area, and I'd not like a repeat of the problem.
Besides, if D&DN is supposed to bring numbers bloat under control wouldn't a simple +1 be more desirable than something that adds multiple dies of damage or some other effect that results in the same thing?
Mercurius
Legend
Yes, and I want (and expect) to see +2, +3, +4, and +5 weapons. The key, as many have said, is somehow avoiding "magic item reliance."
In some sense the issue of +X weapons is key to 5E design because it is an example of how 5E is trying to take an approach of "Let's have our cake and eat it too," which I applaud but is rather difficult to actualize. How to have +X weapons that actually make a difference but, at the same time, don't enable magic item reliance?
One obvious solution (such as it is) would be to not allow item bonuses to stack with certain kind of feat-related or specialization bonuses, but this is one of those "gamist" rules that erodes a sense of realism. Why shouldn't a magic weapon be easier to hit with?
Another possibility that comes to mind is something that I've been playing with in my own game. What if bonuses only "un-pack" when the PC gets to a certain level? Let's say that a PC can only use a bonus at a rate of something like +1/5 levels; this means that a +5 sword in the hands of a 2nd level character would be a +1 sword; they simply don't have the experience and "magic resonance" to unlock the full power of the weapon. So it would be something like this:
Level: Bonus
1-5: +1
6-10: +2
11-15: +3
16-20: +4
21-25: +5
26-30: +6
31+: +7
Or something like that. That way there's a mechanism to keep the math from getting out of control, but the bonuses still make a meaningful--but not absolutely necessary--difference, something like 10-20% of the total attack bonus, I would imagine.
Another cool thing about this approach is that Epic level weapons, like Excalibur, could be +6 weapons, and immortal weapons, like Mjolnir, could be +7 weapons - but both only usable at that power level by PCs of the required level.
This approach also encourages less of a "magic item treadmill." One of the irritating things about 4E is that you find a magic weapon and within a few levels you've outgrown it. What if that +1 longsword that you found at 2nd level is actually a legendary +4 longsword with unlocked powers and history? This allows a PC to have an iconic magic item over many levels, and really grow into it.
Now of course this doesn't fully negate magic item reliance, but it at least balances things out a bit and avoids level-inappropriate magic items ("too powerful too soon").
On the other hand, bonuses to hit could be done away with and replaced with something interesting. Start with bonuses to damage, but then add something that effectively adds a bonus to attack, like a magic weapon that allows re-rolls of Natural 1s and 2s or a bonus d4 "wild die" added to your attack roll. The point being for some sort of mechanism that says "This helps, but isn't absolutely necessary."
In some sense the issue of +X weapons is key to 5E design because it is an example of how 5E is trying to take an approach of "Let's have our cake and eat it too," which I applaud but is rather difficult to actualize. How to have +X weapons that actually make a difference but, at the same time, don't enable magic item reliance?
One obvious solution (such as it is) would be to not allow item bonuses to stack with certain kind of feat-related or specialization bonuses, but this is one of those "gamist" rules that erodes a sense of realism. Why shouldn't a magic weapon be easier to hit with?
Another possibility that comes to mind is something that I've been playing with in my own game. What if bonuses only "un-pack" when the PC gets to a certain level? Let's say that a PC can only use a bonus at a rate of something like +1/5 levels; this means that a +5 sword in the hands of a 2nd level character would be a +1 sword; they simply don't have the experience and "magic resonance" to unlock the full power of the weapon. So it would be something like this:
Level: Bonus
1-5: +1
6-10: +2
11-15: +3
16-20: +4
21-25: +5
26-30: +6
31+: +7
Or something like that. That way there's a mechanism to keep the math from getting out of control, but the bonuses still make a meaningful--but not absolutely necessary--difference, something like 10-20% of the total attack bonus, I would imagine.
Another cool thing about this approach is that Epic level weapons, like Excalibur, could be +6 weapons, and immortal weapons, like Mjolnir, could be +7 weapons - but both only usable at that power level by PCs of the required level.
This approach also encourages less of a "magic item treadmill." One of the irritating things about 4E is that you find a magic weapon and within a few levels you've outgrown it. What if that +1 longsword that you found at 2nd level is actually a legendary +4 longsword with unlocked powers and history? This allows a PC to have an iconic magic item over many levels, and really grow into it.
Now of course this doesn't fully negate magic item reliance, but it at least balances things out a bit and avoids level-inappropriate magic items ("too powerful too soon").
On the other hand, bonuses to hit could be done away with and replaced with something interesting. Start with bonuses to damage, but then add something that effectively adds a bonus to attack, like a magic weapon that allows re-rolls of Natural 1s and 2s or a bonus d4 "wild die" added to your attack roll. The point being for some sort of mechanism that says "This helps, but isn't absolutely necessary."
Yes. +1 swords should exist.
As long as the +1 part is not a required aspect of the math.
Personally I wouldn't go with no higher than +2 weapons (+1 magic, +2 epic magic) but have +1 weapons craftable by level 10 casters. Masterwork weapons would go to the same level of enhancement a stack.
Also I'd like magic weapons to only grant a +X to damage rolls as the weapon is made supernaturally hard and sharp. Magic can somehow add mass without adding weight. Crafted weapons would grant +X to attack rolls as they are properly weighted and designed.
Protect the niche of the old mountain swordsmith hermit and all.
As long as the +1 part is not a required aspect of the math.
Personally I wouldn't go with no higher than +2 weapons (+1 magic, +2 epic magic) but have +1 weapons craftable by level 10 casters. Masterwork weapons would go to the same level of enhancement a stack.
Also I'd like magic weapons to only grant a +X to damage rolls as the weapon is made supernaturally hard and sharp. Magic can somehow add mass without adding weight. Crafted weapons would grant +X to attack rolls as they are properly weighted and designed.
Protect the niche of the old mountain swordsmith hermit and all.
tlantl
First Post
If weapon speed factors and weapon vs armor adjustments were to make a comeback, some magical effects could add to initiative rolls or they can reduce or totally ignore armor adjustments, making it easier to penetrate various armors.
If the modifiers are kept modest, there shouldn't have to be massive armor class inflation and attack bonuses can stay lower longer.
As for having a magic weapon affect dice rolling, maybe a luck blade would allow a second attack roll on a miss. Perhaps an enchantment could increase a critical threat range by one or two points.
Using armor versus weapons could keep armor classes closer together allowing low levels monsters the chance to hit upper level characters. Monster designers wouldn't need to invent a hundred high level things to put up against higher level characters.
I wouldn't have to invent reasons why these hugely destructive things haven't gone nuts and overrun my world either.
If the modifiers are kept modest, there shouldn't have to be massive armor class inflation and attack bonuses can stay lower longer.
As for having a magic weapon affect dice rolling, maybe a luck blade would allow a second attack roll on a miss. Perhaps an enchantment could increase a critical threat range by one or two points.
Using armor versus weapons could keep armor classes closer together allowing low levels monsters the chance to hit upper level characters. Monster designers wouldn't need to invent a hundred high level things to put up against higher level characters.
I wouldn't have to invent reasons why these hugely destructive things haven't gone nuts and overrun my world either.
Though I fully expect that +n weapons will show up, being one of those things that have always been in the game, I sincerely wish they'd go away.
As powerful and useful a tool as mathematics can be, I don't find math magical.
I'd be quite happy if magic items descriptions never needed to mention numbers at all.
There's no poetry in +1. No flavour, charm, or mystery.
There's no sense of immersion in a character talking about his +n weapon.
If you want a weapon that's more accurate, call it Weapon of Accuracy or something.
I especially don't want increasing values of n. They mess with the math far too much if they modify attack or defences/saves. Restricting them to damage increases only isn't as likely to break things, but it also makes something that was already boring and generic even more so.
I also don't want creatures that can't be harmed by weapons that don't have a high enough number on them (as seen in earlier editions). There are no fairy tales, fables, or myths about beasts that could not be slain by a sword unless it was +3. Three of what?
Needing to use a certain material, particular enchantment or even a single specific weapon against a creature is fine (to an extent). Occasionally needing the right person to do the job can be entertaining ("No living man can kill me." Well, then it's a good thing my party consists entirely of undead female Elves, Halflings and Dwarves now, isn't it?). Needing the right number stamped on your weapon? Boring.
I want magic items that have flavour, and which can't be mistaken for just a well-made mundane object. That beginning player FireLance mentions, well, I'd much rather their first magic item was a sword MADE OF FIRE*than The Sword of Basic Arithmetic.
* Or that lights up when goblins are near, or sings, or seems to crave battle, or any of thousands of other options that actually draw you into the world of the game, rather than the math of the game.
As powerful and useful a tool as mathematics can be, I don't find math magical.
I'd be quite happy if magic items descriptions never needed to mention numbers at all.
There's no poetry in +1. No flavour, charm, or mystery.
There's no sense of immersion in a character talking about his +n weapon.
If you want a weapon that's more accurate, call it Weapon of Accuracy or something.
I especially don't want increasing values of n. They mess with the math far too much if they modify attack or defences/saves. Restricting them to damage increases only isn't as likely to break things, but it also makes something that was already boring and generic even more so.
I also don't want creatures that can't be harmed by weapons that don't have a high enough number on them (as seen in earlier editions). There are no fairy tales, fables, or myths about beasts that could not be slain by a sword unless it was +3. Three of what?
Needing to use a certain material, particular enchantment or even a single specific weapon against a creature is fine (to an extent). Occasionally needing the right person to do the job can be entertaining ("No living man can kill me." Well, then it's a good thing my party consists entirely of undead female Elves, Halflings and Dwarves now, isn't it?). Needing the right number stamped on your weapon? Boring.
I want magic items that have flavour, and which can't be mistaken for just a well-made mundane object. That beginning player FireLance mentions, well, I'd much rather their first magic item was a sword MADE OF FIRE*than The Sword of Basic Arithmetic.
* Or that lights up when goblins are near, or sings, or seems to crave battle, or any of thousands of other options that actually draw you into the world of the game, rather than the math of the game.
Mattachine
Adventurer
Kaodi
Hero
My preference would be that +X swords either only affect damage, or, completely opposite to Mercurius, actually give diminishing returns the greater your own skills. A +5 sword would only function as a +1 sword for a 20th level fighter (and maybe +2 or +3 for a 20th level wizard).
Or, +X could just be a shorthand for the relative strength of a weapons other enchantments. Thus, a keen flaming shock sword would be +3, but offer no straight numerical bonuses to hit and/or damage.
Or, +X could just be a shorthand for the relative strength of a weapons other enchantments. Thus, a keen flaming shock sword would be +3, but offer no straight numerical bonuses to hit and/or damage.
Similar Threads
