D&D 5E Should the +1 Sword Exist in 5E?
- Thread starter Dausuul
- Start date
Crazy Jerome
First Post
In 4E at launch, if they had made no item dependence, balanced the other math accordingly, then had optional items that went from +1 to +3 (roughly +1 per tier, conveniently)--such items would have almost totally replaced the need for the "math fix" feats.
Given that the 4E math can easily accommodate a single missing or extra +1, that would mean that characters could get by with a +1 weapon approaching the epic tier, but not unduly unbalance the game getting a +3 at around 11th. It would have effects, of course, from a tight char-op style game, but not enough that a more relaxed game couldn't easily deal. That is not quite, "give out what you want, when you want," but it is darn close--close enough for me. I can't imagine playing a traditional D&D game and not making sure everyone gets at least one magic weapon before 20 out of 30 levels, for example.
If such plusses for weapons and armor are made mundane masterwork, so much the better. You can get a lot of milage out of a maximum of +3 to hit/defend, without skewing the math too much. Then have your "math fix" feats give a bonus that does not stack with those plusses (at least on the attack bonus)--making such feats truly optional, just as the weapons are.
Note that damage could then get additional magical enhancements that could stack with any damage bonus from masterwork. Get the ultimate dwarven axe, masterwork +3, with another +3 magical damage (or +1d6 or similar) on top of whatever other more flavorful magic it possesses. +3/+6 isn't going to break anything at the point where such a weapon will be gained.
Given that the 4E math can easily accommodate a single missing or extra +1, that would mean that characters could get by with a +1 weapon approaching the epic tier, but not unduly unbalance the game getting a +3 at around 11th. It would have effects, of course, from a tight char-op style game, but not enough that a more relaxed game couldn't easily deal. That is not quite, "give out what you want, when you want," but it is darn close--close enough for me. I can't imagine playing a traditional D&D game and not making sure everyone gets at least one magic weapon before 20 out of 30 levels, for example.
If such plusses for weapons and armor are made mundane masterwork, so much the better. You can get a lot of milage out of a maximum of +3 to hit/defend, without skewing the math too much. Then have your "math fix" feats give a bonus that does not stack with those plusses (at least on the attack bonus)--making such feats truly optional, just as the weapons are.
Note that damage could then get additional magical enhancements that could stack with any damage bonus from masterwork. Get the ultimate dwarven axe, masterwork +3, with another +3 magical damage (or +1d6 or similar) on top of whatever other more flavorful magic it possesses. +3/+6 isn't going to break anything at the point where such a weapon will be gained.
KidSnide
Adventurer
+1 weapons are fine. They are simple, but not every magic items needs to be complicated. The "interestingness" of magic items is based at least as much on their rarity as the complexity. If a character has 15 magic items, each with a contingent power and a 3-paragraph history, the player won't think: "Oh, what fascinating magic items." He'll think: "How do I simplify this bookkeeping nightmare?"
The problem is +5 weapons. If the math curve of 5e is shallower (a good thing, IMO), then high plus items will have a larger relative effect. In effect, WotC needs to push the interesting effects "down market." If a +3 weapon is an extraordinarily powerful magic item (say, a reasonable choice for an 19th level fighter), then 3e's system of magic weapons ranging from +1 to an effective +10 is entirely unsuitable for a shallow power curve.
Instead, I think we should have a level system for magic items, not unlike 4e's, but where the higher plus items are given more credit for their math-altering effects. For that matter, I see no reason a +1 sword should be a level 1 item. +1 to hit and damage is a pretty decent effect. Other effects could be added on to increase the level of the magic item, but without 4e's unusual, item-proliferating restriction of "one effect per item."
Naturally, I wouldn't want to see expected wealth levels or expected numbers of magic items, but it would certainly be helpful to have a chart that told me how wealth X in magic items affects the power level of PCs. In other words, if I give each of my 7th level characters 4 level 9 items, does that mean they should be able to take on a module for 10th level characters?
-KS
The problem is +5 weapons. If the math curve of 5e is shallower (a good thing, IMO), then high plus items will have a larger relative effect. In effect, WotC needs to push the interesting effects "down market." If a +3 weapon is an extraordinarily powerful magic item (say, a reasonable choice for an 19th level fighter), then 3e's system of magic weapons ranging from +1 to an effective +10 is entirely unsuitable for a shallow power curve.
Instead, I think we should have a level system for magic items, not unlike 4e's, but where the higher plus items are given more credit for their math-altering effects. For that matter, I see no reason a +1 sword should be a level 1 item. +1 to hit and damage is a pretty decent effect. Other effects could be added on to increase the level of the magic item, but without 4e's unusual, item-proliferating restriction of "one effect per item."
Naturally, I wouldn't want to see expected wealth levels or expected numbers of magic items, but it would certainly be helpful to have a chart that told me how wealth X in magic items affects the power level of PCs. In other words, if I give each of my 7th level characters 4 level 9 items, does that mean they should be able to take on a module for 10th level characters?
-KS
kitsune9
Adventurer
I'm open to whatever magic gets done with 5e. +1 longswords are practical and easy treasure to place, gives baddies a slight advantage if you put it in their hands. If every magic was unique and special, then it adds to the design time for coming up with NPCs or encounters.
For low magic campaigns, getting rid of +1 longswords and magic economy will work best allowing for full customization for each magic item. For high magic campaigns, then if magic is everywhere, it should be practical, portable, and easy to use-thus +1 longswords make sense.
For low magic campaigns, getting rid of +1 longswords and magic economy will work best allowing for full customization for each magic item. For high magic campaigns, then if magic is everywhere, it should be practical, portable, and easy to use-thus +1 longswords make sense.
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
+1 weapons are fine and iconic. I just want some description as to what +1 means. It is guiding your hand? Swinging with extra force? Anticipating your swing?
What is it about a +1 weapon that damages creatures that are otherwise immune to mundane weapons?
Also, a +1 longsword should probably be called an Enhanced Longsword +1 or something similar. This would keep the sacred cow but move it out of the road.
What is it about a +1 weapon that damages creatures that are otherwise immune to mundane weapons?
Also, a +1 longsword should probably be called an Enhanced Longsword +1 or something similar. This would keep the sacred cow but move it out of the road.
Incenjucar
Legend
Ugggggh. "Immune to mundane" is just another way to say "no creativity allowed."
I wouldn't be opposed to +N weapons as long as they aren't built into math, making it a lot more of a boon than it is in current editions without having it as a necessity. I would also limit it at a +2 bonus AT MOST, and that would be for the last tier of the game.
Also, I think that masterwork items should also exist, but not as a flat +1 to hit as they do in 3.X editions. Instead, it should carry the same high price, but instead be a trade off such as the finely made sword being particularly well balanced for a +1 to hit, but at the expense of strength (-1 damage) or vice versa (-1 to hit, +1 damage).
Hopefully magic weapons will have a special power rather than simple math fixing. It will probably also grant a +1 to hit or damage (not both), just so people don't just instantly switch it out for masterwork weapons after using its power. Something like this:
The Ruyi Jingu Bang is a magic weapon wielded by the legendary Sun Wukong, and a fraction of his power imbues it. The weapon weighs five times the normal weight of a normal quarterstaff, hitting enemies with robust strength (+1 to damage). X times per day the quarterstaff can do one of two things: either extend to a reach of up to 25 feet, or go up a size category for a turn (without incurring penalties of wielding an inappropriately sized weapon).
Or I would be okay with magic items being built into the math, if they create a alternate ruling that grants a well-thought low fantasy style. Like fixed enhancements by level [included in the PHB weapons section rather than included in an unnecessary splatbooks like it was with Dark Sun and DMG #3962]. Also, NO MAGIC ITEMS IN PLAYERS HANDBOOK.
Also, I think that masterwork items should also exist, but not as a flat +1 to hit as they do in 3.X editions. Instead, it should carry the same high price, but instead be a trade off such as the finely made sword being particularly well balanced for a +1 to hit, but at the expense of strength (-1 damage) or vice versa (-1 to hit, +1 damage).
Hopefully magic weapons will have a special power rather than simple math fixing. It will probably also grant a +1 to hit or damage (not both), just so people don't just instantly switch it out for masterwork weapons after using its power. Something like this:
The Ruyi Jingu Bang is a magic weapon wielded by the legendary Sun Wukong, and a fraction of his power imbues it. The weapon weighs five times the normal weight of a normal quarterstaff, hitting enemies with robust strength (+1 to damage). X times per day the quarterstaff can do one of two things: either extend to a reach of up to 25 feet, or go up a size category for a turn (without incurring penalties of wielding an inappropriately sized weapon).
Or I would be okay with magic items being built into the math, if they create a alternate ruling that grants a well-thought low fantasy style. Like fixed enhancements by level [included in the PHB weapons section rather than included in an unnecessary splatbooks like it was with Dark Sun and DMG #3962]. Also, NO MAGIC ITEMS IN PLAYERS HANDBOOK.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Yes, +1 swords, and by extension, +1 weapons of all types should exist as simply well-made, but non-magical variants of normal weapons. Magic weapons have magical effects, +1 through +5 should be the new levels of "masterwork".
SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS
Explorer
More damage and a bonus to hit should be some of the powers of a magic weapon, but the common + wepons shouldn't be the default magic weapons, there is no mechanical problem with a flma sword without the + bonus.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
+1 weapons are not broken. Please do not try to fix them.
Similar Threads
