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

[Ratskinner]

Yes, its far to historic a part of the game to be left out.

That being said, I fervently support modules and supplements that cover more flexible/weird/complicated systems of magic items/weapons.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's pretty much a guarantee that it will be in the game. However, one of the best things they could do is to offer rules to remove the need for plusses in the first set of books. Inherent bonuses have made many 4E games feel a lot more *right*.

 

[Minigiant]

Well one thing that is important is the scaling for Attack bonus with enemy Armor bonus.

If attack bonus scales with armor (4E), then we'll have the gotta have the best +X weapon thing will appear. Players and PCs will want the best thing they can get and as long as they aren't weapon focused, the lower +X items will get junked.

If attack bonus outspeeds armor (3E and earlier), the effect of +X weapons is weakened. The pluses are good but not necessary unless the game forces it. When you hit on a 4 or more, you aren't compelled to switch weapons for an extra +1 unless there is is something that encourages it in game (damage reduction BOO! jacked up iterative attacks BOO! immunities BOO!)

Never saw a game where armor scales faster than armor but I'd imagine it worse than them as equal.

 

[triqui]

Personally I would like to see the +1 to +5 bonuses be removed from the "Magic Item" venue and given its own schtick under Masterwork weapons, gaining their bonuses from the use of special materials or special properties.

Example 1 - Real World: All REAL* katanas would be considered Masterwork weapons. They are made from a highly specialized steel (Tamahagane) and an even more highly specialized forging process. Additionally, Damascus weapons would also be considered masterwork weapons.

* Katanas made of Tamahagane steel and forged properly; and NOT the cheap $300 .

Then all european swords should be as well beyond XIII century or so. The folding method used by damascus and japanese forgesmiths is used to remove the impurities of carbon in low tech steel. Vikings used this welding pattern too in the begining. Then they moved on to better ways to forge steel, and they no longer needed to do so. Japanese couldnt, becouse Japan iron and carbon is quite poor, specially when compared to Germany for example. One of the thing spaniards and portuguese sold to Japan before they blocked trade was blades.

 

[Essenti]

... the lower +X items will get junked.

This is one of the most horrible aspects of +X items... "oh looky... a new +2 Battleaxe, guess I can just chuck this here +1 in ye ole bag-o-stuff-to-sell since it's practically worthless now."

I've been playing D&D since the late 80s and +X items were boring back then and just as boring now. We tried giving them all unique names and nifty histories--and although that helped and sometimes (rarely) made people want to hold onto them a wee bit longer--generally they lost their magic as soon as some other shiny X+1 item showed up. They have existed in the game for a long long time, but they are more of a pariah than an icon. Some sacred cows only smell like sacred cows.

+X items are overtly gamist constructs, protected and hiding behind the immense joy and nostalgia a player felt upon discovering that first magic item. +X items can be safely ignored by the core rules because it is so easy to add them back in if you want them. Literally all you need to do is write +X in the name, and poof, done. Omitting +X magic items from the core rules will not ruin the game nor lessen the awe a new player feels upon finding their first magic item. Continuing the tradition of handing out +1 items as a first taste for magical loot is not something I feel the rules should continue pushing on new DMs.

Will it really bother me if they have +X items in DDN? Not at all! I can and will ignore them as I have learned to do. I like to make up my own unique items anyway.

Do I feel the game would be better served if WoTC focuses on more meaningful, unique, and interesting magical items (especially for those early levels)? Absolutely!

+X items are only a sacred cow for the sake of wanting another sacred cow. It might smell like a cow, but if I found one in my 5e back yard, I would do my best to avoid stepping in it.

MOO.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't mind +1 longswords at all. Ditto for +x weapons of all types. Also +x/+y weapons of all types where x is to-hit and y is damage.

And I'd like to see them remain as enchanted, rather than be classed under mundane-masterwork, as it makes field-testing a bit trickier:

"We have a sword, it radiates standard-strength magic when detected. It could be straight +1, or +2/+0, or +0/+2, or +0 but better vs. some specific foes, or +0 with some other extra feature...or cursed somehow. Who wants to try it out next time we're in a fight?"

If you take out all the '+' aspects then they only need to test for extras, which are often the easiest things to pull.

One thing I did do in my current campaign is sharply reduce the g.p. value of +1 (or equivalent) weapons and armour, while ramping up the costs for +3 and higher, compared to the 1e DMG values. So far it's working well in one sense: characters aren't quite so quick to "trade up" as the return on selling the old weapon is nowhere near what it was.

Lan-"me, I just steal magic swords and have done with it"-efan

 

[SkidAce]

+X items can be safely ignored by the core rules because it is so easy to add them back in if you want them. Literally all you need to do is write +X in the name, and poof, done. Omitting +X magic items from the core rules will not ruin the game nor lessen the awe a new player feels upon finding their first magic item. Continuing the tradition of handing out +1 items as a first taste for magical loot is not something I feel the rules should continue pushing on new DMs.

But hasn't it normally been the rational in these types of discussions that it is easier to ignore it if you don't want it and leave it in for those that do?

Do I feel the game would be better served if WoTC focuses on more meaningful, unique, and interesting magical items (especially for those early levels)? Absolutely!

I agree with this (and the others who have said it) 100% +1. (hehe)
But why can't we have both?

My bottomline: Some swords are nothing else than just better at combat, maybe cause they are masterwork, maybe because they were enchanted, but for some swords, that's it...that's their story.

There's a place for both. And +1, +2, whatever, is a simple basic way of modeling it.

I want swords that make fighters better fighters, I think its what they would want to.

 

[Incenjucar]

I want swords that make fighters better fighters, I think its what they would want to.

I want fighter abilities that make fighters better fighters so that when they lose their weapon they don't become over-muscular commoners.

 

[Dausuul]

I have to say, while I'm not fond of +X items, I do like the idea that +X represents a masterwork bonus rather than magic. Couple it with a cap of +2 or +3, and I could get behind that. Something like:

+1 is "normal" masterwork, what a really good smith can make by spending a whole lot of time on it.

+2 is the work of ancient smiths whose like is not known in the world today, meteoritic iron, a weapon forged in dragonfire, etc.

+3 is the handiwork of a legendary hero-smith, demigod, archangel, etc.

 

[Essenti]

But hasn't it normally been the rational in these types of discussions that it is easier to ignore it if you don't want it and leave it in for those that do?

I know what you are driving at, but I must reiterate that it is awesomely simple to add +X items to your game if you desire them. There is nothing complex about +X items, no rules require changing in any way that we know of at this time. Just plop a +X in front of the name, and then add the bonus when that item does something (be it saving throws or swinging a sword). There are few things simpler in the entirety of the mechanics than +X items.

For the benefit of those who are staunchly attached to the nostalgia of +X items, I will most likely find them when I read through my 5e books for the first time and I'll probably feel a teeny spark of nostalgia too.

Along a different line of thinking... If you dropped the <whatever> from the game would it change the fundamental Dungeons and Dragons nature of any campaign that ever existed? Would that adventure or module suddenly no longer feel like D&D? These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked to determine D&D's "sacred cows." I don't think +X magic items qualify as a sacred cow in this context. I definitely do not think it would break D&D if they went away in favor of more flavorful mechanics. I have played and DM'd campaigns that have not had a single +X item in them, and the game was still definitely D&D.

I can see wisdom in including +X items in the core books, but as I mentioned in my first post, I'll continue to ignore them like I have in the past. I just feel a little sad for new DMs who might believe they should or must use them because they appear as the most basic item on the magic item table. And also a little sad for the player who decides he must cast away his trusty +1 battleaxe because this other battleaxe might be a wee bit more magical. It would feel less gamist if magical items had discernible qualities to them that made one more preferable than the other within the game world as opposed to the meta-game +X.

I suppose this all boils down to the fact that I do not fear changes to the game so long as the game retains the D&D feel. The +X magic item mechanic hasn't provided that feel for me for a long long time.