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

[DEFCON 1]

I think they should exist... I just don't think they should be magical.

A longsword (in 4E terms) has a +3 proficiency bonus as does 1d8 damage. Why is it that there are no better crafted longswords? Would we really have these kinds of questions of the necessity of +1s if instead of trying to acquire or buy a "+1 magical longsword" if in the mundane weapons tables you had the longsword +3/1d8 and the masterwork longsword +4/1d8+1? Probably not. Same exact price as the +1 magical longsword, but its just a regular weapon that's slightly better.

The problem has always been (in my mind) the idea that magic weapons were important because they were "magical" and thus the fluff and flavor of what they were gave them this kind of importance in the game world... despite the fact that in actuality most of them were not really a big deal at all and barely better than their mundane equivalent. "Magic weapon" or "magic armor" feels like it should be a big deal... but it actually isn't when you look at it from the perspective that it just makes a +2/1d6 handaxe into a +3/1d6+1 handaxe (especially when you put it up next to a mundane +2/1d10 waraxe.)

So I'd rather see something in the mundane weapons table along the lines of the "broadsword" being +2/1d8 for like 35gp... and the "longsword" being +3/1d8+1 for 360gp. A +1 magic weapon isn't truly (fluffwise) "magical"... so lets stop treating them that way, and treat them as just better created mundane ones they probably really only are. Save the "magical" designation for those weapons and armor that do something truly special above and beyond the kind of stuff you can get on the mundane weapon table.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yes, they should exist. But they should be mundane, non-magical. A +3 longsword is a more finely crafted version of a +1 longsword, made with better materials or by a more skilled smith. The +X can be to attack only, or damage only, or both depending on how the math for the new edition works.

Flametongues anf Frostbrands and the like should be the magical swords, when they have effects that go beyond the mundane.

 

[triqui]

It depends if you want to make PC item dependant or not. If you have items that give +N to attack, AC and Saving Throws (and Stats that influence those), those items become mandatory for the players. It really doesn't matter which kind of math the game uses. +1 is better than +0, allways, and hit, not being hit, and recovering from harmful effects are just too good to ignore.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I think it is kind of funny that 3.X kind of "killed" the magic of the +n bonus.

Prior to 3rd edition, a +1 bonus to hit and damage was an incredible bonus. When you think about it, only 1 in 54 characters got a +1 or greater bonus to hit with melee weapons from Strength. Dexterity was a little better, 1 in roughly 22 characters got a bonus to hit with missile weapons.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I like the idea that there should be +X bonuses available nonmagically (to a greater extent than just masterwork). If they're going to be, I think that would be better.

 

[SkidAce]

The supernaturally good sword, without other special effects, is iconically D&D.

I agree and would xp you again but must spread around etc....

While every weapon should not be a plain +X, there is room for a "supernaturally good sword", a sword that was made sharper, deadlier, and just using it make you more skilled than other fighters.



Hence why people go to war over swords in my campaign.


.

 

[Mattachine]

Like others, I like the idea that weapons and armor with a simple bonus are not magical, but masterwork, "amazingwork", or made of special materials.

I would like to reserve really magical items for things like glowing swords (yes, make that special again), fiery swords, metal armor that has the same weight/encumbrance as leather, etc.

These items might or might not provide a +1.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

All the other abilities of swords you mention do make for great and cool and interesting magical weapons and/or items. Totally on board with that.

However, there is still room for a +1 sword. The sword "Superior" had plenty of immersion, flavor, charm, mystery*, yet was only a +1 weapon. The fighter loved it.

"Look peasant Joe, it's the wielder of Superior.....wow" (/grin)

It's ALL about how you PRESENT it. You can brag and boast about a flaming fiery weapon, or you could say "yeah it adds 1d6 how boring". It works both ways.



* well granted it was mysterious at first, but thats how most stuff works.

 

[Mercurius]

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?

I hear your overall point but this isn't an entirely fair assessment. Said creatures aren't harmed by +3 items because they're "+ three of something" but because they're magically imbued enough to bypass their defenses, which translates into game terms as "+3." Think of a creature that isn't entirely physical; it can only be hit by "+ something" weapons because only weapons of that degree of power can "touch" the subtle plane the creature exists on.

...Needing the right number stamped on your weapon? Boring.

I agree that a "+something" item on its own is rather boring, but that's before it is "fluffed up." WotC did a poor job of this, especially with 4E, but I think some responsibility lays on the DM. "You find a +3 longsword" is boring; "You find a rune-carved blade that shimmers with a bluish light as you heft it" is more interesting.

I want magic items that have flavour, and which can't be mistaken for just a well-made mundane object.

Again, I agree with you and feel that the most important thing is that magic items feel, well, magical - and this has as much or more to do with the story behind them as it does with the magical effects in terms of game mechanics. I just think that getting rid of bonuses altogether is barking up the wrong tree. That said...

I think they should exist... I just don't think they should be magical.

I agree. In my campaigns for some time now I've generally interpreted a +1 weapon to be no more or less than a very well crafted masterwork weapon. This could theoretically be pushed to +2 being a "grandmasterwork" item - something forged by a true master of the craft.

Now this would work well if one wanted to get rid of higher bonuses. Perhaps magical items are, by definition, also masterwork or grandmasterwork items because only really well-made items can "hold" the magic, otherwise they break. So all magic items are either +1 or +2 - it just depends upon the quality of the physical weapon bonus (maybe to give it a bit more range one can add a third bonus, a +3 "legendarywork" item for the truly finest crafted items).

Any other magical effect would be something other than a bonus; in other words, the bonus only has to do with how well it is crafted as a mundane item, not whether it is magical or not.

So, in other words, all magic weapons would have a +1 to +3 bonus, but that only has to do with the quality of the physical item itself. The magic is some kind of effect or power.

I'm not saying this is the way to go, but that it is one approach that might work.

 

[dangerous jack]

+1: sure, but like others I'd say these are mundane masterwork weapons. It's perfectly balanced. I'd just call it a "masterwork weapon".
+3: sure, but it's cursed. The weapon is guiding your hand, not your skill, and it doesn't give back control easily. or maybe it does, but if you let it guide you then you're granting combat advantage.