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

[Incenjucar]

To-hit is too powerful unless weapon-users become jokes again. And the +X is still bloody boring compared to all the other ways to express "this is better than usual."

 

[Thalain]

I would actually like to see the standard +X broken up into a more versatile +X/+Y system. Why does every magical weapon have to have the same bonus to hit and to damage? We could imagine a Short Sword "of Accuracy" (+4/-1) that is great for a more stealthy character who is using attacks to disrupt while having a Heavy Mace "of Brute Force" (+0/+6) would be great for fights against a monster with damage reduction.

 

[Grydan]

They should stay, even if you don't call it a "+1 sword" anymore.

A sword sharp enough to cut through most things is just the kind of thing a warrior would ask for.

While I agree that a "sword sharp enough to cut through most things" is desirable, and has plenty of fantasy and sci-fi precedent, I don't think that +1 to accuracy in any way models that.

A more evocative way to model it would be things like sundering weapons and armour, bonuses to destroying objects and barriers, chances to sever limbs or decapitate (like old-school Vorpal weapons). All of those things say "this cuts through things better than other things". None of them require any boost to accuracy.

I don't just want to keep +1 swords, I want to make all magical swords +1. Anything beyond a +1 is a "+1, +x" or a "+1 and rider". E.g., +1, +3 Sword of Dragon Slaying. Or a +1 Sword of Fire (+2 fire damage on a hit). Cap AC at 30, and keep bonuses to a minimum.

Like others here, I feel the +1 to +5 thing is a sacred cow.
However, I'd be happy to see the +X bonus on OTHER swords removed.
That'd make +X swords special straight away.

Sure, your flametongue does fire damage, but my +3 sword hits more often, and harder.

Interesting to see two people who both desire +n weaponry who are diametrically opposed on how +n should interact with other magic.

I can claim no great familiarity with earlier incarnations of the game, but 4E works somewhat like what @Iosue describes. All magic weapons have at least a +1. Magic Weapon, the most basic enchantment, ranges from +1 to +6 with the bonus applying equally to attack and damage. Additionally, on a critically hit, you add nd6 damage. All other magic weapons are basically Magic Weapon plus extra stuff. The extra stuff can be anything from changing the crit d6 to a higher value (Vicious Weapon: nd12) to an elaborate set of properties and powers.

In such a system, the plain +n swords suffer in terms of being the most boring of all possible magic weapons. All of the other weapons have the same attack and damage bonuses, plus extra things on top to make them mechanically superior and more interesting. As all of the magic weapons have a level, the only significant advantage the plain +n weapons have over any other are that they are available at +n+1 earlier than fancier weaponry both as possible treasure following treasure guidelines, and as craftable items.

If as @Zustiur suggests, you instead separate out +n from all other magic, you remove the issue of all other magic weapons being mechanically superior. However, you now run into the issue of the +n weapons being mechanically superior to the more flavourful options.

The wider the range of magical bonuses, the more mathematically unbalanced it becomes (absent proscribed equipment, careful shepherding, etc.). Moreover, the wider the range, the less flavorful the lower end becomes, relatively. That is, if you only go to +2, +1 is pretty nifty. If you go to +10, +1 is a speed bump on your way to something better. Somewhere in between you maximize whatever flavor +N brings (whether that is a lot of flavor or a little; if we are going to have it, we'd like to have most of it).

The narrower the range, of course, the less variation you have to improve equipment straight. Some people will see this as feature, not a bug, but it is undeniably there. Presumably, the deficit will be made up by things other than +N: Trading in your +1 longsword for a +1 flaming longsword becomes the upgrade. (And then later you get a +2 longsword and have an interesting choice to make, but that is neither here nor there.)

I think by +5, you've definitely wrung ever last tiny shred of flavor out of +N. The push to go to +6 or higher seems to be merely a needless symmetry with having 20 or 30 levels. So to me, the real argument is does +3, +4, or +5 bring more to the table than what they cost in balance and stylistic hoops? (For example, having to jump through too much "equipment churn" could be a stylistic issue for some groups).

A side question is how much variety can be introduced in between +N and +N+1 that will be seen as an "upgrade" for those that like to improve their equipment on a regular basis? For example, if two clear "upgrade" tiers can be identified between weapon +1 and weapon +2 (whether glowing, flaming, secret door detection, etc.), then you can easily have 6 to 9 levels between getting the first +1 weapon versus finally replacing it with a +2.

For my tastes, the flavour-value of +n is pretty much maxed out at +1, with every further addition draining it quite significantly. At the same time, they cause significant issues in the game's math. Any flavour gained by +2 is, to me, more than offset by the mechanical costs to the system.

If it must exist, I'd like to see it as something like Weapon of Accuracy, with a +1 to attack. Improved/greater/upgraded versions of the weapons could then add rerolls instead of further bonuses. It's much easier to keep the math under control that way, while still retaining the flavourful concept of a weapon that seems to hit more often than the skill of the wielder would justify. Note that the weapon would still capture that flavour even without the +1.

I don't see a problem with +3 to +5 weapons existing as long as they are rare and very difficult and very costly for PCs to make. In the campaign that I played in the longest, which was 1e, +3 weapons were rare for characters to posses until the high teens. +4 weapons were highly prized and even rarer. I think there was only one or two +5 weapons in several years of gaming.

By the high teens, fighters would almost always hit, so the bonus really just had the effect of helping them boost their damage output. By then, magic-user and cleric spells were quite powerful, so high-plus weapons mostly just helped fighters keep up.

See, as I'm in favour of level (rather than class) being the determiner of combat effectiveness, I find the idea that high-plus weapons are there to help the fighters "keep up" distasteful.

Combine it with the idea that such weaponry should also be rare? Not my cup of tea, to say the least.

If fighters need bonuses to "keep up", those bonuses should be rolled into the mechanics of the class, not tied up in gear. Especially not gear that they might never get.

Yes

The +5 Holy Avenger with a boatload of goodies for Paladins should exist too

It's entirely possible for a Holy Avenger with a boatload of goodies for paladins to exist without any weapons needing a bonus to accuracy. In fact, removing the limit of making it a +5 weapon makes it far more flexible as a campaign tool, as it can be awarded far earlier in a campaign without automatically turning the paladin into the most accurate swordsman in the land, on top of all his other abilities.

If this is supposed to be the edition to unite them, then I want my +1 through +5 weapons.

I want my Belt of Hill Giant Strength, my Gauntlets of Ogre Power, my Rod of Lordly Might, my WAND of Wonder and all of the other iconic items.

Based on the performance of 4e, I think they are better served fixing what needed to be fixed in 1, 2 and 3 rather than roll in a bunch of things that lost so many customers to Paizo.

Nothing about the Belt of Hill Giant Strength, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Rod of Lordly Might, or Wand of Wonder require the presence of +n weaponry.

4E has +n weaponry, just like all of the other editions do. In my eyes, removing it is doing exactly what you say they should do: fixing what needed to be fixed in 1, 2, 3, and 4.

The game has got to have it's magic swords.

Absolutely.

But math isn't magic.

 

[Aenghus]

If the designers are serious about flattening the math of the game, they should take away +X items, despite the outcries this will produce. With flatter math, any bonus is exaggerated in effect, and will be too good to turn down for most players if available. And the temptation to provide larger bonuses in subsequent content will always be there.

There would still be magic swords, they just would have non-math based properties, like flaming. This reduces adjustments to character sheets, makes it much easier to balance low magic and high magic games, easier to produce encounters for a party of a particular level regardless of what items they have etc.

Unfortunately, I don't expect them to be able to bite the bullet and do this, given that nostalgia is one of their sales points.

I still hope they keep the bonus range for magic weapons as low as possible. I'm guessing +1 to +3 weapons in the end product, though I wish they didn't have to provide even that.

 

[KesselZero]

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 empathize with the overall point of your post, but I did want to jump in on this point. I immediately thought of Beowulf in the lair of Grendel's mother. The heirloom sword that Unferth gave him immediately breaks on her, but luckily, there's a giant's sword lying about in the lair that can damage the monster. Obviously the poem doesn't say "Lo and he found him a +3 broadsword, and it was good" or whatever, but he had to upgrade just to hit her.

 

[nightwalker450]

I'd like the masterwork weapons, and artifact weapons.

That way you could have:
masterwork longsword: +1 Dmg
artifact longsword: +1 Atk, +1 Dmg
flaming longsword: +1dx Fire Dmg
masterwork flaming longsword: +1 Dmg +1dx Fire dmg
artifact flaming longsword: +1 Atk, +1 Dmg, +1dx Fire dmg

 

[Grydan]

[MENTION=6689976]KesselZero[/MENTION]: I agree that that's one possible interpretation of that.

Another is optional weapon-breakage rules and an unlucky roll, combined with just picking up the nearest weapon at hand. If he had rolled a 20 instead of a 1 on his first attack, maybe his sword would still be intact and the monster slain.

In fact, scenes like that are far easier to replicate in a system where you are not dependent on your magic weapon providing a huge chunk of your attack bonus.

A fighter in 4E losing his +6 Weapon of Incredible Awesomeness and forced to use whatever weapon is at hand is really hoping that the closest weapon has a decent enhancement bonus, and that it's in the same weapon category as his usual equipment. Somewhere between 8 and 14 points of his attack bonus are tied into his regular weapon: he's a much worse combatant without it.

(Of course, under 4E rules, a giant's sword would be at least Large, if not Huge, and thus unable to be wielded by a medium PC as anything other than an improvised weapon. It'd be just as effective to pick up the nearest large rock...)

I'd prefer a system where losing your preferred weapon at max level is an inconvenience, rather than something that makes you essentially a non-factor in a fight.

 

[Argyle King]

I voted no, but that doesn't really cover how I feel.


I am ok with +1 swords existing, but only if +2 swords do not. It is my opinion that something like a +1 sword should be an amazing item. It is a sword that goes beyond what is possible with mundane craftmanship; it is magically just plain better than other swords. That ceases to be the case if +X (1,2,3,4; etc) becomes an assumption of the game. So, it is my belief that +1 swords should exist, but +2 and beyond should not.

Have swords which are made of special materials. Have swords which shoot fireballs or lightning. Have swords which glow when goblins are near the party. Have +1 swords. Have those thing, but make them special; not an assumption of the game. I hope 5E eliminates the idea of the magic item Christmas tree and/or the revolving door of magic items. Put my fate in the ability of my character first, and the ability of my items second.

Some people will argue this is boring. I disagree. For me personally, I would find it far more interesting to find an ancient sword with a rich history or the occasional magic sword which has an interesting utility power and/or ability (such as the aforementioned glowing sword) than to be constantly be trading items with each new level.

 

[KesselZero]

@KesselZero : I agree that that's one possible interpretation of that.

Another is optional weapon-breakage rules and an unlucky roll, combined with just picking up the nearest weapon at hand. If he had rolled a 20 instead of a 1 on his first attack, maybe his sword would still be intact and the monster slain.

And another is that Unferth intentionally gave Beowulf a crappy sword to try to get him killed... I do think it's more likely that he picked up a better sword than he'd originally brought down with him, but ultimately that's about the poem and not D&D.

I'd prefer a system where losing your preferred weapon at max level is an inconvenience, rather than something that makes you essentially a non-factor in a fight.

I actually totally agree with this, which is why I'm so torn on the +n issue. I love +n weapons, and think they're a big part of the game, but I do really object to weapon dependency for all the reasons you put so nicely. In addition, if we're talking literature, you could make the argument that D&D wasn't originally intended to model "Beowulf," but rather the swords and sorcery genre. Conan never had a magic sword that he depended on, and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser's weapons (Greywand and... Needle? Cat's Claw? I'm going from memory here but he used a rapier and dirk called something like that) are specifically said by Leiber to just be the names the heroes give to whatever weapon they happen to be using (though those two do always use the same type of weapon).

Ultimately I do think it would create a more dynamic and exciting game if weapons could be dropped and lost more easily, and fighters wouldn't be totally hosed if they lost their sword and had to pick up an axe from a dead orc. That's pretty badass.

Whatever the mechanic, I completely agree that +n weapons shouldn't be factored into the math. They should give an advantage, an edge, beyond the normal progression of attack vs. defense. The problem, then, is how to have a +5 weapon that doesn't totally break that math...

 

[BryonD]

But math isn't magic.

IMO this is a flawed assessment. After all being a 4th level fighter isn't prowess at arms. And, for that matter, having a +5 BAB isn't being better at fighting than any other number.

The numbers and dice exist in the real world. There is no such thing as magic in the real world. The magic and story exist inside the game and there is no such thing as BAB or "+1" inside the game.

When you start crossing these things you start to suck the life out of the experience.

A 5th level fighter doesn't know that he just picked up a "+1" compared to when he was fourth level. He just knows that over the course of his career he has continued to improve in his swordplay.

In just the same manner, when that 5th level fighter grabs a +1 sword he doesn't know that he just got a "+1" compared to before. He just knows that the sword strikes a little more true (or perhaps he doesn't even realize it, it simply happens in his ignorance). "+1" is nothing but a mechanical model of the end result of the magic.

In the exact same sense a higher level wizard doesn't know anything about d6s. He just knows he can produce a hotter flame with his fireball.

If you start talking about "magic" directly in terms of the model math then the magic is already missing.