Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grydan" data-source="post: 5858883" data-attributes="member: 79401">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.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  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6680772" target="_blank">Iosue</a>  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  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=1544" target="_blank">Zustiur</a>  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.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.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.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.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.Absolutely. But math isn't magic.</blockquote>

Verification