Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 abs1nth Mar 15, 2015 16:57:44	I've decided to make a conscious effort to remove +1,2,3, etc from magic items and replace them with more unique mechanics.   I know some of you will want to say: Just slap a unique description and history to the item, that will make it unqiue. And yes, that's a good idea BUT unique flavor is not a substitute for unique mechanics. In fact, the flavor should be reflected in the mechanics.   Let's look at an example from my campaign: Oreblade  (trust me, this sounds awesome in German: "Erzklinge") It's a great sword made out of some kind of rock. Because blades are typically made from steel which is light and rock is heavy, it means the blade will be difficult to wield and require significant strength. I wanted to have a mechanic to showcase this, I thought about a bunch of things from having an attack penalty, that's decreased as your strength mod increases to having low attack rolls do less damage but eventually decided on this:   Great sword: 2d6 damage. Attack rolls of 20 or higher deal an additional 1d6 of damage.   This shows that the blade is difficult to wield due to it's heaviness and only fully displays it's might in strong, skilled hands. Since your attack modifier scales with your strength modifier, strong characters will naturally benefit more from this effect.   Some other ideas I had to replace a +1 was to increase the damage die, to deal an ability modifier as bonus damage, to add only +attack modifier to a weapon, to have a weapon give advantage against certain foes or armor...etc.   Adding +1s is lazy design. This feels more at home in an MMO but even those have more interesting statistics. Having unique mechanics makes the weapon feel special and powerful because you aren't immediately thinking about when you'll be getting the inevitable +2 to replace your +1 weapon. It also makes itemization more interesting, upgrades won't be as clear-cut.   This is not to say that no weapons should ever be +1. Sometimes your concept for a weapon is best encapsulated by simply being a generic weapon that slightly hits and cuts better. The +1 for weapons is simple as it combines the + to damage and hit. What I don't understand at all is why one would use the +1s for armor. It's more confusing to say you've found a leather armor +1 instead of saying you find a light armor, AC 12. Such a simple way to make an item feel more organic and less gamey.     Setting aside the extra time investment, are there actually folks that would defend the +1s?
#2 TenaciousJ Mar 15, 2015 17:26:33	My perspective comes as a DM who lets players have some very high starting stats.  I roll one set of numbers for the entire group to use, and I convert the lowest number to an 18.  My current group lucked out with 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 10.   The only defense I can come up with for the +1s on weapons is that they make player actions more reliable.  The more reliable player actions become, the more easily a DM can balance encounters based on the party doing a certain baseline of damage each round.  The encounters can get a bit harder offensively because the party can be expected to kill off a certain amount of the encounter at a set rate.  I feel this promotes faster combat where the PCs can feel greater achievement.   Right now I'm all for not giving out +1 armor or shields because I don't want player AC getting so high that a group of kobolds can never land a hit without a natural 20.  Advantage can only do so much for a creature with +3 to hit vs. a 21 AC.  I want my players to take some initiative to defend themselves instead of just sitting back and letting the numbers do the work for them.  +1s to AC promote slower combat because the group is generally in less danger from a great majority of monsters.  I won't even consider them until the average attack bonus of an equal CR monster will hit the plate armor and shield using fighter 50% of the time.
#3 CCS Mar 15, 2015 18:17:45	I have an illogical defense for the +1s. Or at least some of them. Now I have nothing against cool powers & back-stories, names, etc, not at all. They certainly have their place in games & stories. But ever since I started playing this game a few ages ago? I've simply gotten a thrill out of writing that +2 or +3 next to ____sword on my character sheet. I just like how it....sounds. "Long sword +2" "Broad sword +3" etc. (shrugs) I liked it then, I like it today. Its not even really important to me that it's helping me hit/damage (though in my favorite edition - 1e - the exact + IS fairly important mechanically to effect some monsters!). Oddly I don't get the same satisfaction from +1s, +4s, +5s, or +s on any other weapon. Its gotta be a +2 or +3 sword of some sort. I guess it's just one of those things that makes D&D D&D to me....
#4 Farmer42 Mar 15, 2015 18:59:42	Consistency.  Your greatsword SOUNDS good, but it's unreliable.  Likewise, +1d6 on a roll of 20 or more MIGHT help.  But a +1, both on the to hit and on the damage, ALWAYS helps.  You never have to describe it narratively as a +1 sword.  As a DM, you can say, "It's magically enchanted to be more likely to pierce armor and do increased damage.  This is represented as a +1 to hit and damage."  Your method still requires a crunch description, and is actually longer and more complicated.   The same philosophy works for armor.
#5 Brimleydower Mar 15, 2015 19:04:54	I think flat bonuses are well suited to settings where magic is prevalent. Having a generic baseline can serve to emphasize the unique items that sit as the true prize of any given hoard or collection. Handing them out like candy isn't something that interests me, granted, but I appreciate the role they serve overall.
(Reply to #5) Farmer42	Brimleydower wrote:
#7 RCanine Mar 15, 2015 21:15:45	I love this idea. WotC will probably never do it themselves though, because a "+1 sword" is a quintessential D&D thing. That's why ability scores still are still mapped to ability bonuses and we have saving throws instead of 4E NADs.   But in home games, I highly recommend it.
#8 Macv12 Mar 16, 2015 0:01:38	I'd be much, much, much more interested in unique effects than +1's. I'd much rather have a "halberd of doing this cool lightning thing" than a "halberd of 5% more cutting and 10% more hurting." Something that makes that specific weapon come to life and be a real element of the game. In fact, I'd prefer a world where "this weapon adds 1 to attack and damage rolls" is just as unique as anything else, and used to emphasize the flavor of a weapon that's only good for cut-and-dry straightforward close-quarters murder. And a world where you don't have to hand out legendary artifacts to do this; each player just has their unique signature effect that their item gives them.   I look forward to any such list, if you make it in the future.
#9 crimfan07 Mar 16, 2015 5:35:31	abs1nth wrote:
#10 manduck Mar 16, 2015 6:13:58	I actually kind of changed my thinking on this with 4E.  I used to like cool effects on magic items, until classes has powers of their own.  Now with 5E, I like what the classes can do and I'm more interested in that.  Especially consideirng magic items are more rare than in previous editions.  To me, a magic item with that simple +1 or whatever plus makes it more about what the hero can do themselves.  Adding abilities to magic items makes it more about what the item can do rather than the hero.  If a paladin uses a +1 sword, they're better at smiting, attacking, their combat magic is enhanced with better odds of hitting.  If a paladin uses a magic sword that does an extra d6 damage on an attack roll of 20 or higher, the sword is doing the cool stuff.  I prefer to put the focus on the heroes and what they can do on their own, rather than magic items with special properties.   The other problem I've encounted, DMing for a few different groups, is that people have a tendancy to forget their magic items.  If it's something like a weapon, they may remeber the special property, but not always.  My players tend to think about what their heroes can do and usually forget about magic items.  So for my group, this kind of change probably wouldn't work.  In a group that really loves finding interesting magic items, it would work better.  Though I haven't had much luck with players that remember their magic stuff.  Even I tend to be guilty of this, often forgetting about a property that my magic ring has or some other piece of magic gear.
#11 Ralif_Redhammer Mar 16, 2015 7:46:30	I like the idea of customizing and developing magic items beyond just being a +1 sword. It makes them feel much more magical and interesting. But I don’t know that I’d get away from that basic plus system. To me it’s one of the pillars of the game.
#12 QwertyAzerty Mar 16, 2015 7:57:42	abs1nth wrote:
#13 ChrisCarlson Mar 16, 2015 8:08:09	5e already does not give every magic weapon or armor a bonus. Take the frost brand, as just one example. It does a handful of cool things. It has no "plus".   So the precedent is already there.   But I think pluses also have their place. Especially, and finally appropriately, in 5e. Where a plus is actually of value. It has meaning (other than keeping you at an expected baseline).
#14 ChrisCarlson Mar 16, 2015 8:09:40	QwertyAzerty wrote:
#15 abs1nth Mar 16, 2015 9:34:38	Farmer42 wrote:
#16 ZHDarkstar Mar 16, 2015 9:41:53	Don't forget about the additional magic item properties tables on DMG 142-143. You can use those to add extra features to existing magic items without unbalancing them greatly. All of the magic items in the AL Expeditions use those tables to make each item more unique.
#17 arnwolf666 Mar 16, 2015 10:26:11	You can easily have magic weapon with no pluses, they are for bypassing resistances and immunities.
#18 ChrisTheS Mar 16, 2015 10:29:16	I was always a big fan of the random magic item generation tables in the 3e Diablo modules.  They did produce some really off-the-wall combinations, but that was part of the fun.
#19 DarkSphinx Mar 16, 2015 12:34:52	abs1nth wrote:
#20 Addramyr Mar 17, 2015 9:30:09	You did great with your sword.   I think psychologically, it's way better to avod having good stuff doing negative things. It's dull to have a weapons that is -2 to attack but +5 damage. The way you handled it is awesome : it only gives +x when you get that high on a check. Statistically it's pretty much the same (didn't calculate it and don't care, but it's alike) but psychologically, you don't say it gives a negative, it just don't give a positive in ALL cases.   Well played!   Oh, and unique items are wayyyyyyyyyyyyy better than plain +1. Even just a flamming sword +1d6 damage is more fun than a +1 sword.
#21 abs1nth Mar 17, 2015 11:12:34	Addramyr wrote:
#22 arnwolf666 Mar 17, 2015 12:26:42	I always felt that the +1d6 and +2d6 damage weapons are way overpowered and game breaking.
#23 Brock_Landers Mar 17, 2015 13:04:31	The +1 deal is "fun" for the accuracy deal, which is huge in this edition (though, less than the previous).
#24 MechaPilot Mar 17, 2015 19:57:09	abs1nth wrote: