Magic weapons as d6's - bad or good idea?

[CheddarChampion]

So I like the idea of making a simple +1 sword deal an extra 1d6 damage per hit instead of +1's to hit and damage.
1. GWM/SS is not as necessary for high damage (good IMO)
2. GWF style is better (Good IMO)
3. Criticals do more damage (Neutral IMO)
4. Emphasis on more attacks vs stronger attacks (Bad IMO)
The spell "Magic Weapon" and the invocation "Improved Pact Weapon" and the like would mirror this.
As a DM, I might implement such a change but I'm sure there are implications I haven't thought of.
What are your thoughts?

[Man_Over_Game]

While it's a very rough estimate, +1 to accuracy is worth roughly about 2 damage.

So +1 to hit and +1 to damage is worth roughly 3 effective damage.

A 1d6 is worth 3.5 effective damage.

So it would mean that magical items were slightly more powerful. However, it does also make things a lot less precise and emphasizes accuracy more, which I consider a good thing (chaos is good in battle). But do keep in mind that a lack of consistency makes DMing harder. A +2 (now a 1d8 weapon) might mean your mid-boss kills someone unexpectedly with just a good roll.

[JNAProductions]

How does this work with Wands of the War Mage?

[CheddarChampion]

Wand of the War Mage would either (1) be unchanged or (2) deal Xd4 extra damage per casting or (3) deal Xd4 extra damage per spell attack.
I think #3 would be fine except for stuff like Scorching Ray.

[LordEntrails]

Why? What is your objective? Do you want to roll more dice? Make things faster? Do you think this simplifies things or adds more drama?

Why do you want to change things?

[JNAProductions]

Why? What is your objective? Do you want to roll more dice? Make things faster? Do you think this simplifies things or adds more drama?

Why do you want to change things?

Good questions.

For weapons, I don't feel it'd break anything-a little more damage, a little less accuracy, feels about right.
For casting tools, I'd probably just leave them alone. Adding +Xd6 to a single target attack is very different from +Xd4 to a Fireball

But the good Lord Entrails does have a point-what's your goal with this?

[Pex]

Such weapons already exist sort of. Frostbrand is +1d6 cold damage and other stuff. Flamebladetongue is +2d6 damage. All you're doing is declaring to exist a weapon that is +0/+1d6. It won't break the game. It's all a matter of DM preference of what level you make such a magic weapon available to your players.

[Sigreid]

If you're concerned about the strength, maybe cranking up the damage die by one step per plus?

[Dimers]

3. Criticals do more damage (Neutral IMO)

Well, that'd make Champion fighters more popular ... :smallwink:

[CheddarChampion]

Adding +Xd6 to a single target attack is very different from +Xd4 to a Fireball

But the good Lord Entrails does have a point-what's your goal with this?

Whoops, I meant that damage would only be added to spells that require attack rolls.

Mostly I think it is cool, getting better damage but keeping the same accuracy, but I also think it would be useful as a means to make GWM/SS less necessary without nerfing those feats. I do like them after all.

The changes would also make more of a difference at high levels where martials could use a boost IMO. Not so much a power boost mind you - 1d8+7 isn't as exciting at level 15 as it was at level 8, even if you do get three attacks instead of two.

[kazaryu]

Whoops, I meant that damage would only be added to spells that require attack rolls.

Mostly I think it is cool, getting better damage but keeping the same accuracy, but I also think it would be useful as a means to make GWM/SS less necessary without nerfing those feats. I do like them after all.

The changes would also make more of a difference at high levels where martials could use a boost IMO. Not so much a power boost mind you - 1d8+7 isn't as exciting at level 15 as it was at level 8, even if you do get three attacks instead of two.

GWM isn't neccesary. neither is sharpshooter. people look at those abilities and say 'oh look, +10 damage! without considering what you give up to deal that extra damage. overall it ends up being a slight increase but nothing crazy.

that being said weapons that do bonus dice damage exist: flametongue, you wouldn't need to change enhancement bonuses, instead just give the person a flametongue weapon (or whatever element you want).

[Man_Over_Game]

GWM isn't neccesary. neither is sharpshooter. people look at those abilities and say 'oh look, +10 damage! without considering what you give up to deal that extra damage. overall it ends up being a slight increase but nothing crazy.

For those interested:


-5/+10 attack compared to a normal attack: +1.5 damage.
Bullet 1, but with Advantage: +4 damage.
Bullet 1, but with +5 to hit: +10 damage.

(These numbers are based on a character needing an 8 on the die to hit with a standard attack and deals an average of 10 damage on a hit).

A Battlemaster Fighter with Precise Attack will miss less often than a Samurai Fighter using Fighting Spirit (Although Fighting Spirit applies to all attacks in that turn).

[JNAProductions]

For those interested:


-5/+10 attack compared to a normal attack: +1.5 damage.
Bullet 1, but with Advantage: +4 damage.
Bullet 1, but with +5 to hit: +10 damage.



For that reason, a Battlemaster Fighter with Precise Attack will hit more often than a Samurai Fighter using Fighting Spirit (Although Fighting Spirit applies to all attacks in that turn).

Against what AC?

If you hit on a 15, going to hitting on a nat 20 only is a huge DECREASE in damage.
If you hit on a 20 already, who cares? Tank your hit bonus to the ground, to do more damage.
If you hit on a -1, going up to a 4 means you get a LOT more damage.

[Man_Over_Game]

Against what AC?

If you hit on a 15, going to hitting on a nat 20 only is a huge DECREASE in damage.
If you hit on a 20 already, who cares? Tank your hit bonus to the ground, to do more damage.
If you hit on a -1, going up to a 4 means you get a LOT more damage.

I edited it in right before you asked, but this is under the pretense that you need an 8 on the die to hit, which is pretty standard across all levels.

Without Advantage, the rate goes: Damage Bonus = (11 - Target on the Die)/2

With Advantage, the rate goes: Damage Bonus = 12 - Target on the Die

These rates go up the lower your normal damage-per-hit is, and go down the higher your base damage increases. So Rogues should not actually use Sharpshooter (their Sneak Attack is far too valuable at (Level/2)d6 + 1d6 + Mod), but Rangers should (as their base damage for ranged attacks is just Longbow + Mod)

[da newt]

For me removing the +x to the attack roll and adding +1d6 to the damage looks like a way to decrease the chance to hit a bit, and make everyone do more addition to figure out the damage. I don't think it will change the game mechanics or balance much, but it will probably slow things down and give everyone more time to watch people count on their fingers.

[MeeposFire]

I would not eliminate the +1 weapons and the like since it gives accuracy and some people really like precision over power and I think that is fine and also you could certainly just ADD these weapons that just add a d6 of damage. You could even make a bunch of them that deal +1d6 damage of various types and that could be fun as well.

[Gignere]

GWM isn't neccesary. neither is sharpshooter. people look at those abilities and say 'oh look, +10 damage! without considering what you give up to deal that extra damage. overall it ends up being a slight increase but nothing crazy.


In actual play in a well balanced party GWM and SS scales really well and ends up basically overshadowing any other feat. This is due to fairly easy access to bonus to hit and advantage.

[Mr Adventurer]

As a player I'd be leery of this change. With bounded accuracy, is almost impossible to get native bonuses to your regular attacks. You can increase your attack stat as you level, but ASIs come rarely and normally only mean up to +2 over what you started with (16 → 20). Proficiency increases, but very slowly and at the same rate as everyone else and monsters. Getting magic bonuses in between these things are a big part of feeling like you're 'getting better' at attack rolls - even though you get other class features in between.

[stoutstien]

As a player I'd be leery of this change. With bounded accuracy, is almost impossible to get native bonuses to your regular attacks. You can increase your attack stat as you level, but ASIs come rarely and normally only mean up to +2 over what you started with (16 → 20). Proficiency increases, but very slowly and at the same rate as everyone else and monsters. Getting magic bonuses in between these things are a big part of feeling like you're 'getting better' at attack rolls - even though you get other class features in between.

One interesting consequence of removing static bonuses that hit from magical items is it empower some player choices more. Forge clerics, kensei monks, artificer, and spells like magial weapon now have abilities that stay relevant no matter how long you play the character.
So those little stack bonuses are still around these have an opportunity cost which IMO makes for a better game.

[Mr Adventurer]

One interesting consequence of removing static bonuses that hit from magical items is it empower some player choices more. Forge clerics, kensei monks, artificer, and spells like magial weapon now have abilities that stay relevant no matter how long you play the character.
So those little stack bonuses are still around these have an opportunity cost which IMO makes for a better game.


Sure, but that's why I specified "native bonuses to your regular attacks". I guess I would see it this way: do Artificers, Clerics, and spellcasters with Magic Weapon etc. in general NEED to be any more relevant? By playing these classes aren't they already the most powerful in the game?

I'll give you Kensai - but suspect they would prefer to have the bonuses to hit the same way the warrior classes that I am thinking of would.

[Theodoxus]

So I like the idea of making a simple +1 sword deal an extra 1d6 damage per hit instead of +1's to hit and damage.
1. GWM/SS is not as necessary for high damage (good IMO)
2. GWF style is better (Good IMO)
3. Criticals do more damage (Neutral IMO)
4. Emphasis on more attacks vs stronger attacks (Bad IMO)
The spell "Magic Weapon" and the invocation "Improved Pact Weapon" and the like would mirror this.
As a DM, I might implement such a change but I'm sure there are implications I haven't thought of.
What are your thoughts?

I went in the opposite direction based on a recommendation on a thread here (sorry, I don't recall the thread nor the proponent) - but the idea was instead of monk unarmed damage going up, to instead grant a +1 bonus to hit and damage every time the die would normally increase. The damage stayed statistically the same, but granted more accuracy to monks (something sorely missing, since there are no magical "brass knuckles" for UA attacks.


While it's a very rough estimate, +1 to accuracy is worth roughly about 2 damage.

So +1 to hit and +1 to damage is worth roughly 3 effective damage.

A 1d6 is worth 3.5 effective damage.

So it would mean that magical items were slightly more powerful. However, it does also make things a lot less precise and emphasizes accuracy more, which I consider a good thing (chaos is good in battle). But do keep in mind that a lack of consistency makes DMing harder. A +2 (now a 1d8 weapon) might mean your mid-boss kills someone unexpectedly with just a good roll.

If I were going this route, I'd propose to keep the +X to hit, but increase the damage die by 1 step per X. So, a +1 Shortsword would deal 1d8, a +3 Shortsword would deal 1d12. Anything beyond a d12 (+1 greataxe, for instance) would convert to d4's, so a +1 greataxe would deal 3d4; a +2 great sword would deal 4d4...) though this would make crit fishing builds particularly powerful...

[stoutstien]

Sure, but that's why I specified "native bonuses to your regular attacks". I guess I would see it this way: do Artificers, Clerics, and spellcasters with Magic Weapon etc. in general NEED to be any more relevant? By playing these classes aren't they already the most powerful in the game?

I'll give you Kensai - but suspect they would prefer to have the bonuses to hit the same way the warrior classes that I am thinking of would.

One big difference is in 5th edition bonuses they hit way more powerful than previous renditions. ACs are generally much lower to a point where outside the most extreme cases, like a level one party going after tiamat, the standard chance of hit is above %50.
Personality think I would have leaned towards more of a DR system vs higher ACs but 5e characters have amazing burst potential so it would be a lofty endeavor.

[Chronos]

This isn't 3rd edition any more. Nothing says that magic weapons have to have a +1. In fact, nothing says that magic weapons have to have anything better about them at all, beyond being magic. You could take a plain ordinary sword, roll or pick one property off of the magical item minor property tables, and produce a perfectly serviceable magic weapon. If you want to make an even better magical weapon, you can say that it has +1 to attack and damage, or you can say that it does +1d6 damage... or you could say that it gets advantage vs. a certain type of enemy, or that it can never be stolen from its rightful owner, or any other sort of bonus you like.

[kazaryu]

In actual play in a well balanced party GWM and SS scales really well and ends up basically overshadowing any other feat. This is due to fairly easy access to bonus to hit and advantage.

eh, you might be right about it being optimal. but that doesn't make it neccesary.

now, i'll also point out that there are eseentially 2 damage feats for melee: GwM and PaM.

polearm master is going to scale better if you get on-hit damage increases whereas GwM scales better with to-hit bonuses (as you implied).

also obviously the AC of what you're fighting comes into play.

basically the way it would work is there's going to be a point where the static to-hit bonuses make GwM better. and a point where the on-hit damage bonuses make PaM better. whether that point occurs in a practical area idk. and im just not feeling like doing the math right now.

[ad_hoc]

Magic weapons are entirely optional anyway and what the party will end up with is entirely dependent on the DM/game structure.

So...go nuts. It's not really a houserule. They just find a magic weapon that does +d6 damage. That's an entirely legitimate thing to find.

The only thing you're changing then are the spells. It's hard to get damage in 5e and easy to get bonuses to attack so you are increasing the power of those spells. Magic Weapon should still be fine though, the main benefit is having something to overcome resistance.