Magic Items

Why should there be a default setting for magic item rarity?

Seriously. The game can be built for FR, DL and Eberron to work, with none of the three being the default.


Thoughts?
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
There....isn't?

They've said so.  Several times.  You can not have magic items and everything works fine.  You can have magic items and everything works fine.

There is no such thing as "default"
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
There....isn't?

They've said so.  Several times.  You can not have magic items and everything works fine.  You can have magic items and everything works fine.

There is no such thing as "default"




They explicitly stated that rare and wondrous magics items are the default assumption. Using those very words.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
There....isn't?

They've said so.  Several times.  You can not have magic items and everything works fine.  You can have magic items and everything works fine.

There is no such thing as "default"




They explicitly stated that rare and wondrous magics items are the default assumption. Using those very words.



The reason is that this is the easiest based setting to work with. Since magic items aren't important, and do not have a set drop rate (to use an mmo terminology). This can free up the DM to use high and low magic, because (supposedly) the addition of magic items to the party will not be mathematically important for them to remain in balance against the monsters that they will be facing. I don't know how they will do this, my personal hope is that they will do away with +'s to 'to hit' and 'to damage' and replace them with interesting effects. I feel like the bounded accuracy system opens up the door for high and low magic styles that do not specifically require PC's to have a certain amount of bonuses coming in, vis-a-vis magic arms and armor, to keep them powered up.
Show
I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
What Clan are you? There is no equality. There exists only equity.
...my personal hope is that they will do away with +'s to 'to hit' and 'to damage' and replace them with interesting effects.



You will be disappointed it was stated in a recent podcast featuring the DM seminar at gen con that + bonuses are "iconic" D&D. they will most certainly exist in one form or another.  thetome.podbean.com/2012/08/18/ddnext-pa...

I'm not going to listen to this again so I can't say exactly where they mention it but its near the end of the first hour or a little after.

There....isn't?

They've said so.  Several times.  You can not have magic items and everything works fine.  You can have magic items and everything works fine.

There is no such thing as "default"




They explicitly stated that rare and wondrous magics items are the default assumption. Using those very words.



The reason is that this is the easiest based setting to work with. Since magic items aren't important, and do not have a set drop rate (to use an mmo terminology). This can free up the DM to use high and low magic, because (supposedly) the addition of magic items to the party will not be mathematically important for them to remain in balance against the monsters that they will be facing. I don't know how they will do this, my personal hope is that they will do away with +'s to 'to hit' and 'to damage' and replace them with interesting effects. I feel like the bounded accuracy system opens up the door for high and low magic styles that do not specifically require PC's to have a certain amount of bonuses coming in, vis-a-vis magic arms and armor, to keep them powered up.



Bounded accuracy really makes it so that there just isn't much difference in the math between a world with common magic items, no magic items, or a point in between.

So, don't have a default, at all.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome


So, don't have a default, at all.



I can almost entirely get behind this, as I think we're both trying to reach the same end state. The only thing that needs to be kept default is the economy of magic items. In 3e and 4e (I don't know about 2e or 1e), magic items were bought and sold as a matter of keeping up with the game balance, which created very awkward situations in campaigns where the magic item distribution was skewed away from standard, either light or heavy. What we want is a system that can accommodate all of our gaming and story-telling needs.

This, I feel, is best served by starting with a mechanical assumption of no magic, and then adding magic to whatever extent the DM wishes. In this sense, since magic distribution is DM Fiat, there is essentially no default, because the real default is DM choice. The best thing that the dev team could do is tell their interns to rewrite the paragraph on magic item occurrance rates to just say "DM decides"

As for + items being in the game because of tradition. I understand their decision and I'm not terribly disappointed. I'd rather see my table happy than nit-pick about how + items slightly skew bounded accuracy.
Show
I am White/Black
I am White/Black
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I'm both orderly and selfish. I act mostly for my own benefit, but I respect and help my community - Specially when it helps me. At best, I'm loyal and dedicated; at worst, I'm elitist and shrewd.
What Clan are you? There is no equality. There exists only equity.
+Items could be in the game without disturbing bounded accuracy, though. Just make the bonus be for damage, but not accuracy.


Once you have that, it's just a matter of spelling out in the dmg how magic items effect campaigns, in general, and what sort of consequences you might have by making it Low Magic, or High Magic, or no magic.

I also really wish that they'd make some of  the language of the game make those of us who don't believe in god-DMs feel welcome. Just say "group" instead of "DM" occassionally, guys.

Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Why should there be a default setting for magic item rarity?

Seriously. The game can be built for FR, DL and Eberron to work, with none of the three being the default.


Thoughts?



Something has to be default.  Establishing a default allows people to build their own games without having to build their own rarity tables.  The individual settings can modify the default magic item rarity if needed.
There....isn't?

They've said so.  Several times.  You can not have magic items and everything works fine.  You can have magic items and everything works fine.

There is no such thing as "default"



There's no such thing as "core."  When they put in the magic item module, they will need to put it in with some sort of standard in place, which will by definition be the "default" for magic items. 
+Items could be in the game without disturbing bounded accuracy, though. Just make the bonus be for damage, but not accuracy.



That's up to the DM, not the game.  +x items at the lower end of the scale don't mess up bounded accuracy too much.  They become what +x items should have been the entire time.  A bonus on top of whatever you get. 




They have said that they are designing the math around not having magic items, so at least in that sense, that is the default.

Personally, I don't think it will work unless magic item power is toned down from that of previous editions.
Magic items belong to the world system being played, not in core.   What they are proposing is proper for Forgotten Realm only, and is not proper for other campaign settings.  In Eberron there had better be a shopping list of  + items at your corner shop for the simple reason magic IS mundane in that setting and bought and sold as common as a loaf of bread. The problem is if they do not consider that in the math system you could end up with Eberron being easy mode.   In 4e they tell you how to adjust the game to account if playing Dark Sun.  
Magic items belong to the world system being played, not in core.   What they are proposing is proper for Forgotten Realm only, and is not proper for other campaign settings.  In Eberron there had better be a shopping list of  + items at your corner shop for the simple reason magic IS mundane in that setting and bought and sold as common as a loaf of bread. The problem is if they do not consider that in the math system you could end up with Eberron being easy mode.   In 4e they tell you how to adjust the game to account if playing Dark Sun.  



There can't be a shopping list of + items at the corner shop for the simple reason that there is this little thing called.........bounded accuracy.  There can be a shopping list of everything else, though.
If I'm in Eberron, I'm not shopping for +1 swords.  I'm shopping for armor with an Earth Elemental bound to it to allow me to gain stone-like defenses a few times per day.  I'm shopping for a set of horseshoes that let my mount run on the air.  I'm shopping for leftover artillery shells from the Last War that unleash wide-area Evard's Black Tentacle effects, to drop in the wake of my retreats.

Who needs a +1 sword?
If I'm in Eberron, I'm not shopping for +1 swords.  I'm shopping for armor with an Earth Elemental bound to it to allow me to gain stone-like defenses a few times per day.  I'm shopping for a set of horseshoes that let my mount run on the air.  I'm shopping for leftover artillery shells from the Last War that unleash wide-area Evard's Black Tentacle effects, to drop in the wake of my retreats.

Who needs a +1 sword?


Just about anybody that uses weapons or armor would be happy to have a +1 item. With the assumption of no magic items going into the math, that +1 stays relevant for most of your adventuring career. Of course in Eberron a bland +1 item won't hold much interest for long given the prodigious nature of magic in that setting, but that's where things like a Deneith Plate or Cannith Crossbow come in. Items with a + and a special ability.  
Why should there be a default setting for magic item rarity?

Seriously. The game can be built for FR, DL and Eberron to work, with none of the three being the default.


Thoughts?



Something has to be default.  Establishing a default allows people to build their own games without having to build their own rarity tables.  The individual settings can modify the default magic item rarity if needed.



Not having a default does not necessitate creating your own rarity tables. The suggestion that it does is absurd, as is the statement that something has to be default.

It is very easy to present three (or more) equal options and say, pick one.



There can't be a shopping list of + items at the corner shop for the simple reason that there is this little thing called.........bounded accuracy.  There can be a shopping list of everything else, though.



Eberron (and many home games)  will have shops with all manner of magic items, including +X items. the game needs to account for that.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
 

Eberron (and many home games)  will have shops with all manner of magic items, including +X items. the game needs to account for that.



No, the game doesn't need to account for it.......and won't.  With bounded accuracy, +x items are for the DM to decide to include or not.  If the DM includes them, HE needs to account for it.  Also, unless you are one of the game designers (and you're not), then you cannot say with certainty that Eberron WILL have shops with +x items.     
in an ebberon world with low +x items, why not just not have that particular magic item available?
I really, really wish they would integrate Magic Items into the actual "character progression" in a completely ignorable fashion.  By which I mean, I'd love to see Magic Items that "replace" feats or spells or whatever by default, so that the guy who wants to be a Christmas Tree, and the guy who wants to be The Naked Chef Fighter can bother operate in a "balanced" fashion at any table, without having to put special rules in place to make one or the other more or less powerful.

Then make it VERY CLEAR (because, dear god, if they didn't...) that the DM can give out magic items above-and-beyond what the characters would normally get (ie without replacing or "costing" character resources) as much as they want - it's just going to be the same as giving out "free" feats or spells.


That?  That'd be an all-of-my-money magic item system, right there.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
in an ebberon world with low +x items, why not just not have that particular magic item available?



Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.  It should not be forced on a DM, regardless of world.  You can have a very high magic world with items for sale in every corner 7-11 without selling +x items.  The lack of +x items as default for Eberron won't change what Eberron is.  The DM is the one to decide whether +x items will be in his game.
in an ebberon world with low +x items, why not just not have that particular magic item available?



Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.


But not nearly as potent as it is in 4e.

Accuracy was strong in 4e, specifically, largely because of all the myriad ways to get damage bonuses for your character, which dramatically amplified the effectiveness of a +1 to hit.

When you're dealing 1d8+4 damage, and your choice is between a +1 Flaming longsword and a +2 Longsword (assuming 3e-style magic enchantment valuation, rather than 4e-style), then the choice becomes much more reasonable. 

Accuracy isn't the only thing that accuracy is affected by.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
in an ebberon world with low +x items, why not just not have that particular magic item available?



Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.


But not nearly as potent as it is in 4e.

Accuracy was strong in 4e, specifically, largely because of all the myriad ways to get damage bonuses for your character, which dramatically amplified the effectiveness of a +1 to hit.

When you're dealing 1d8+4 damage, and your choice is between a +1 Flaming longsword and a +2 Longsword (assuming 3e-style magic enchantment valuation, rather than 4e-style), then the choice becomes much more reasonable. 

Accuracy isn't the only thing that accuracy is affected by.

NO!

+1 in 4E was nothing. solely because they EXPECT you to have it. you get magic items solely to keep up with the encounters. at least now your magic items actually FEEL MAGICAL

in an ebberon world with low +x items, why not just not have that particular magic item available?



Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.


But not nearly as potent as it is in 4e.



It wasn't EXTRA, though.  In 4e +x was required, unless you got inherent bonuses from the DM.  Therefore, that +1 sword you got in 4e was effectively, +0, as was the +5.  Only in bounded accuracy where the +x isn't included in the math will it actually be potent.

Excepting of course a game where the DM gave out +x items in 4e ahead of the curve.  If you were at a point in the game where +2 was required and the DM gave you a +3, you effectively had a +1 weapon.    

Edit:  Ninja'd, but my post was better ;)

Magic items belong to the world system being played, not in core.   What they are proposing is proper for Forgotten Realm only, and is not proper for other campaign settings.  In Eberron there had better be a shopping list of  + items at your corner shop for the simple reason magic IS mundane in that setting and bought and sold as common as a loaf of bread. The problem is if they do not consider that in the math system you could end up with Eberron being easy mode.   In 4e they tell you how to adjust the game to account if playing Dark Sun.  



There can't be a shopping list of + items at the corner shop for the simple reason that there is this little thing called.........bounded accuracy.  There can be a shopping list of everything else, though.


    Why do we have bad ideas justified  by other bad ideas?

    We have bounded accuracy so that monsters can be re-used, when the players are wanting new and tougher monsters.  And the players want these stronger weapons too.  This all makes no sense.

    D&D has routinely been a game of lots of magic.  We are just reducing the appeal of the game when the player will find that there is nothing to do with all that treasure he is looting.
in an ebberon world with low +x items, why not just not have that particular magic item available?



Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.


But not nearly as potent as it is in 4e.

Accuracy was strong in 4e, specifically, largely because of all the myriad ways to get damage bonuses for your character, which dramatically amplified the effectiveness of a +1 to hit.

When you're dealing 1d8+4 damage, and your choice is between a +1 Flaming longsword and a +2 Longsword (assuming 3e-style magic enchantment valuation, rather than 4e-style), then the choice becomes much more reasonable. 

Accuracy isn't the only thing that accuracy is affected by.

NO!

+1 in 4E was nothing. solely because they EXPECT you to have it. you get magic items solely to keep up with the encounters. at least now your magic items actually FEEL MAGICAL



Of course.  But the treadmill effect was so large and significant due to the way damage worked, such that any accuracy bonus at all was incredibly highly valued, and properly so.

The point behind bounded accuracy is that getting a +1 sword represents a true increase in your accuracy.  However, we should not fear the +1 to attack as far as unbalancing the system, because the damage side is significantly different this time around.  Some people are objecting to +1 swords because they think they violate bounded accuracy (they don't), but others are objecting to +1 swords because they were so strong in other editions.  Conflating the two should be avoided, this was my only point.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
 

Eberron (and many home games)  will have shops with all manner of magic items, including +X items. the game needs to account for that.



No, the game doesn't need to account for it.......and won't.  With bounded accuracy, +x items are for the DM to decide to include or not.  If the DM includes them, HE needs to account for it.  Also, unless you are one of the game designers (and you're not), then you cannot say with certainty that Eberron WILL have shops with +x items.     



There's no need whatsoever for me to be a designer to say that. I know Eberron, and the new books could explicitely say there are no +X items, and the entire Eberron fanbase would say, "Yes, there are."

The game needs to account for that. If it doesn't, the game will suffer for it.

And Mearls has already said that the game will account for high magic play, so you're objectively wrong there. The only thing that's up in the air is the format, and emphasis.

And again, there's absolutely no need for any one approach to be "default."



Excepting of course a game where the DM gave out +x items in 4e ahead of the curve.  If you were at a point in the game where +2 was required and the DM gave you a +3, you effectively had a +1 weapon.    





Which made more of a difference than having a +1 weapon does in Next.



Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
It wasn't EXTRA, though.  In 4e +x was required, unless you got inherent bonuses from the DM.


You can opt-out of something that is there, you cannot opt-in to something that is not there that it was not designed for.   Dark Sun telling you how to adjust the system to deal with no magic is not a flawed system, it is the very definition of a modular system.




There's no need whatsoever for me to be a designer to say that. I know Eberron, and the new books could explicitely say there are no +X items, and the entire Eberron fanbase would say, "Yes, there are."



You're talking out of your arse on this one.  In a game with bounded accuracy, the entire fan base would KNOW that +x items are a special case and would not just throw them in because it is Eberron.  Your way is not the one true way, buddy.  

The game needs to account for that. If it doesn't, the game will suffer for it.



Batting zero.  The game doesn't need to account for it at all.  The DMs who decide to put them in regardless of bounded accuracy need to account for it. 

And Mearls has already said that the game will account for high magic play, so you're objectively wrong there. The only thing that's up in the air is the format, and emphasis.



  You're too rich.  Please (and I know you never will) show me where it says objectively that high magic = +x items. 




Excepting of course a game where the DM gave out +x items in 4e ahead of the curve.  If you were at a point in the game where +2 was required and the DM gave you a +3, you effectively had a +1 weapon.    





Which made more of a difference than having a +1 weapon does in Next.






And of course relied on a DM not knowing what he was doing or was just being kind.  If the DM gave you items as he was supposed to, you'd be playing with +0 items for your entire 4e career. 
D&D has routinely been a game of lots of magic.  We are just reducing the appeal of the game when the player will find that there is nothing to do with all that treasure he is looting.



Personally I tend to prefer lower availability settings, though I've played in a few with Magic-Marts.

However, an interesting thing I've noted about players is that they can always find interesting things to do with gold. In 4e, and to a lesser extent 3e, a vast majority of the gold that players acquired was offloaded on to handy merchants and wizards in exchange for magical items of varying degrees of power.

Lately, however, I've been playing the older editions: 1e, 2e, Basic, and various retro-clones and I've noticed something interesting in these. The progression curve is similar to that of 5e. Once you've bought your basics there's little need for upgrades and you'll usually come across a magic sword or what-have-you that you can use yourself in combat should you require it. These leaves you with very few "mundane" ways to spend money and so you start looking for other ways to spend it: on drinks, on bars, on building and fortifying castles. On bribing nobles and controlling kingdoms.

It's alright to say "There's nothing to do" in an MMO, where you can only purchase what's available. But in a tabletop game with an imaginative player the sky is the limit.
This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic.  +1 = +5% in both.  Period.  That's it.

The issue here is barely even related to bounded accuracy.  With or without bounded accuracy, there is a certain expectation of your attack bonus at each level.  In 4e you were supposed to maintain this expectation through a combination of:

1) Half-level bonus
2) Enhancement bonus from +X weapon
3) Attribute increases
4) Expertise

Note that from 1-30, you gain +15 from (1), +6 from (2), +4 from (3) and +3 from (4), leaving a deficit of 1 to get from other sources (not hard) to stay at parity.

The problem was that you could get the +1 from a lot of different sources and it frequently stacked.

You can get +1 from starting with a post-racial 20 in your attack stat.
You can get +1 from taking a stat-boosting ED.
You can get +1 (or even +2 or +3) as an item bonus from some items.
You can get +1 from various class feats.
You can get +1 to implement attacks from a superior implement.
You can get +1 from choosing a weapon with a +3 proficiency bonus instead of +2.
... and so on.

A reasonably optimized character might hit on a 4+; a normal character that just maintained pretty much parity might hit on a 10+ or even a 12+.

Bounded accuracy will have exactly the same problem if you start introducing various ways to get a to-hit bonus, plus the problem that accuracy is no longer "bounded".

What they should actually do is just tie accuracy to level (on a slow progression, say +3 or +4 over 1-20, and identical for every class), and give you NO WAY to get a bonus to-hit other than Advantage.  None.  Zip.  Nada.

Accuracy is a terrible way to differentiate characters, because no one likes missing and it's incredibly difficult to make sure no one can get a much higher accuracy than anyone else.  There is plenty of design space left.  Use it.
This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic.  +1 = +5% in both.  Period.  That's it.



This is wrong.  That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy. 

The issue here is barely even related to bounded accuracy.  With or without bounded accuracy, there is a certain expectation of your attack bonus at each level. 



This is also wrong.  Since bounded accuracy doesn't include +x weapons, the issue with +x weapons impacts bounded accuracy to a great degree. 
 
In 4e you were supposed to maintain this expectation through a combination of

1) Half-level bonus
2) Enhancement bonus from +X weapon
3) Attribute increases
4) Expertise



So what.  The issue is 5e, not 4e. 

Bounded accuracy will have exactly the same problem if you start introducing various ways to get a to-hit bonus, plus the problem that accuracy is no longer "bounded".



They aren't.  They have said that they will not be doing this, but will include +x weapons for those DMs who want to use them.  Those +x weapons will be outside bounded accuracy and will be a true bonus to hit.   You are also mistaken in your claim that accuracy will no longer be bounded with the inclusion of +x weapons.  As far as the game is concerned, the bounded range will be absolute.  The game is not responsible for DMs who add in +x weapons.




This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic.  +1 = +5% in both.  Period.  That's it.



This is wrong.  That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy. 


Mathematically incorrect.  Bounded accuracy, itself, doesn't change the value of +1 to hit.  The damage output that is available does, and that's the only thing that does.

It's entirely likely that +1 is going to be less powerful in Next than it is in 4e, to use an example.  And 4e doesn't have bounded accuracy in the slightest.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Those +x weapons will be outside bounded accuracy and will be a true bonus to hit. 


They are a true bonus to hit, yes, but that does not mean that it's "outside" bounded accuracy. 

PCs do get accuracy increases as they level.  Bounded accuracy is on the DM side, not the player side.  Reread the article again if you don't believe me - it's quite clear.  They say this outright. 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic.  +1 = +5% in both.  Period.  That's it.



This is wrong.  That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy. 


Mathematically incorrect.  Bounded accuracy, itself, doesn't change the value of +1 to hit.  The damage output that is available does, and that's the only thing that does.



I didn't say it was greater than 5%.  I said the different system makes that same 5% more valuable.  You will hit more often with that +1 in a bounded system than you will in any other system of D&D to date. 

This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic.  +1 = +5% in both.  Period.  That's it.



This is wrong.  That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy.



No, it isn't.  Until you hit on a 2+, to-hit doesn't have diminishing marginal returns.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
They aren't.



They're wrong and/or lying.  There will be all kinds of bonuses to hit available, from feats, spells, abilities, what-have-you.

You are also mistaken in your claim that accuracy will no longer be bounded with the inclusion of +x weapons.  As far as the game is concerned, the bounded range will be absolute.  The game is not responsible for DMs who add in +x weapons.



You realize you contradicted yourself in the span of 3 sentences, right?
I didn't say it was greater than 5%.  I said the different system makes that same 5% more valuable.  You will hit more often with that +1 in a bounded system than you will in any other system of D&D to date.



No, you won't.  Unless you already hit on a 2+, that +1 will be the difference between a hit and a miss precisely 5% of the time in any system.


No, it isn't.  Until you hit on a 2+, to-hit doesn't have diminishing marginal returns.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />



A +1 to hit against a range of armor classes that go from 10 to 65 is less effective overall than a +1 to hit against a range of armor classes that range from 10 to 21.  With the first range, the +1 will not help in the vast majority of the cases.  With the second, it will help in all cases.  If the range is 10 to 25, that +1 will still help against many, many, MANY more monsters than it will against the first range.

They're wrong and/or lying.  There will be all kinds of bonuses to hit available, from feats, spells, abilities, what-have-you.



What are Friday's lottery numbers while you have your psychic abilities out? 

You are also mistaken in your claim that accuracy will no longer be bounded with the inclusion of +x weapons.  As far as the game is concerned, the bounded range will be absolute.  The game is not responsible for DMs who add in +x weapons.



You realize you contradicted yourself in the span of 3 sentences, right?



How is their range of armor classes affected by a DM who puts a +x weapon into the game?  Those armor classes don't change.  They remain bounded identically with or without the weapon.

A +1 to hit against a range of armor classes that go from 10 to 65 is less effective overall than a +1 to hit against a range of armor classes that range from 10 to 21.



In 4e you never actually fight monsters within that full range at any given time, obviously.  If you do fight a monster that's significantly below-level than nothing matters because you'll just roflstomp them regardless.

How is their range of armor classes affected by a DM who puts a +x weapon into the game?  Those armor classes don't change.  They remain bounded identically with or without the weapon.



There's also +x armor.


In 4e you never actually fight monsters within that full range at any given time, obviously.  If you do fight a monster that's significantly below-level than nothing matters because you'll just roflstomp them regardless.



That doesn't matter.  You DO fight monsters with much higher armor classes than you will find in the bounded system.   



There's also +x armor.



Not on monsters. 
That doesn't matter.  You DO fight monsters with much higher armor classes than you will find in the bounded system.



But you only do so when you have a commensurate attack bonus.  That's how the system works.  As long as you aren't already hitting on a 2+, a +1 to-hit will be the difference between success and failure precisely 5% of the time.  And in an actual campaign you will almost never fight monsters that you hit on a 2+, and if you do it's not a real encounter anyway because you pretty much autowin.

Not on monsters. 



Unless, you know, the heros get the +X armor by looting it off of the monsters they kill.  But no, that's unheard of.
Sign In to post comments