Community

Feb 24, 2013 -- 2:30AM, pauln6 wrote:

Since you can't buy or make magical items in DDN, you'd be taking a gamble on your character ever actually finding one if your DM doesn't consent but as I say, just make the in combat effects temporary for a number of rounds equal to strength bonus.  No investment in strength means you won't be inflicting high damage for long.

Pretty much this. Why would you ever build away from a stat you want on the hope that you might get something that will give it to you?

edit: as to the second point, it highlights another issue with building with the idea that you'll get some magic item - the DM might have other ideas on how those items work. Since the game isn't balanced around them, that makes magic item design a free for all.

Feb 24, 2013 -- 6:10AM, MeCorva wrote:

A lot of people are saying that with bounded accuracy, the advantage that the belt gives you is permanent like that's a good thing. I'm not sure that it is. I know that in 4e, one great thing, as dm was that no item was permanently too powerful to give a character. If my homebrew hammer of awesome turned out to be too awesome, I'd just wait a few levels and then the hammer would be balanced. That doesn't seem to be the case in next. Still, that ship has sailed. But, from the thread, I'm still confused. People are saying that magic items don't need to be balanced, and that frees us up to create new and exciting items that aren't just a flat bonus. So, we choose belt of giant strength? Is that really so new, exciting and liberating? I mean, if an item is interesting enough, I see the argument about including it even if it isn't balanced, but is giant strength that item? I mean, I get that there's some internal consistency that a belt gives you the same strength number that a giant has. Because every giant, no matter whether he works out or not, has the same strength. Which is a number you're not supposed to know as player unless you're reading the monster manual. It just seems like a inside joke and not a design. But, your mileage may vary

Yeah I don't think the challenges in encounter building system and how the monsters and DCs are set up. I think attribute items are kinda dull too, unless they're somehow injected with flavour that fits into the game - which means they don't stand on their own.

I don't think items are ever "permanently too powerful". The whole point is that the DM is able to set the crazy level on their own, which means in some games items will be "permanently too powerful," but the next game over that item won't be.

The point of all this is magic's role in a game is set by the DM and their players rather than the beastiary, but then the issue we run into is that the beastiary (as it is now) is totally inadequate because it doesn't use the same sliders and dials that make the game's customisability work.

They really, really need to make the monsters work with the game now. We've got a lot of sliders and dials for character creation and the beastiary is just a joke.

Feb 24, 2013 -- 6:43AM, Morrowner wrote:

The +x whatever belts worked fine.

The +x stat items only increased the need to maximize your own important score, because no matter how high it was, that +2 was always better. Your half-orc fighter was always stronger than if it was a human, who would always be stronger than if it was a halfling. No matter what cool magical item you find, the halfling always comes out behind, where before it was a sort of great equalizer.

Going to +x items would work really well, mechanically speaking, while there is a natural stat cap of 20.