Community

Not wanting to sound rude, but we already considered a lot of combinations. I only chose this 1,5 pattern because it spreads the bonuses out a little more smoothly.
Remember, the idea was to make enhancement bonuses pretty, but not necessary, and remove the Expertise and Defenses feats, all this while keeping the system as simple as possible.

Yes, the PCs will have an extra +1 to damage per tier that wasn't there before. Is that really so big a problem that it justifies having to keep track to two separate lists?

If you take a look at what was done, nothing really changes. The numbers end up being exactly the same as PCs of the same level, with level appropriate gear, all with Expertise and Defenses feats.

It's been months since we've started using these house rules and not only do I use them in my own games, but anyone from the group will also use them whenever they DM.

Here's a quick recap of the rules just to make clear what we do:

Removal of all feats of generic +1 to attack roll or to all non-AC defenses.
(Weapon Expertise, Implement Expertise, Paragon Defenses, Robust Defenses etc)
Feats that grant damage bonuses are still available as normal.

Heroic tier magic items have a +1 enhancement bonus
Paragon tier magic items have a +2 enhancement bonus
Epic tier magic items have a +3 enhancement bonus
All effects that depend on the item's enhancement bonus, including but not limited to: item level, price, crit dice, and many properties, instead depend on twice the enhancement bonus.
Enhancement bonuses just add to the damage roll as normal

All characters receive the following at levels 1,5,11,15,21,25:
+1 to all attack rolls
+1 to all defenses
+1 to all damage rolls

Nov 22, 2009 -- 6:00AM, beholdergaze wrote:

I've read through the thread and can't seem to find an answer to a question I have: Why go with a bonus at 1,5,11,15... instead of 1,6,11,16.. as it matches the magical item bonuses? Level 5 magical items tend to be +1 and this proposed system has the +2 bonus at level 5.

I did this as a personal choice but with these reasons to back it:
It's not guaranteed that every character in the party will get a +2 weapon by the time they're level 6. Since these "player bonuses" happen automatically, I found it best to keep the bonuses on odd numbers to avoid drastic jumps in bonuses as it wouldn't overlap with the half-level bonus.

Also, what happens if you do not allow magical items the tier bonus of +1,+2,+3 and just rule that the magical item crit bonus' apply at the rate of per plus? For example, +1d6 at character level 1-5, +2d6 at character level 6-10, etc. Therefore, a character could find a sword at level 3, already have the +1 through his character instead of the item, and when he gets to level 6 (or 5 for whatever reason) he could then immediately apply the inherent +2 and +2d6 on crit.

That isn't a bad idea at all. I figure we chose the whole "effects based on double the enhancement" for the same of simplicity.
I've seen other variations of this where the number of crit dice isn't based on the weapon but the character level. If you wanted to use that, just add a crit dice for each "player bonus" granted at the appropriate levels.

As for not even having enhancement bonuses whatsoever, that wouldn't be too hard to work with. Just give players access to the Expertise feats again in case they need them and base crit dice on character level (as mentioned).
Now for me, I prefer weapons have a small role in attack and damage bonuses than none at all, but that is my personal preference and in no way are the rules limiting you to that.

Nice. I like the concept. It's pretty clear that this was the original intent of the system: "to make characters more than just the sum of their items". Or something like that.
This is something we have MMOs to thank for mostly, and working to reverse that concept is taking a while.
One of my players started DMing, he's using this rule, but I also hear his items have +8 enhancement bonuses at level 6. I'd rather not go into detail as to the other abominations he's made, but it's clear he still can't get WoW out of his head when he's at the table.

Hey, this thread is back.  Hi there!

Nov 23, 2009 -- 11:09AM, beholdergaze wrote:

Thanks to all involved, this thread and previous, for helping to create this system.

Quick question:  "This thread and previous."  Which previous thread are you referring to?  I'm curious to hear.

Nov 22, 2009 -- 6:00AM, beholdergaze wrote:

I've read through the thread and can't seem to find an answer to a question I have: Why go with a bonus at 1,5,11,15... instead of 1,6,11,16.. as it matches the magical item bonuses? Level 5 magical items tend to be +1 and this proposed system has the +2 bonus at level 5.

I actually prefer the 1, 6, 11... progression.  Those jumps that PrimeSonic described, dangerous as they might sound, have actually been happening for a long time now.  Remember how you get +1 to your ability scores at certain levels?  If you started out with an even ability score, your ability bonus will go up by 1 at levels 8, 14, 21, and 28.  That means you're already getting a total of +2 to attacks at levels 8, 14, and 28.  Adding 6, 16, and 26 to that mix doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

Also, what happens if you do not allow magical items the tier bonus of +1,+2,+3 and just rule that the magical item crit bonus' apply at the rate of per plus? For example, +1d6 at character level 1-5, +2d6 at character level 6-10, etc. Therefore, a character could find a sword at level 3, already have the +1 through his character instead of the item, and when he gets to level 6 (or 5 for whatever reason) he could then immediately apply the inherent +2 and +2d6 on crit.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but whatever it is I think PrimeSonic answered pretty well.  I'll just add my two cents:

The reason I kept the crit dice tied to weapons, rather than characters, is pretty simple: I wanted to keep magic items powerful.  If all your magic sword does is give you a fun power once per day, then for the rest of the day it's indistinguishable from a regular sword.  You could get the same benefit from a regular sword with a potion tied to its pommel.

If, however, your magic sword deals extra damage on a crit, suddenly you have a reason to keep it around.  Without it, a crit is just "yay, max damage."  With it, it's "Whoa, max damage PLUS all these extra dice!"  And while that extra damage won't show up all that often--once every twenty attacks, right--there's still that chance, each and every time you roll, that your sword could suddenly make its presence known with a heaping handful of magical pain.

In other words, although you won't see a significant difference in your actual rate of success when you go from a regular sword to a magic one, or a magical one to a more powerful one, you'll still feel way more powerful every time you roll a crit and see the crazy damage increase.  This goes perfectly with my philosophy of "fewer but cooler".

Also, just as a side note, there are certain weapons and implements that are only balanced because they don't give any bonus to crit damage.  Handling those would be difficult if crit dice were an inherent bonus. Either you'd lose your inherent dice whenever you picked up such an item, which is weird, or you'd keep them, which would be overpowered.

Nov 22, 2009 -- 10:09AM, Candi wrote:

Another bit of food for thought:

I just implement the rule as per first post of this thread with my group, and as they get the hang of it I'm going to strip magic items of enhancement bonuses beyond +1 and give them +1 attack and damage at level 11 and +1 again at level 21.  Then weapons become their properties and powers and crit bonus dice and so forth.

All weapons are either mundane or +1, the epic level weapons have more awesome abilities and powers.

The same will go for armour, I eventually want to strip it down so that all armour is +1 as with weapons - but armour is more complicated so I haven't put thought into it yet.  For now, I want to wean them onto the "magic weapons are only a little special" because I don't want them to feel like their character is their items, but instead just that their items are a unique embellishment their character has.  Without, they would still be powerful.

Sure, I guess that's cool.  I mean, it's not really "the rule as per first post of this thread" in any conceivable way, but it's fine if that's what you're into.

Just one thing I'd like to address, though:

I want to wean them onto the "magic weapons are only a little special" because I don't want them to feel like their character is their items.

I don't quite understand this point of view.  No, that's not quite right.  I understand it, I just think it's a little weird.

I mean yes, of course it shouldn't cripple a character to lose all his magic items.  4e characters are badasses; they don't need items to make them cool.

But the thing is: why can't items be awesome too?  Why can't there be magical staves of legendary power?  What's wrong with a weapon that can chop mountains in half?  Magic items shouldn't need wielders to make them cool, either.

Magic items have been a staple of the genre since the very beginning.  What would Achilles be without his armour?  What would Arthur be without Exaclibur?  What would Bilbo Baggins be without the One Ring?

The answer is "Still awesome, but not quite as much so."  Powerful magic items, properly handled, don't detract from a character; they enhance it.  Finding a new item doesn't detract from the finder's glory.  He's still the one who delved the dungeons of eternal dread, fought its ferocious guardian, and claimed its fabled helm as his prize.  The fame and glory aren't a property of the item itself; they're found in the gaining of the item.

So yes, by all means don't let the items overshadow the characters.  Just don't take that to mean that items should be weak.  There's a middle ground.

Glad you like it.

Your "drop the sword or fall" example is kind of a funny scenario, if you think about it.  On the one hand, refusing to drop the sword could be a completely metagame decision, with the player recognizing that he'll be severely gimped without it.  On the other, this could just as easily be a "Frodo at Mount Doom" or "Indiana Jones with the Grail" situation; the decision is made entirely for RP reasons, and good, complex ones at that.  It's weird, but a character could make exactly the same choice for wildly different reasons.

Of course, the way you describe it, it sounds like your player's reason is the first one.  And that's oh well.  But there's a bright side: now that you know your player is the sort who might do this kind of thing, risking his life for a magic weapon, you can use that knowledge to put him in some really interesting situations.

Give him an important item.  Not necessarily a powerful one, but one that has some real importance of an RP sort.  Maybe it's a +1 Avalanche Mace that belonged to his father until he was murdered by a warlock; with this weapon, and no other, has he sworn to take his vengeance.  Maybe he's given the key to the kingdom in recognition of his service to the crown; the key works as a Chime of Opening, but that function pales in comparison to the prestige of merely owning it (or the shame of losing it).  Maybe the shield just looks really cool and unique, and if he loses it he'll never find one that looks the same.

I guess what I'm saying is, it's okay for players to value their epic item as if it was +6, as long as three of those plusses are sentimental value.

Oh, and about "mundanifying" items in low-magic campaigns, I completely agree.  My system would be utterly inappropriate in such a campaign.  Much better to use the standard itemless system in that case.  Likewise, my system would also be a bad idea in a kick-in-the-door, no-plot, dungeons-only, Final-Destination campaign.  My system is made for high and heroic fantasy, and should be used as such.