|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 11:57AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Sep 10, 2004
|
The properties complicate it yes, but the masterwork is still relevant. It was one of the first oddities I noticed in 4th edition, that heavy armor would start ahead (depending on armor, and how high your forced your Dex/Int), and the it would waver, dropping be,ow light armor before suddenly jumpng back ahead when the masterwork property jumped in.
With the propertyles AV masterwork armors, it smoother out and became a steady slope instead of steps.
As for how to implement it, I see two major choices. Apply a price to masterwork armors, and let a PC buy non-magical masterwork armor.
Alternatively, make it a property of heay armor. A character wearing heavy armor does not get to apply Dexterity od Intelligence to AC, but gains a flat bonus to AC at the following levels: 6, 11, 16, and 26th level.
With the second method, add an equal note to light armors (+1 at 16th and 26th), and you have removed masterwork armor entirely, having built it into the system.
(I'm typing this in a hurry, so I may have mistyped something here or there)
http://community.wizards.com/play-by-post_haven The Play-by-Post recruitment hub for the forums. Stop by, join us, and sign up for some games while you are there Cookie Collection
Show
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 4:04PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2006
|
I'm all for reducing item dependence and feat taxes, but I have a couple questions:
- Magic weapons, implements, and neck slot items grant a +1 enhancement bonus every 10 levels instead of every 5.
Why use enhancement bonuses at all?
- Magic armour only ever grants a +1 enhancement bonus, but can be made masterwork at the usual levels.
And if you're leaving them in, why limit AC enhancement more than the others? Also, why not replace masterwork armor with extra level bonuses?
Myself, I ban masterwork armor and all the feat taxes. Then I give +1 to all attacks and defenses at levels 11, 15, 21 and 25. If you wear heavy armor, you double that bonus for AC. In past games I've simply replaced enhancement bonuses with extra level bonuses at 3, 7, 13, 17, 23 and 27.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 4:28PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
|
With everything as it is now, the only thing that's missing is to account for the base increases of armor at different tiers.
Light armor gets a base increase of +1 per tier
Heavy armor gets a base increase of +3 per tier
If you don't want to get all crazy about recalculating numbers or replacing items, just consider the characters receiving some type of armor mastery bonus that increases the base AC of their armor by +1 or +3 per tier respectively.
Personally, I think having big jumps of numbers at levels 1, 11, and 21 help emphasize that the PCs have move on to a much higher playing field than before. For this, I think it's best to keep the big jumps rather than try to smooth things out too much.
Another reason for this is that fewer changes equates to fewer errors in bookkeeping. A lot of times my players have had several critical bonuses incorrectly calculated from having so many changes over the course of the campaign.
When we reach important levels, like 6,11,16, etc, we simply scrap the sheets altogether and recalculate them from scratch. I think this helps keep errors to a minimum.
So, that's what I suggest for now. Ignore the different types of base armor and just give the players a bonuses that increases the base AC of that armor.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 9:59PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2002
|
With everything as it is now, the only thing that's missing is to account for the base increases of armor at different tiers.
Light armor gets a base increase of +1 per tier
Heavy armor gets a base increase of +3 per tier
Yes. Yes, exactly. This is the point I've been trying to get across. The only question has been how to best phrase this.
If you don't want to get all crazy about recalculating numbers or replacing items, just consider the characters receiving some type of armor mastery bonus that increases the base AC of their armor by +1 or +3 per tier respectively.
This would work well as far as brevity and simplicity are concerned... but something feels off about it. Essentially PCs get a major free bonus just for putting on a suit of heavy armour--and not from the armour itself, mind you, but just by virtue of being heroes. I can understand armour mastery feats, since they represent extra training with a specific armour type, but this kind of thing, not so much. Mayyybe it would work if you only got the heavy armour bonus for armour you're proficient with? I'm not sure.
Another reason for this is that fewer changes equates to fewer errors in bookkeeping. A lot of times my players have had several critical bonuses incorrectly calculated from having so many changes over the course of the campaign.
Oh yeah, definitely. This happens in my group all the time.
I'm all for reducing item dependence and feat taxes, but I have a couple questions:
Why use enhancement bonuses at all?
That depends. Are you asking "why call them enhancement bonuses?", or "why have magic items grant bonuses at all? Why not just give the bonuses to the PCs at the appropriate levels?"
If it's the first, well, aesthetic reasons. If it's the second, the answer is a little more complicated.
See, I like using magic items. I think they're an important part of the game. It's true that the math works better overall when you gain bonuses at a regular rate, at specific predefined levels; still, in my opinion the game works better when there's some surprise to be had.
Example: Say all numerical bonuses come from the PCs themselves. At some point, your PC gains a level. "Hurrah," you say. "An extra +1 to attacks and defenses." Some time later you find a magic sword which deals +1d6 on crits. "Thanks, DM-guy," you say. "That's pretty cool!"
Now say items grant enhancement bonuses up to +3. You won't get that free bonus as often, but now that sword is going to be a lot better. You have no idea when you're going to find it; could be anywhere in that tier. But when you do find that sword, suddenly it's a weapon of remarkable power. +1 to all attacks (and you know how rare attack bonuses are in this game) and damage, and even more on a crit. "Wow, guys," you say. "This sword we found is awesome!"
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's generally more fun to get a bonus in a way that feels like you earned it (say, by breaking into a treasury) that to get the bonus handed to you for free (say, by leveling up). The important thing is to make sure that items feel like something new and exciting each time you find them, which is why I chose the middle ground between items-go-up-to-+6 (items become too common) and items-go-up-to-0 (items are too weak).
I hope that answers your question, at least in part.
And if you're leaving them in, why limit AC enhancement more than the others? Also, why not replace masterwork armor with extra level bonuses?
AC enhancement isn't limited more than the others; it's just that the +1s other items get in the paragon and epic tiers are already included in the masterwork armour's bonuses.
Anyway, I think I'm going to edit the OP a bit more. It still won't be perfect, but at least we'll reduce the confusion with heavy masterwork armour a little bit.
Some things to consider
Show
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 10:21PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2006
|
This would work well as far as brevity and simplicity are concerned... but something feels off about it. Essentially PCs get a major free bonus just for putting on a suit of heavy armour--and not from the armour itself, mind you, but just by virtue of being heroes. I can understand armour mastery feats, since they represent extra training with a specific armour type, but this kind of thing, not so much. Mayyybe it would work if you only got the heavy armour bonus for armour you're proficient with? I'm not sure.
The way I think of it is, superior equipment is much more effectively used by experienced people than inferior equipment. For example, give Bill Gates an ultra-basic computer with a dial-up connection. He'd be able to get a little bit more out of it than me, but not noticeably more. It's still an inferior piece of equipment, with small potential for use. Now give him his own personal computer. Now he can program it to answer his phone, do his dishes, write correspondence, manage all his money and hack into the Pentagon all at once.
Light armor is inferior equipment, which is why PCs only get slightly better (+1s) at using it as they gain experience. Heavy armor is superior gear, which is why PCs can use it more effectively (+2s) as they gain experience.
See, I like using magic items. I think they're an important part of the game. It's true that the math works better overall when you gain bonuses at a regular rate, at specific predefined levels; still, in my opinion the game works better when there's some surprise to be had.
I see. Personally I don't think a rare +1 is any more fun than a common +1, but maybe that's just my whole-hog attitude. If you're going to butcher magical items, you may as well cut away all the fat to get to the meat.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 10, 2009 - 10:51PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2002
|
Shrug. I don't think there's anything wrong with your view--heck, I can think of a few settings, specifically lower-magic ones, where I'd probably use it myself--but it's definitely a bit of a niche variant. It gives the game quite a different feel from the original version. The system I'm putting together is intended more as a fix for the standard playstyle than a complete conceptual overhaul.
As much as I hate to perpetuate a horrible, horrible cliche, all I can really say is that you aren't my target audience.
Some things to consider
Show
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2009 - 5:29AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
|
So as far as armor goes, there still needs to be a comfortable way of getting those per tier improvements. The best way I can see would be have them receive new armor with the extra AC along the way. So you'd replace your +1 Plate armor for a +2 Warplate armor. Or scrap the different types of armor completely and grant the PCs mastery over light or heavy armor, increasing the base AC of the armor by +1 or +3 per tier. Or play off masterwork armor again and use the word "masterwork" to replace the different grades of armor. Have masterwork give the +1/+3 increase to base AC of the armor per tier. You can treat it independently from enhancement bonuses in case you don't want to give them +2 armor at level 11 and want to wait a little more. Currently, those are the only possibilities I can see right now. Granted, it's still morning and I haven't woken up fully yet. EDIT:Could you explain why you're making this change? # Powers with an attack line of "(ability) +2/+4/+6 vs. (defense)" now read "(ability) vs. (defense)".
Powers like this are usually trading damage for accuracy. Removing that extra attack bonus without taking the damage into consideration seems odd. Care to elaborate?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2009 - 9:49AM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2002
|
So as far as armor goes, there still needs to be a comfortable way of getting those per tier improvements.
Right, exactly.
Just to put this out there explicity, these are all the ways of handling heavy armour we've looked at so far:
[LIST=1]
Magic heavy armour grants an extra +2 to AC in paragon tier, and a further +2 to AC in epic tier. Masterwork armour no longer exists. (This is what I have in the OP currently.)
Masterwork light armour no longer exists. Masterwork heavy armour now follows this table:
Armor Name AC Bonus Enhancement
Forgemail + 8 +2
Spiritmail +10 +3
Wyrmscale + 9 +2
Elderscale +11 +3
Warplate +10 +2
Godplate +12 +3
At level 11, characters gain a +2 bonus to AC while wearing heavy armour with which they are proficient. This bonus increases to +4 at level 21.
The best way I can see would be have them receive new armor with the extra AC along the way. So you'd replace your +1 Plate armor for a +2 Warplate armor.
You like the second method, I take it? I'm leaning that way as well, although the need for new tables makes me pause.
Could you explain why you're making this change?
Powers like this are usually trading damage for accuracy. Removing that extra attack bonus without taking the damage into consideration seems odd. Care to elaborate?
I talked about doing this in the original post, but it was at the bottom of the "long-winded rant version" so it's not surprising you missed it. The powers I'm referring to are mostly racial powers like Dragon Breath and Darkfire. The original powers need the +2/+4/+6 bonus to make up for the fact that they don't benefit from enhancement bonuses; in my system, however, that +1 to 6 bonus is built right into the character, and applies to all attacks.
This rule wasn't intended to hurt powers like Sure Strike, but I can see how it would be read that way. If you can think of a less ambiguous way to phrase the rule, I'd love to hear it.
Some things to consider
Show
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 11, 2009 - 2:31PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Apr 11, 2009
|
I talked about doing this in the original post, but it was at the bottom of the "long-winded rant version" so it's not surprising you missed it. The powers I'm referring to are mostly racial powers like Dragon Breath and Darkfire. The original powers need the +2/+4/+6 bonus to make up for the fact that they don't benefit from enhancement bonuses; in my system, however, that +1 to 6 bonus is built right into the character, and applies to all attacks.
This rule wasn't intended to hurt powers like Sure Strike, but I can see how it would be read that way. If you can think of a less ambiguous way to phrase the rule, I'd love to hear it.
Try rewording the rule to something like this instead to avoid confusion:
"Powers that lack the weapon or implement keyword loose all attack bonuses listed in the power's attack roll. Example: Strength +2 vs. AC now becomes Strength vs. AC."
As far as how to deal with armor improvements in the paragon and epic tiers, personally, I like option 2 best. We already have to account for a bunch of bonuses to attack, defenses, and damage with no type or explanation. Adding another set of unnamed bonuses will probably only cause more problems than it solves and might cause some confusion.
So my recommendation would be to make sure the PCs upgrade their armor somewhere between levels 12-15 and 22-25, perhaps making it a significant story moment.
Back to the no-name bonuses.... got any ideas of a name/type for them so they make sense when being written down?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Aug 14, 2009 - 11:12AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Oct 22, 2002
|
Try rewording the rule to something like this instead to avoid confusion:
"Powers that lack the weapon or implement keyword loose all attack bonuses listed in the power's attack roll. Example: Strength +2 vs. AC now becomes Strength vs. AC."
I've changed it to be more like your suggestion, with some modifications to reflect how some powers grant a bonus of +4/+6/+8, or even more.
As far as how to deal with armor improvements in the paragon and epic tiers, personally, I like option 2 best.
Done! Thanks for your input!
Back to the no-name bonuses.... got any ideas of a name/type for them so they make sense when being written down?
I've arbitrarily decided to call it a "mastery bonus". I imagine, however, that when DMG2 comes out, we'll be able to use the wording for legendary/divine/master-trained boons they mentioned in the preview.
Some things to consider
Show
|
|
|
