|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 5:13PM
#31
|
|
|
But I don't think that we need to toss out +1 items out of fear that they will open the door to +5 items.
I'd prefer to keep that option as well. However, if they can't keep the big bonuses out of future splatbooks, I'd rather they just keep their +x's in their pants instead of using them to screw us.
And I also think that the most important point is that we (or at least I) don't want to see the 4E approach where a progression of +x items was not only possible, but explicitly assumed, made mandatory and built into the game mathematics.
I didn't care for that at first either, but 4e actually had a good reason for that. If you want to keep the encounters balanced while also providing +x items of significant bonus value, then you either need to work it into the math or leave it out. Working it into the math effectively charges players money as they level, and leaving them out results in no practical way to balance encounters across individual gaming groups.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 5:22PM
#32
|
|
|
But I don't think that we need to toss out +1 items out of fear that they will open the door to +5 items.
And I also think that the most important point is that we (or at least I) don't want to see the 4E approach where a progression of +x items was not only possible, but explicitly assumed, made mandatory and built into the game mathematics.
Carl
If you've played Star Wars Saga this was the case. Items would be +1 or +2 to hit and that's about it. However, they could get up to +5 to damage but you were limited on how many modifiers you placed on a single piece of Equipment. I really liked this because it allowed players to have items that complimented their styles. One of my players have a Jedi Knight who mastered Juyo and Vaapad (Mace Windu's Style) so a bonus to damage was more important as he went for a single killing stroke. Another an Imperial Knight who Mastered Soresu, so he had a dueling saber which gave an equipment bonus to Block and Deflect. These were "either or" abilities and the saber itself only did 1D8 damage. The Imperial Knight's talents and powers that allowed them to do 5D8+3D6+4 damage with a successful Riposte or AoO, but only 1D8+3D6+4 on an attack. The weapon increased the chance of a successful Riposte or AoO but didn't give him the ability to do that kind of damage. That was talents, feats, and powers.
The problem with this is in Star Wars a Jedi will have two Light Sabers his entire career
1) The one he starts with
2) The one he makes
A D&D character doesn't do that. They're questing for a Staff of Ruin, a Vorpal Sword, or a Ring of Invisibility. The problem I have (and I blame 3e) is the bucket of +1 Long Swords I collect on the way there.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 5:53PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I didn't care for that at first either, but 4e actually had a good reason for that. If you want to keep the encounters balanced while also providing +x items of significant bonus value, then you either need to work it into the math or leave it out. Working it into the math effectively charges players money as they level, and leaving them out results in no practical way to balance encounters across individual gaming groups.
A 'good reason' given the design philosophy of 4e. But in practice I hated it.
Knowing that your magic item was going to be obsolete in a few levels just seemed.... wrong. And forcing treasure drops to keep up with the 'red queen's race' of 4E mathematics made the items seem merely mundane.
One of my suspicions was always that part of the reasoning behind the 4E approach was an attempt to keep in the 'iconic' high +x items without having them skew the math. And, although I agree with that as a goal - I think that the end result missed the mark.
The fix I would take for 4E would be to introduce true +1 items (along with using inherent bonuses). They would grant a bonus above and beyond the inherent bonus for your level. 5E hopefully won't have the inherent bonuses in the first place (and we already know the defens progression will be flattened).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 5:57PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Apr 13, 2011
|
Though, even if you kept +x items out, your items would still become obsolete eventually. Flaming never stops being useful, but once you find that flaming burst weapon, selling the old fiery longsword just makes sense.
That warm fuzzy feeling you get when you a forum thread you're subscribed to has a new comment.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 5:57PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I don’t know what to think of this. I might be wrong, but when I hear magic items not mechanically important, I understand, they’re not taken into account in the math.
But if they don’t take them into account in the math, how can there possibly be +5 swords without breaking the game.
There can't - so get rid of the +5 swords.
Maybe it will be as simple as a “magic sword” (+1 to hit and damage)
And that would be a rare and high-level item.
Swords which turn all damage to Fire, or which let you make a Melee 5 attack once an encounter, or something like that, would be more common. At higher levels you might have a sword which turns all damage to Fire *and* lets you make a Melee 5 attack once an encounter.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 6:05PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I like the saga example (although I've never played). There was a shift that took place from AD&D to 3.x in the frequency of magic - at least in my experience. Buckets of +1 items just wasn't an issue in AD&D.
I thik that the 'goal' (from a "DM awarding loot" perspecitve) shoud be similar. Rather then buckets of +1 items, or swapping out a new item every five levels I'd rather see most characters have two (or maybe three) weapons during their career. The first weapon they find (Oh, cool! a magic weapon!) - a weapon that the game mechanics make useful throughot their entire career (no obsolescence), and the weapon they hear about, seek out and eventually find (finally, the [adjective] sword of [noun]!!)- which may not be much more accurate than their earlier weapon, but is better suited to your abilities and/or fluff. Piles of pointless items, whether buckets of +1s or discarded, obsolete weapons do nothing but dilute the 'specialness' of those two items.
Carl
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 6:23PM
#37
|
|
|
If they do decide to keep bane weapons (+x on that weapon rises by +2 against that creature type, and the weapon does +2d6 damage to creatures of that type), I'd like to see all bane weapons made so that you can adjust the target of the bane with a ritual (perhaps you have to capture a creature of the new type and murder it with the weapon as part of the ritual). Back in 3.5, I had a character that used to carry a quiver (basically like a golf bag) of +1 flaming, x bane longswords. The wizard used to walk up to me and suggest which one to use like he was my caddy.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 6:31PM
#38
|
|
|
Piles of pointless items, whether buckets of +1s or discarded, obsolete weapons do nothing but dilute the 'specialness' of those two items.
Carl
I'm glad you said that! I wanted to come back and make that statement myself.
I've noticed the thread is slowly turning into:
Magic Items as Effects/Abilities
As opposed to:
Magic Items as Bonuses
When magic items are bonuses (merely an aggregate of numbers) they lose their "specialness." Being able to "hit better" should be a Effect, but not a Given. The way magic exists now is a magic weapon must be both. It must give a bonus to hit AND a special effect/ability otherwise it's thrown in the bucket for resale at the local BestBuy of Ye Oldde Majick Shoppes. When items have an effect they'd probably stick around a lot longer. I like the example Warrl gives about Flaming and Melee 5. When you have a sword that is flaming it won't necessarily make you drop you Melee 5 (1/encounter) sword. Both have their uses. That's until you get a sword that does both then you could let them go. When the "+" is a manditory feature that is a determining factor. You drop a kewl item for once that is merely reliable. It's less about "magic" and more about statistics.
Hmm... With this sword I'm +20% more likely to hit? I'll take it!
When it's laid out like this it just shake my head, knowing it's true and it's been like that for a long time. It wasn't until 4e that I saw players thinking about holding on to lower "+" weapons and gear because they had really good abilities. I haven't seen that since Unearthed Arcana came out in 1e. But "+" wasn't eliminated deciding factor and I don't think it ever will be.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 05, 2012 - 9:44PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Aug 23, 2008
|
I thought I had something to contribute to this thread until I read CarlT's posts. Holy crap man it's like I have a idea doppelganger!  What I think I can add is that, at least in previous games and editions I've run, +X items have been an easy way for me to throw the metaphorical bone to the newbies at the table that poorly made their characters in order to bring them up to par to the more seasoned players. In that light giving a really poor character concept a +6 Legendary Weapon when he's only in heroic tier is far more delicate than having him just toss the first character he ever made and reroll something else. I find anything else I say has already been mentioned, and would simply be a reiteration...Well played CarlT, well played sir...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 4:42AM
#40
|
|
|
In my AD&D game, all those +1 swords (1/4 of which are intelligent, and are actually NPCs), after an upgrade is found, are turned into loyalty.
Giving a henchman a magic talking sword? That guy is yours for life.
|
|
|
