|
1 year ago ::
Mar 12, 2012 - 12:40PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
Random treasure generation is fine for video games, where you can grind and grind and grind to get the phat loot that makes your character work. It doesn't work for narrative games like tabletop RPGs.
And yes, I'm aware that random treasure existed in previous editions, and yes, I am saying that random treasure was a poor distribution method for them as well.
Seems to me the superior option is for the books to have both a robust treasure parcel system and random treasure tables with a solid discussion of the pros and cons of each method.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 12, 2012 - 12:45PM
#32
|
|
|
Random treasure generation is fine for video games, where you can grind and grind and grind to get the phat loot that makes your character work. It doesn't work for narrative games like tabletop RPGs.
And yes, I'm aware that random treasure existed in previous editions, and yes, I am saying that random treasure was a poor distribution method for them as well.
Seems to me the superior option is for the books to have both a robust treasure parcel system and random treasure tables with a solid discussion of the pros and cons of each method.
Agreed.
I actually liked the random treasures in 2E. It simulated a sandbox much better. My characters would adjust to the magic item they found, much like I would have adjusted should it have happened to me. It was fun playing the level or two, wielding the magical weapon that I was not proficient with, until I was able to learn how to wield it (take the proficiency). It was very rewarding.
If it was an axe in the stone, rest assured that Arthur would have mastered the axe.
But the fact remains that there is room for both systems.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 12, 2012 - 1:36PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2009
|
Except in D&D he would've sold his Excalibur Axe in favor of the new Electric Sword he found two levels later.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 12, 2012 - 1:44PM
#34
|
|
|
Except in D&D he would've sold his Excalibur Axe in favor of the new Electric Sword he found two levels later.
Let's not idealise the legends too much. As I recall, the sword Arthur drew from the stone broke in a battle, which is why he had to go and get Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake. So even he upgraded.
And Beowulf's 'special sword', that he got from Unferth, explicitly sucked.
Z.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 12, 2012 - 2:05PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I like flavorful magic items. You should never need a +1 enchantment enhancing your offense or defense.
Maybe an epic or near-epic character might get a +1 weapon, which is flavorful for the legends around it rather than its capabilities... and look longingly at the flavorful utility of other magic weapons of the same level.
"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 ::
Mar 12, 2012 - 3:17PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2010
|
In my opinion, only up to +2 for a bonus, and make effects be the defining feature of magic items. Get rid of AC bonus items, limit defense/saves to a +2. With that in place, do not factor the bonuses in to the math. If you leave bonuses low and out of the math, heroes will be defined by their abilities more than their items. 4e wished it had done this, but failed as its math fails without having a + item, weapon, and armor at certain levels.
Leave the bonus a bonus, and that bonus be low unless an artifact.
I would rather have a flaming sword than a +1 or +2 sword, it has more flavor behind it, and that is something I miss from the prior editions that was lost in 4e.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 12, 2012 - 3:20PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Aug 15, 2011
|
In my opinion, only up to +2 for a bonus, and make effects be the defining feature of magic items. Get rid of AC bonus items, limit defense/saves to a +2. With that in place, do not factor the bonuses in to the math. If you leave bonuses low and out of the math, heroes will be defined by their abilities more than their items. 4e wished it had done this, but failed as its math fails without having a + item, weapon, and armor at certain levels. Leave the bonus a bonus, and that bonus be low unless an artifact. I would rather have a flaming sword than a +1 or +2 sword, it has more flavor behind it, and that is something I miss from the prior editions that was lost in 4e.
You do realize that every magic weapon or armor in every edition of D&D had plusses to hit/damage or armor class, right? And that every edition of D&D has included vanilla +X items?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 13, 2012 - 6:54AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Nov 24, 2009
|
Eh I prefer the damage resistance/regen system to flat out saying a monster requires +x to hurt them.
You know a monster has regen 10 and resist 5, but say a silver weapon weakens, ignores or even turns off one or both of those.
More flavor, more story, more chances to abuse my knowledge of mythology, and it reserves the option to drop a mountain on people.
Actually i prefer it all simulataneously. Having different defenses for different creatures makes it so the PCs can't always have a 1 weapon show....hence +X items even are kept in chack as from time to time you'd need +X to hurt a creature. If there is only resistance to all damage then the characters are more than inclined to creature anti resistance weapons....can it be done even though the system doesn't have a write up for it? ...it sure can thats what magic is all about. So if the players can get gear made, it'd be a smaller measure to accomplish getting the right gear to harm everything. Instead of a sword +1, +3 vs lycanthropes it'll be a sword +1, (overcomes 10 to resist). Theres no reason the players can't find a way around a creature's defenses if the game only represents a couple types at most. In fact it only makes more sense that studies in magic would push towards accomplishing the tasks of overcoming monster defenses if there was but a couple in existance.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 13, 2012 - 7:03AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Nov 24, 2009
|
I like flavorful magic items. You should never need a +1 enchantment enhancing your offense or defense.
Maybe an epic or near-epic character might get a +1 weapon, which is flavorful for the legends around it rather than its capabilities... and look longingly at the flavorful utility of other magic weapons of the same level.
I agree with you somewhat warrl. I like the idea that players would enjoy story elements, but can we honestly say that the player will utilize the legendary sword except in the case where it might prove to be politically advantageous or morale enhancing to a large army-an item built for an appropriate time-- (essentially an ornament until the advantages far outweigh the offsets) rather than using the weapon that nobody ever heard of from a deep dank cave that flames on command doing an extra 12d6 on every hit? The players will more than likely choose that which will enhance their character's chances of survival....the more powerful gear rather than a favouring-major-antiquity. Now although we might consider that some players are more inclined to think "story-like" rather than "presumably power oriented" but the characters in the dungeon should use that which is more powerful....they always should....their focus isn't primarily to go into a dangerous place simply to expose themselves to danger (at least most characters don't)...they go there to "win".
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 13, 2012 - 7:14AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2012
|
Personnaly, i think Armor don't have to increase the AC value, but only reduce damage. For example, a +4 Armor reduce the damage taken by 4.
As for the weapons, i think a +2 weapon increase by +2 both attack and damage, like on D&D 3.X.
|
|
|
