|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 9:48AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
in an ebberon world with low +x items, why not just not have that particular magic item available?
Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent. It should not be forced on a DM, regardless of world. You can have a very high magic world with items for sale in every corner 7-11 without selling +x items. The lack of +x items as default for Eberron won't change what Eberron is. The DM is the one to decide whether +x items will be in his game.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 9:58AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
in an ebberon world with low +x items, why not just not have that particular magic item available?
Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.
But not nearly as potent as it is in 4e.
Accuracy was strong in 4e, specifically, largely because of all the myriad ways to get damage bonuses for your character, which dramatically amplified the effectiveness of a +1 to hit.
When you're dealing 1d8+4 damage, and your choice is between a +1 Flaming longsword and a +2 Longsword (assuming 3e-style magic enchantment valuation, rather than 4e-style), then the choice becomes much more reasonable.
Accuracy isn't the only thing that accuracy is affected by.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 10:03AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
in an ebberon world with low +x items, why not just not have that particular magic item available?
Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.
But not nearly as potent as it is in 4e.
Accuracy was strong in 4e, specifically, largely because of all the myriad ways to get damage bonuses for your character, which dramatically amplified the effectiveness of a +1 to hit.
When you're dealing 1d8+4 damage, and your choice is between a +1 Flaming longsword and a +2 Longsword (assuming 3e-style magic enchantment valuation, rather than 4e-style), then the choice becomes much more reasonable.
Accuracy isn't the only thing that accuracy is affected by.
NO!
+1 in 4E was nothing. solely because they EXPECT you to have it. you get magic items solely to keep up with the encounters. at least now your magic items actually FEEL MAGICAL
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 10:05AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
in an ebberon world with low +x items, why not just not have that particular magic item available?
Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.
But not nearly as potent as it is in 4e.
It wasn't EXTRA, though. In 4e +x was required, unless you got inherent bonuses from the DM. Therefore, that +1 sword you got in 4e was effectively, +0, as was the +5. Only in bounded accuracy where the +x isn't included in the math will it actually be potent.
Excepting of course a game where the DM gave out +x items in 4e ahead of the curve. If you were at a point in the game where +2 was required and the DM gave you a +3, you effectively had a +1 weapon.
Edit: Ninja'd, but my post was better 
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 10:29AM
#25
|
|
|
Magic items belong to the world system being played, not in core. What they are proposing is proper for Forgotten Realm only, and is not proper for other campaign settings. In Eberron there had better be a shopping list of + items at your corner shop for the simple reason magic IS mundane in that setting and bought and sold as common as a loaf of bread. The problem is if they do not consider that in the math system you could end up with Eberron being easy mode. In 4e they tell you how to adjust the game to account if playing Dark Sun.
There can't be a shopping list of + items at the corner shop for the simple reason that there is this little thing called.........bounded accuracy. There can be a shopping list of everything else, though.
Why do we have bad ideas justified by other bad ideas?
We have bounded accuracy so that monsters can be re-used, when the players are wanting new and tougher monsters. And the players want these stronger weapons too. This all makes no sense.
D&D has routinely been a game of lots of magic. We are just reducing the appeal of the game when the player will find that there is nothing to do with all that treasure he is looting.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 10:34AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
in an ebberon world with low +x items, why not just not have that particular magic item available?
Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.
But not nearly as potent as it is in 4e.
Accuracy was strong in 4e, specifically, largely because of all the myriad ways to get damage bonuses for your character, which dramatically amplified the effectiveness of a +1 to hit.
When you're dealing 1d8+4 damage, and your choice is between a +1 Flaming longsword and a +2 Longsword (assuming 3e-style magic enchantment valuation, rather than 4e-style), then the choice becomes much more reasonable.
Accuracy isn't the only thing that accuracy is affected by.
NO!
+1 in 4E was nothing. solely because they EXPECT you to have it. you get magic items solely to keep up with the encounters. at least now your magic items actually FEEL MAGICAL
Of course. But the treadmill effect was so large and significant due to the way damage worked, such that any accuracy bonus at all was incredibly highly valued, and properly so.
The point behind bounded accuracy is that getting a +1 sword represents a true increase in your accuracy. However, we should not fear the +1 to attack as far as unbalancing the system, because the damage side is significantly different this time around. Some people are objecting to +1 swords because they think they violate bounded accuracy (they don't), but others are objecting to +1 swords because they were so strong in other editions. Conflating the two should be avoided, this was my only point.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 2:05PM
#27
|
|
|
Eberron (and many home games) will have shops with all manner of magic items, including +X items. the game needs to account for that.
No, the game doesn't need to account for it.......and won't. With bounded accuracy, +x items are for the DM to decide to include or not. If the DM includes them, HE needs to account for it. Also, unless you are one of the game designers (and you're not), then you cannot say with certainty that Eberron WILL have shops with +x items.
There's no need whatsoever for me to be a designer to say that. I know Eberron, and the new books could explicitely say there are no +X items, and the entire Eberron fanbase would say, "Yes, there are."
The game needs to account for that. If it doesn't, the game will suffer for it.
And Mearls has already said that the game will account for high magic play, so you're objectively wrong there. The only thing that's up in the air is the format, and emphasis.
And again, there's absolutely no need for any one approach to be "default."
Excepting of course a game where the DM gave out +x items in 4e ahead of the curve. If you were at a point in the game where +2 was required and the DM gave you a +3, you effectively had a +1 weapon.
Which made more of a difference than having a +1 weapon does in Next.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 3:18PM
#28
|
|
|
It wasn't EXTRA, though. In 4e +x was required, unless you got inherent bonuses from the DM.
You can opt-out of something that is there, you cannot opt-in to something that is not there that it was not designed for. Dark Sun telling you how to adjust the system to deal with no magic is not a flawed system, it is the very definition of a modular system.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 4:30PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
There's no need whatsoever for me to be a designer to say that. I know Eberron, and the new books could explicitely say there are no +X items, and the entire Eberron fanbase would say, "Yes, there are."
You're talking out of your arse on this one. In a game with bounded accuracy, the entire fan base would KNOW that +x items are a special case and would not just throw them in because it is Eberron. Your way is not the one true way, buddy.
The game needs to account for that. If it doesn't, the game will suffer for it.
Batting zero. The game doesn't need to account for it at all. The DMs who decide to put them in regardless of bounded accuracy need to account for it.
And Mearls has already said that the game will account for high magic play, so you're objectively wrong there. The only thing that's up in the air is the format, and emphasis.
 You're too rich. Please (and I know you never will) show me where it says objectively that high magic = +x items.
Excepting of course a game where the DM gave out +x items in 4e ahead of the curve. If you were at a point in the game where +2 was required and the DM gave you a +3, you effectively had a +1 weapon.
Which made more of a difference than having a +1 weapon does in Next.
And of course relied on a DM not knowing what he was doing or was just being kind. If the DM gave you items as he was supposed to, you'd be playing with +0 items for your entire 4e career.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 22, 2012 - 4:50PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Apr 19, 2004
|
D&D has routinely been a game of lots of magic. We are just reducing the appeal of the game when the player will find that there is nothing to do with all that treasure he is looting.
Personally I tend to prefer lower availability settings, though I've played in a few with Magic-Marts.
However, an interesting thing I've noted about players is that they can always find interesting things to do with gold. In 4e, and to a lesser extent 3e, a vast majority of the gold that players acquired was offloaded on to handy merchants and wizards in exchange for magical items of varying degrees of power.
Lately, however, I've been playing the older editions: 1e, 2e, Basic, and various retro-clones and I've noticed something interesting in these. The progression curve is similar to that of 5e. Once you've bought your basics there's little need for upgrades and you'll usually come across a magic sword or what-have-you that you can use yourself in combat should you require it. These leaves you with very few "mundane" ways to spend money and so you start looking for other ways to spend it: on drinks, on bars, on building and fortifying castles. On bribing nobles and controlling kingdoms.
It's alright to say "There's nothing to do" in an MMO, where you can only purchase what's available. But in a tabletop game with an imaginative player the sky is the limit.
|
|
|
