Why should there be a default setting for magic item rarity?
Seriously. The game can be built for FR, DL and Eberron to work, with none of the three being the default.
Thoughts?
Why should there be a default setting for magic item rarity? Seriously. The game can be built for FR, DL and Eberron to work, with none of the three being the default. Thoughts?
They've said so. Several times. You can not have magic items and everything works fine. You can have magic items and everything works fine.
There is no such thing as "default"
There....isn't?They've said so. Several times. You can not have magic items and everything works fine. You can have magic items and everything works fine.There is no such thing as "default"
They've said so. Several times. You can not have magic items and everything works fine. You can have magic items and everything works fine.
There is no such thing as "default"
They explicitly stated that rare and wondrous magics items are the default assumption. Using those very words.
The reason is that this is the easiest based setting to work with. Since magic items aren't important, and do not have a set drop rate (to use an mmo terminology). This can free up the DM to use high and low magic, because (supposedly) the addition of magic items to the party will not be mathematically important for them to remain in balance against the monsters that they will be facing. I don't know how they will do this, my personal hope is that they will do away with +'s to 'to hit' and 'to damage' and replace them with interesting effects. I feel like the bounded accuracy system opens up the door for high and low magic styles that do not specifically require PC's to have a certain amount of bonuses coming in, vis-a-vis magic arms and armor, to keep them powered up.
They explicitly stated that rare and wondrous magics items are the default assumption. Using those very words.[/quote]The reason is that this is the easiest based setting to work with. Since magic items aren't important, and do not have a set drop ra
...my personal hope is that they will do away with +'s to 'to hit' and 'to damage' and replace them with interesting effects.
You will be disappointed it was stated in a recent podcast featuring the DM seminar at gen con that + bonuses are "iconic" D&D. they will most certainly exist in one form or another. thetome.podbean.com/2012/08/18/ddnext-pa...
I'm not going to listen to this again so I can't say exactly where they mention it but its near the end of the first hour or a little after.
You will be disappointed it was stated in a recent podcast featuring the DM seminar at gen con that + bonuses are "iconic" D&D. they will most certainly exist in one form or another. thetome.podbean.com/2012/08/18/ddnext-pa...I'm not going to listen
They've said so. Several times. You can not have magic items and everything works fine. You can have magic items and everything works fine.
There is no such thing as "default"
They explicitly stated that rare and wondrous magics items are the default assumption. Using those very words.
The reason is that this is the easiest based setting to work with. Since magic items aren't important, and do not have a set drop rate (to use an mmo terminology). This can free up the DM to use high and low magic, because (supposedly) the addition of magic items to the party will not be mathematically important for them to remain in balance against the monsters that they will be facing. I don't know how they will do this, my personal hope is that they will do away with +'s to 'to hit' and 'to damage' and replace them with interesting effects. I feel like the bounded accuracy system opens up the door for high and low magic styles that do not specifically require PC's to have a certain amount of bonuses coming in, vis-a-vis magic arms and armor, to keep them powered up.
Bounded accuracy really makes it so that there just isn't much difference in the math between a world with common magic items, no magic items, or a point in between.
So, don't have a default, at all.
They explicitly stated that rare and wondrous magics items are the default assumption. Using those very words.[/quote]The reason is that this is the easiest based setting to work with. Since magic items aren't important, and do not have a set drop ra
I can almost entirely get behind this, as I think we're both trying to reach the same end state. The only thing that needs to be kept default is the economy of magic items. In 3e and 4e (I don't know about 2e or 1e), magic items were bought and sold as a matter of keeping up with the game balance, which created very awkward situations in campaigns where the magic item distribution was skewed away from standard, either light or heavy. What we want is a system that can accommodate all of our gaming and story-telling needs.
This, I feel, is best served by starting with a mechanical assumption of no magic, and then adding magic to whatever extent the DM wishes. In this sense, since magic distribution is DM Fiat, there is essentially no default, because the real default is DM choice. The best thing that the dev team could do is tell their interns to rewrite the paragraph on magic item occurrance rates to just say "DM decides"
As for + items being in the game because of tradition. I understand their decision and I'm not terribly disappointed. I'd rather see my table happy than nit-pick about how + items slightly skew bounded accuracy.
I can almost entirely get behind this, as I think we're both trying to reach the same end state. The only thing that needs to be kept default is the economy of magic items. In 3e and 4e (I don't know about 2e or 1e), magic items were bought and sold
+Items could be in the game without disturbing bounded accuracy, though. Just make the bonus be for damage, but not accuracy.
Once you have that, it's just a matter of spelling out in the dmg how magic items effect campaigns, in general, and what sort of consequences you might have by making it Low Magic, or High Magic, or no magic.
I also really wish that they'd make some of the language of the game make those of us who don't believe in god-DMs feel welcome. Just say "group" instead of "DM" occassionally, guys.
+Items could be in the game without disturbing bounded accuracy, though. Just make the bonus be for damage, but not accuracy. Once you have that, it's just a matter of spelling out in the dmg how magic items effect campaigns, in general, and what sor
Why should there be a default setting for magic item rarity?
Seriously. The game can be built for FR, DL and Eberron to work, with none of the three being the default.
Thoughts?
Something has to be default. Establishing a default allows people to build their own games without having to build their own rarity tables. The individual settings can modify the default magic item rarity if needed.
Something has to be default. Establishing a default allows people to build their own games without having to build their own rarity tables. The individual settings can modify the default magic item rarity if needed.
They've said so. Several times. You can not have magic items and everything works fine. You can have magic items and everything works fine.
There is no such thing as "default"
There's no such thing as "core." When they put in the magic item module, they will need to put it in with some sort of standard in place, which will by definition be the "default" for magic items.
There's no such thing as "core." When they put in the magic item module, they will need to put it in with some sort of standard in place, which will by definition be the "default" for magic items.
+Items could be in the game without disturbing bounded accuracy, though. Just make the bonus be for damage, but not accuracy.
That's up to the DM, not the game. +x items at the lower end of the scale don't mess up bounded accuracy too much. They become what +x items should have been the entire time. A bonus on top of whatever you get.
That's up to the DM, not the game. +x items at the lower end of the scale don't mess up bounded accuracy too much. They become what +x items should have been the entire time. A bonus on top of whatever you get.
They have said that they are designing the math around not having magic items, so at least in that sense, that is the default.
Personally, I don't think it will work unless magic item power is toned down from that of previous editions.
They have said that they are designing the math around not having magic items, so at least in that sense, that is the default.Personally, I don't think it will work unless magic item power is toned down from that of previous editions.
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.
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
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.
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.
If I'm in Eberron, I'm not shopping for +1 swords. I'm shopping for armor with an Earth Elemental bound to it to allow me to gain stone-like defenses a few times per day. I'm shopping for a set of horseshoes that let my mount run on the air. I'm shopping for leftover artillery shells from the Last War that unleash wide-area Evard's Black Tentacle effects, to drop in the wake of my retreats.
Who needs a +1 sword?
If I'm in Eberron, I'm not shopping for +1 swords. I'm shopping for armor with an Earth Elemental bound to it to allow me to gain stone-like defenses a few times per day. I'm shopping for a set of horseshoes that let my mount run on the air. I'm s
If I'm in Eberron, I'm not shopping for +1 swords. I'm shopping for armor with an Earth Elemental bound to it to allow me to gain stone-like defenses a few times per day. I'm shopping for a set of horseshoes that let my mount run on the air. I'm shopping for leftover artillery shells from the Last War that unleash wide-area Evard's Black Tentacle effects, to drop in the wake of my retreats.
Who needs a +1 sword?
Just about anybody that uses weapons or armor would be happy to have a +1 item. With the assumption of no magic items going into the math, that +1 stays relevant for most of your adventuring career. Of course in Eberron a bland +1 item won't hold much interest for long given the prodigious nature of magic in that setting, but that's where things like a Deneith Plate or Cannith Crossbow come in. Items with a + and a special ability.
Just about anybody that uses weapons or armor would be happy to have a +1 item. With the assumption of no magic items going into the math, that +1 stays relevant for most of your adventuring career. Of course in Eberron a bland +1 item won't hold muc
Why should there be a default setting for magic item rarity?
Seriously. The game can be built for FR, DL and Eberron to work, with none of the three being the default.
Thoughts?
Something has to be default. Establishing a default allows people to build their own games without having to build their own rarity tables. The individual settings can modify the default magic item rarity if needed.
Not having a default does not necessitate creating your own rarity tables. The suggestion that it does is absurd, as is the statement that something has to be default.
It is very easy to present three (or more) equal options and say, pick one.
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.
Eberron (and many home games) will have shops with all manner of magic items, including +X items. the game needs to account for that.
Something has to be default. Establishing a default allows people to build their own games without having to build their own rarity tables. The individual settings can modify the default magic item rarity if needed.[/quote]Not having a default does
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.
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'r
I really, really wish they would integrate Magic Items into the actual "character progression" in a completely ignorable fashion. By which I mean, I'd love to see Magic Items that "replace" feats or spells or whatever by default, so that the guy who wants to be a Christmas Tree, and the guy who wants to be The Naked Chef Fighter can bother operate in a "balanced" fashion at any table, without having to put special rules in place to make one or the other more or less powerful.
Then make it VERY CLEAR (because, dear god, if they didn't...) that the DM can give out magic items above-and-beyond what the characters would normally get (ie without replacing or "costing" character resources) as much as they want - it's just going to be the same as giving out "free" feats or spells.
That? That'd be an all-of-my-money magic item system, right there.
I really, really wish they would integrate Magic Items into the actual "character progression" in a completely ignorable fashion. By which I mean, I'd love to see Magic Items that "replace" feats or spells or whatever by default, so that the guy who
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.
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
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.
Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.[/quote]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 dramatica
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
Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.[/quote]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 dramatica
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
Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.[/quote]But not nearly as potent as it is in 4e.[/quote]It wasn't EXTRA, though. In 4e +x was required, unless you got inherent bonuses from the DM. Therefore, that +1 sword you got i
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.
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.[/quote] Why do we have bad ideas justifie
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.
Because in the bounded accuracy system, even +1 is fairly potent.[/quote]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 dramatica
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.
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'r
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.
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 mo
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.
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. Batting
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.
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 exten
This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic. +1 = +5% in both. Period. That's it.
The issue here is barely even related to bounded accuracy. With or without bounded accuracy, there is a certain expectation of your attack bonus at each level. In 4e you were supposed to maintain this expectation through a combination of:
Note that from 1-30, you gain +15 from (1), +6 from (2), +4 from (3) and +3 from (4), leaving a deficit of 1 to get from other sources (not hard) to stay at parity.
The problem was that you could get the +1 from a lot of different sources and it frequently stacked.
You can get +1 from starting with a post-racial 20 in your attack stat. You can get +1 from taking a stat-boosting ED. You can get +1 (or even +2 or +3) as an item bonus from some items. You can get +1 from various class feats. You can get +1 to implement attacks from a superior implement. You can get +1 from choosing a weapon with a +3 proficiency bonus instead of +2. ... and so on.
A reasonably optimized character might hit on a 4+; a normal character that just maintained pretty much parity might hit on a 10+ or even a 12+.
Bounded accuracy will have exactly the same problem if you start introducing various ways to get a to-hit bonus, plus the problem that accuracy is no longer "bounded".
What they should actually do is just tie accuracy to level (on a slow progression, say +3 or +4 over 1-20, and identical for every class), and give you NO WAY to get a bonus to-hit other than Advantage. None. Zip. Nada.
Accuracy is a terrible way to differentiate characters, because no one likes missing and it's incredibly difficult to make sure no one can get a much higher accuracy than anyone else. There is plenty of design space left. Use it.
This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic. +1 = +5% in both. Period. That's it.The issue here is barely even related to bounded accuracy. With or without bounded accuracy, there is a certain expectation of your attack bonus a
This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic. +1 = +5% in both. Period. That's it.
This is wrong. That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy.
The issue here is barely even related to bounded accuracy. With or without bounded accuracy, there is a certain expectation of your attack bonus at each level.
This is also wrong. Since bounded accuracy doesn't include +x weapons, the issue with +x weapons impacts bounded accuracy to a great degree.
In 4e you were supposed to maintain this expectation through a combination of
Bounded accuracy will have exactly the same problem if you start introducing various ways to get a to-hit bonus, plus the problem that accuracy is no longer "bounded".
They aren't. They have said that they will not be doing this, but will include +x weapons for those DMs who want to use them. Those +x weapons will be outside bounded accuracy and will be a true bonus to hit. You are also mistaken in your claim that accuracy will no longer be bounded with the inclusion of +x weapons. As far as the game is concerned, the bounded range will be absolute. The game is not responsible for DMs who add in +x weapons.
This is wrong. That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy. This is also wrong. Since bounded accuracy doesn't include +x weapons, the issue with +x weapons impacts bounded accuracy to a great degree. So what. The issue is 5e, not 4
This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic. +1 = +5% in both. Period. That's it.
This is wrong. That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy.
Mathematically incorrect. Bounded accuracy, itself, doesn't change the value of +1 to hit. The damage output that is available does, and that's the only thing that does.
It's entirely likely that +1 is going to be less powerful in Next than it is in 4e, to use an example. And 4e doesn't have bounded accuracy in the slightest.
This is wrong. That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy. [/quote]Mathematically incorrect. Bounded accuracy, itself, doesn't change the value of +1 to hit. The damage output that is available does, and that's the only thing that doe
Those +x weapons will be outside bounded accuracy and will be a true bonus to hit.
They are a true bonus to hit, yes, but that does not mean that it's "outside" bounded accuracy.
PCs do get accuracy increases as they level. Bounded accuracy is on the DM side, not the player side. Reread the article again if you don't believe me - it's quite clear. They say this outright.
They are a true bonus to hit, yes, but that does not mean that it's "outside" bounded accuracy. PCs do get accuracy increases as they level. Bounded accuracy is on the DM side, not the player side. Reread the article again if you don't believe me
This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic. +1 = +5% in both. Period. That's it.
This is wrong. That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy.
Mathematically incorrect. Bounded accuracy, itself, doesn't change the value of +1 to hit. The damage output that is available does, and that's the only thing that does.
I didn't say it was greater than 5%. I said the different system makes that same 5% more valuable. You will hit more often with that +1 in a bounded system than you will in any other system of D&D to date.
This is wrong. That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy. [/quote]Mathematically incorrect. Bounded accuracy, itself, doesn't change the value of +1 to hit. The damage output that is available does, and that's the only thing that doe
This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic. +1 = +5% in both. Period. That's it.
This is wrong. That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy.
No, it isn't. Until you hit on a 2+, to-hit doesn't have diminishing marginal returns. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
They aren't.
They're wrong and/or lying. There will be all kinds of bonuses to hit available, from feats, spells, abilities, what-have-you.
You are also mistaken in your claim that accuracy will no longer be bounded with the inclusion of +x weapons. As far as the game is concerned, the bounded range will be absolute. The game is not responsible for DMs who add in +x weapons.
You realize you contradicted yourself in the span of 3 sentences, right?
This is wrong. That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy.[/quote]No, it isn't. Until you hit on a 2+, to-hit doesn't have diminishing marginal returns...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="
I didn't say it was greater than 5%. I said the different system makes that same 5% more valuable. You will hit more often with that +1 in a bounded system than you will in any other system of D&D to date.
No, you won't. Unless you already hit on a 2+, that +1 will be the difference between a hit and a miss precisely 5% of the time in any system.
No, you won't. Unless you already hit on a 2+, that +1 will be the difference between a hit and a miss precisely 5% of the time in any system.
No, it isn't. Until you hit on a 2+, to-hit doesn't have diminishing marginal returns. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
A +1 to hit against a range of armor classes that go from 10 to 65 is less effective overall than a +1 to hit against a range of armor classes that range from 10 to 21. With the first range, the +1 will not help in the vast majority of the cases. With the second, it will help in all cases. If the range is 10 to 25, that +1 will still help against many, many, MANY more monsters than it will against the first range.
They're wrong and/or lying. There will be all kinds of bonuses to hit available, from feats, spells, abilities, what-have-you.
What are Friday's lottery numbers while you have your psychic abilities out?
You are also mistaken in your claim that accuracy will no longer be bounded with the inclusion of +x weapons. As far as the game is concerned, the bounded range will be absolute. The game is not responsible for DMs who add in +x weapons.
You realize you contradicted yourself in the span of 3 sentences, right?
How is their range of armor classes affected by a DM who puts a +x weapon into the game? Those armor classes don't change. They remain bounded identically with or without the weapon.
A +1 to hit against a range of armor classes that go from 10 to 65 is less effective overall than a +1 to hit against a range of armor classes that range from 10 to 21. With the first range, the +1 will not help in the vast majority of the cases. W
A +1 to hit against a range of armor classes that go from 10 to 65 is less effective overall than a +1 to hit against a range of armor classes that range from 10 to 21.
In 4e you never actually fight monsters within that full range at any given time, obviously. If you do fight a monster that's significantly below-level than nothing matters because you'll just roflstomp them regardless.
How is their range of armor classes affected by a DM who puts a +x weapon into the game? Those armor classes don't change. They remain bounded identically with or without the weapon.
There's also +x armor.
In 4e you never actually fight monsters within that full range at any given time, obviously. If you do fight a monster that's significantly below-level than nothing matters because you'll just roflstomp them regardless.There's also +x armor.
In 4e you never actually fight monsters within that full range at any given time, obviously. If you do fight a monster that's significantly below-level than nothing matters because you'll just roflstomp them regardless.
That doesn't matter. You DO fight monsters with much higher armor classes than you will find in the bounded system.
There's also +x armor.
Not on monsters.
That doesn't matter. You DO fight monsters with much higher armor classes than you will find in the bounded system. Not on monsters.
That doesn't matter. You DO fight monsters with much higher armor classes than you will find in the bounded system.
But you only do so when you have a commensurate attack bonus. That's how the system works. As long as you aren't already hitting on a 2+, a +1 to-hit will be the difference between success and failure precisely 5% of the time. And in an actual campaign you will almost never fight monsters that you hit on a 2+, and if you do it's not a real encounter anyway because you pretty much autowin.
Not on monsters.
Unless, you know, the heros get the +X armor by looting it off of the monsters they kill. But no, that's unheard of.
But you only do so when you have a commensurate attack bonus. That's how the system works. As long as you aren't already hitting on a 2+, a +1 to-hit will be the difference between success and failure precisely 5% of the time. And in an actual cam
Unless, you know, the heros get the +X armor by looting it off of the monsters they kill. But no, that's unheard of.
The system will not be taking that into consideration, so if the DM throws +x armor on a creature, he's making that fight a whole lot harder than it is supposed to be, OR he has put +3 armor on a lower level creature so that it is on par with what the encounter should be, negating the effect of that armor.
The system will not be taking that into consideration, so if the DM throws +x armor on a creature, he's making that fight a whole lot harder than it is supposed to be, OR he has put +3 armor on a lower level creature so that it is on par with what th
This "does it mean more in 4e or Next" conversation is idiotic. +1 = +5% in both. Period. That's it.
This is wrong. That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy.
Mathematically incorrect. Bounded accuracy, itself, doesn't change the value of +1 to hit. The damage output that is available does, and that's the only thing that does.
I didn't say it was greater than 5%. I said the different system makes that same 5% more valuable. You will hit more often with that +1 in a bounded system than you will in any other system of D&D to date.
I didn't say you said it was greater than 5%, I said that adding that 5% (I called it +1, which may be the source of the confusion) isn't more valuable based just on whether it's a BA system or not.
Sure, the value of +1 to hit changes based on what your hit rate is. If your hit rate is 90% going +1 gives you a 5.555% increase to damage, and if your hit rate is 5% going +1 is a 100% increase to damage. But you can't assume that hit rates in a bounded accuracy system are going to be lower than they are in a non-bounded system that's designed around ideal conditions, like 4e. The AC for a block-of-tofu monster is Level+14, this is constant throughout the system. And you're supposed to increase your attack to keep pace, and if you do your job properly and the DM designs encounters properly, your hit rate doesn't change much going 1-30. Now, certainly, certain classes and builds can accumulate lots of bonuses to hit, but preventing that is not what Bounded Accuracy means. It's something that may also happen in the Bounded Accuracy system simply because attack bonuses are highly destabilizing and need to be controlled, but the point of Bounded Accuracy is that a kobold can still have a decent chance to land a hit even if you're fifteen levels above him. It does not say that that chance will be constant, but it won't be vanishingly small.
This is wrong. That +5% is more valuable in 5e due to bounded accuracy. [/quote]Mathematically incorrect. Bounded accuracy, itself, doesn't change the value of +1 to hit. The damage output that is available does, and that's the only thing that doe
That doesn't matter. You DO fight monsters with much higher armor classes than you will find in the bounded system.
But you only do so when you have a commensurate attack bonus. That's how the system works.
No, that's how the system used to work. Not going to work that way anymore, and any assumptions based on such systems are no longer valid.
But you only do so when you have a commensurate attack bonus. That's how the system works.[/quote]No, that's how the system used to work. Not going to work that way anymore, and any assumptions based on such systems are no longer valid.
The argument that +1 is more valuable in Next would only be true if you were more often fighting monsters that you need a 21 to hit than you did in 4e. So far there is no indication that will be the case. If you hit on something between 1 and 20, then it increases your DPR by 5% of your max damage either way.
Whether that DPR increase is more valuable in one system than another depends on character damage and monster hp, so that's more complicated.
--- Edit:
Actually, I guess Max's point is that the relative increase is important. If you are more often needing high numbers to hit in Next, then +1 will give you a bigger relative damage boost. If you more often hit on low numbers, then it would be a smaller relative damage boost.
From what I understand, your to hit number will probably vary more in Next than it did in 4e, but I don't know that it will be biased high or low.
The argument that +1 is more valuable in Next would only be true if you were more often fighting monsters that you need a 21 to hit than you did in 4e. So far there is no indication that will be the case. If you hit on something between 1 and 20, th
The argument that +1 is more valuable in Next would only be true if you were more often fighting monsters that you need a 21 to hit than you did in 4e. So far there is no indication that will be the case. If you hit on something between 1 and 20, then it increases your DPR by 5% of your max damage either way.
Math fail.
Initial chance to hit vs % DPR increase of +1 to hit:
5
100
10
50
15
33.33333
20
25
25
20
30
16.66667
35
14.28571
40
12.5
45
11.11111
50
10
55
9.090909
60
8.333333
65
7.692308
70
7.142857
75
6.666667
80
6.25
85
5.882353
90
5.555556
95
5.263158
Math fail.Initial chance to hit vs % DPR increase of +1 to hit: 5 100 10 50 15 33.33333 20 25 25 20 30 16.66667 35 14.28571 40 12.5 45 11.11111 50 10 55 9.090909 60 8.333333 65 7.692308 70 7.142857 75 6.666667 80 6
Relative increases are all that matter when comparing marginal choices.
That's a question of values, not math. If the question is, how many hp damage can I do per round, then an increase of 1 per round is an increase of 1 per round, regardless of whether I originally did 10 hp or 20 hp per round. If you value the increase more when your base is 10 hp/round, that's fair, but it's not a mathematical truth.
That's a question of values, not math. If the question is, how many hp damage can I do per round, then an increase of 1 per round is an increase of 1 per round, regardless of whether I originally did 10 hp or 20 hp per round. If you value the increas
Thus it's probably worth clarifying that you value relative increases more than absolute ones, so that's what you're talking about.
Of course, I still don't think there's any reason to believe that +1 to hit will have any more relative dpr increase in Next compared to 4e, since I don't think there's supposed to be any bias towards creatures being harder to hit in Next. Certainly nothing in the bounded accuracy concept says that there should be.
You could argue that the toughest fights are when you need to roll the highest, and those are the most important ones. But that's true in 4e as well, since you'd probably be fighting monsters some levels above yours. So it would be interesting to know if the hardest fight you could expect in Next would feature higher to-hit numbers than the hardest fight you could expect in 4e.
Thus it's probably worth clarifying that you value relative increases more than absolute ones, so that's what you're talking about. Of course, I still don't think there's any reason to believe that +1 to hit will have any more relative dpr increase i
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.
Bull. First, bounded accuracy doesn't make +x items overpowered, so there's no reason to make them a special case. Second, +x items are as iconic as the cleric.
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.
That's ridiculous. The game needs to function properly at every point from zero magic items, to every magic item is available. It is not only possible, but not even that hard, to build the game so that +x items can be just as available as other magic items, without any changes to the rules. It can be done, and it would benefit the game, therefor it should be done.
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.
You apperently haven't been paying attention. Mearls specified that the rules would account for games where magic items are common and you can buy them in a shop and/or make them. If you think that doesn't include +x items, then you're either positing that +x items won't exist at all, or you're just delusional.
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.
More bull. Getting some items ahead and some items behind the curve wasn't a big deal. Any DM worth playing with can do both without screwing up the game. The guidelines are most helpful for new DMs.
As far as the game is concerned, the bounded range will be absolute. The game is not responsible for DMs who add in +x weapons.
Not only is that a terrible idea, that's an idea with no basis in what we've heard from the designers.
They're aware of the popularity of +x items. They will not leave them out of the game math calculation.
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. [/quote
Bull. First, bounded accuracy doesn't make +x items overpowered, so there's no reason to make them a special case. Second, +x items are as iconic as the cleric.
First, I'm flabbergasted that you could even type that. There is no math to back up your wildly absurd statement, where the math backs mine up completely.
Second, that's why they will be included at DM discretion, rather than just eliminated entirely.
That's ridiculous. The game needs to function properly at every point from zero magic items, to every magic item is available. It is not only possible, but not even that hard, to build the game so that +x items can be just as available as other magic items, without any changes to the rules. It can be done, and it would benefit the game, therefor it should be done.
Why do you want to force the +x treadmill where you have to have +x by a certain level or you fall behind? It's better for +x items to be a true BONUS.
And no, the game doesn't NEED to account for a purely optional +x item that it feels shouldn't be there in the first place. That's like saying that the game needs to account for magical nuke disks because some DM out there will make one.
You apperently haven't been paying attention. Mearls specified that the rules would account for games where magic items are common and you can buy them in a shop and/or make them. If you think that doesn't include +x items, then you're either positing that +x items won't exist at all, or you're just delusional.
OR I actually pay attention to the OTHER things that Mearls has said.......unlike you. His statements don't exist in a vacuum.
First, I'm flabbergasted that you could even type that. There is no math to back up your wildly absurd statement, where the math backs mine up completely.Second, that's why they will be included at DM discretion, rather than just eliminated entirely
First, I'm flabbergasted that you could even type that. There is no math to back up your wildly absurd statement, where the math backs mine up completely.
First, I'm flabbergasted that you could even type that. There is no math to back up your wildly absurd statement, where the math backs mine up completely.
No it doesn't.
Bounded Accuracy relies on a very narrow amount of bonuses to hit. It won't be like 3e or 4e where they were all over the place. Classes will get them slowly, but you're not going to find things like bulls strength for +2 to hit, spell X for +2 more, Spell Y for +1 and Spell Z for +4. It won't happen. That means that since the game is going to be balanced for only a few +s, a +x weapon will throw off the game balance at even +1, getting worse with each increasing +. It's why they are capping it at +3 unless it's an artifact.
No it doesn't.[/quote]Bounded Accuracy relies on a very narrow amount of bonuses to hit. It won't be like 3e or 4e where they were all over the place. Classes will get them slowly, but you're not going to find things like bulls strength for +2 to h
Monsters have an AC of 11+level Baseline Bob has an attack bonus of 0+1 per level, and does a fixed 10 hp damage per hit. Bob hits 50% of the time, and averages 5 hp per round of damage
Awesome Alice has an attack bonus of 1+1 per level, and still does 10 hp per hit. Alice hits 55% of the time, and averages 5.5 hp per round, 10% more than Bob.
-----
Game B: Barbarians and Bounded Accuracy
Monsters have a fixed AC of 11 Bob has a fixed attack bonus of +1, but does 10 hp/level on a hit. Bob hits 50% of the time and averages 5 hp/level dpr
Awesome Alice has an attack bonus of +2, and does 10 hp/level on a hit. Alice hits 55% of the time and averages 5.5 hp/level dpr, 10% more than Bob.
-----
Neither of these are dnd, but one is a bounded accuracy game and one is not. The relative impact of an extra +1 to hit is the same in either.
Game A: Illithids and Increasing AccuracyMonsters have an AC of 11+levelBaseline Bob has an attack bonus of 0+1 per level, and does a fixed 10 hp damage per hit.Bob hits 50% of the time, and averages 5 hp per round of damageAwesome Alice has an attac
First, I'm flabbergasted that you could even type that. There is no math to back up your wildly absurd statement, where the math backs mine up completely.
No it doesn't.
Bounded Accuracy relies on a very narrow amount of bonuses to hit. It won't be like 3e or 4e where they were all over the place. Classes will get them slowly, but you're not going to find things like bulls strength for +2 to hit, spell X for +2 more, Spell Y for +1 and Spell Z for +4. It won't happen. That means that since the game is going to be balanced for only a few +s, a +x weapon will throw off the game balance at even +1, getting worse with each increasing +. It's why they are capping it at +3 unless it's an artifact.
No it doesn't. Read the bounded accuracy article again, clearly you've missed the point completely. And you still are incorrect about the value of +1 to hit in a BA system. It is true that there won't be that many attack bonuses, but that does not mean that attack bonuses will become overpowered as a result. Scarcity does not increase value. What it does increase is the meaning for your character when you get one, which is not the same thing at all.
No it doesn't.[/quote]Bounded Accuracy relies on a very narrow amount of bonuses to hit. It won't be like 3e or 4e where they were all over the place. Classes will get them slowly, but you're not going to find things like bulls strength for +2 to h
I wouldn't cry if +X Magic Items were removed. As a matter of fact, I'd be pretty happy. From the sounds of things, though, WotC is insisting on keeping them, so I guess they won't be going anywhere anytime soon. However, it has been said that X will be reduced to 3 at the absolute most. This cuts down on the necessity of a set magic item obtainment system, and also makes the item's other abilities more valuable. Bounded Accuracy doesn't place a greater emphasis on +X items. +3 to your attack rolls is still just as balanced or otherwise in 5e as it is in 4e. If you do the math, Bounded Accuracy just decreases the assumed rate of obtainment. The emphasis is stillthere. It's just for different reasons. What does change the emphasis is the reduction in X's value. If the value of X only goes up to +3, then that's a difference of 15% in accuracy based on a magic item's importance. So a game that has +6 items would, at high levels, factor in magic items as accounting for a 30% chance. That's a lot to remove. Your character goes from needing a 12 to hit to needing an 18. If that max value drops to 3, that's only 15%. That's still a good deal, but it's not an unfair amount to take from a character in a low-magic setting. Personally, I'd rather see +X disappear altogether, and have magic items make up 0% of the game's math, but that's not going to happen. I'll settle for a game where +X just isn't very important.
As for magic item purchase, I do think there needs to be a module for this, and in the core 3 rulebooks. Enough people will want a high-magic campaign that there needs to be an option for them to let their PCs buy magic.
And just because something's in a module doesn't mean it's not "core", or that it's "DM Fiat Only". In a truly modular game, there is no default. The default isn't a low-magic game because magic shops are a module. A module isn't an option that alters the default. It's a choice between two equal options. Ideally, the idea of a low-magic campaign and the idea of a high-magic campaign would both be modules. Even if this ideal isn't met, you should still be able to ask your DM to use a module that you like. If the DM won't use it, that's his choice. Complaining about letting the DM choose the modules is the same as complaining about letting the DM write the adventure. If your DM isn't running a game you want to play, then you have no choice but to find a different game. Complaining that the rules didn't tell your DM to run his game your way won't solve anything.
(I'm not saying this to anyone in particular. I'm not saying people have been saying this on this thread. I'm just trying to make this clear.)
I wouldn't cry if +X Magic Items were removed. As a matter of fact, I'd be pretty happy. From the sounds of things, though, WotC is insisting on keeping them, so I guess they won't be going anywhere anytime soon.However, it has been said that X will
Monsters have an AC of 11+level, which includes +x items, effectively making them +0 at all levels. Baseline Bob has an attack bonus of 0+1 per level, and does a fixed 10 hp damage per hit. Bob hits 50% of the time, and averages 5 hp per round of damage
Awesome Alice has an attack bonus of 1+1 per level, and still does 10 hp per hit. Alice hits 55% of the time, and averages 5.5 hp per round, 10% more than Bob.
-----
Game B: Barbarians and Bounded Accuracy, which does not include +x items, making them a true bonus.
Monsters have a fixed AC of 11 Bob has a fixed attack bonus of +1, but does 10 hp/level on a hit. Bob hits 50% of the time and averages 5 hp/level dpr
Awesome Alice has an attack bonus of +2, and does 10 hp/level on a hit. Alice hits 55% of the time and averages 5.5 hp/level dpr, 10% more than Bob.
-----
Neither of these are dnd, but one is a bounded accuracy game and one is not. The relative impact of an extra +1 to hit is the same in either.
Edited for accuracy. The bolded part makes all the difference. When you include +x items in the math, the +x zeroes out, because you MUST have +x to hit 50%. In bounded accuracy, you are hitting 50% without +x, making +x items fantastically good.
Edited for accuracy. The bolded part makes all the difference. When you include +x items in the math, the +x zeroes out, because you MUST have +x to hit 50%. In bounded accuracy, you are hitting 50% without +x, making +x items fantastically good.
Edited for accuracy. The bolded part makes all the difference. When you include +x items in the math, the +x zeroes out, because you MUST have +x to hit 50%. In bounded accuracy, you are hitting 50% without +x, making +x items fantastically good.
The math in both my games was designed for Baseline Bob. Awesome Alice is exceptional. I know, they are my games.
You could say that in the first game, Bob gets the expected magic item progression to keep him on the expected attack bonus, and Alice is ahead of the expected progression. Or you can say that the first game is balanced around no items; Bob's bonus is entirely inherent and Alice has a special +1 item. Either way is the same.
The math in both my games was designed for Baseline Bob. Awesome Alice is exceptional. I know, they are my games.You could say that in the first game, Bob gets the expected magic item progression to keep him on the expected attack bonus, and Alice is
Edited for accuracy. The bolded part makes all the difference. When you include +x items in the math, the +x zeroes out, because you MUST have +x to hit 50%. In bounded accuracy, you are hitting 50% without +x, making +x items fantastically good.
No. It makes them good, yes. But fantastically good? That depends on way, way more things.
No. It makes them good, yes. But fantastically good? That depends on way, way more things.
Edited for accuracy. The bolded part makes all the difference. When you include +x items in the math, the +x zeroes out, because you MUST have +x to hit 50%. In bounded accuracy, you are hitting 50% without +x, making +x items fantastically good.
The math in both my games was designed for Baseline Bob. Awesome Alice is exceptional. I know, they are my games.
You could say that in the first game, Bob gets the expected magic item progression to keep him on the expected attack bonus, and Alice is ahead of the expected progression. Or you can say that the first game is balanced around no items; Bob's bonus is entirely inherent and Alice has a special +1 item. Either way is the same.
No. If you are providing Bob with inherent bonuses, then you have house ruled your game. You cannot have inherent bonuses when discussing RAW. This discussion is about +x items only, and by RAW it is as I said.
The math in both my games was designed for Baseline Bob. Awesome Alice is exceptional. I know, they are my games.You could say that in the first game, Bob gets the expected magic item progression to keep him on the expected attack bonus, and Alice is
Edited for accuracy. The bolded part makes all the difference. When you include +x items in the math, the +x zeroes out, because you MUST have +x to hit 50%. In bounded accuracy, you are hitting 50% without +x, making +x items fantastically good.
No. It makes them good, yes. But fantastically good? That depends on way, way more things.
A +3 weapon is +15% to hit over the 50% baseline for the entire game. That's fantastically good. +1 might not be "fantastically good", but it's still very good.
No. It makes them good, yes. But fantastically good? That depends on way, way more things.[/quote]A +3 weapon is +15% to hit over the 50% baseline for the entire game. That's fantastically good. +1 might not be "fantastically good", but it's sti
It's also level-cap item, when characters' real power increases are fantastically good in general. We're talking Meteor Swarm, here. A +3 item is going to be awesome, yes, but a +2 item with some badass effects (read the examples in the Magic Items L&L - they're specifically trying to add interesting things that aren't +X) is also going to be awesome. The point is that its being awesome means it is actually awesome, and not fakely awesome.
It's also level-cap item, when characters' real power increases are fantastically good in general. We're talking Meteor Swarm, here. A +3 item is going to be awesome, yes, but a +2 item with some badass effects (read the examples in the Magic Items
It's also level-cap item, when characters' real power increases are fantastically good in general. We're talking Meteor Swarm, here. A +3 item is going to be awesome, yes, but a +2 item with some badass effects (read the examples in the Magic Items L&L - they're specifically trying to add interesting things that aren't +X) is also going to be awesome. The point is that its being awesome means it is actually awesome, and not fakely awesome.
I agree with this statement
The point I have been trying to make is this.
In 4e, when you got a +2 item, it raised your 40% chance to hit to 50% since it was part of the math.
In 5e, when you get a +2 item, it will raise your 50% to 60%, being a true bonus and not part of the math, and actually making you better than the baseline average to hit.
I agree with this statement :)The point I have been trying to make is this.In 4e, when you got a +2 item, it raised your 40% chance to hit to 50% since it was part of the math.In 5e, when you get a +2 item, it will raise your 50% to 60%, being a true
Edited for accuracy. The bolded part makes all the difference. When you include +x items in the math, the +x zeroes out, because you MUST have +x to hit 50%. In bounded accuracy, you are hitting 50% without +x, making +x items fantastically good.
The math in both my games was designed for Baseline Bob. Awesome Alice is exceptional. I know, they are my games.
You could say that in the first game, Bob gets the expected magic item progression to keep him on the expected attack bonus, and Alice is ahead of the expected progression. Or you can say that the first game is balanced around no items; Bob's bonus is entirely inherent and Alice has a special +1 item. Either way is the same.
No. If you are providing Bob with inherent bonuses, then you have house ruled your game. You cannot have inherent bonuses when discussing RAW. This discussion is about +x items only, and by RAW it is as I said.
What are you talking about? Perhaps you interpret "inherent" differently from me. By inherent, I simply mean a bonus coming from your class or another source besides magic items. In an increasing accuracy game like my Game A, such bonuses are normal and expected. For instance, in 4e, your attack bonus increased ever other level. I would call that an inherent bonus. If you want to use a different name, tell me and I will use that.
My point remains the same, however. You claimed that my two games were not a legitimate example comparing the value of an extra +1 in a bounded and increasing accuracy game, for some reason I don't understand.
If it helps, my point is that a +1 weapon in a game designed around +0 weapons is just as good as a +(X+1) weapon in a game designed around +X weapons.
The math in both my games was designed for Baseline Bob. Awesome Alice is exceptional. I know, they are my games.You could say that in the first game, Bob gets the expected magic item progression to keep him on the expected attack bonus, and Alice is
In 4e, when you got a +2 item, it raised your 40% chance to hit to 50% since it was part of the math.
In 5e, when you get a +2 item, it will raise your 50% to 60%, being a true bonus and not part of the math, and actually making you better than the baseline average to hit.
The point I and others have been trying to make is that getting a +2 item in 5e is like getting a +4 item instead of a +2 item in 4e. Bounded accuracy has nothing to do with it... deviating from the designed progression does.
The point I and others have been trying to make is that getting a +2 item in 5e is like getting a +4 item instead of a +2 item in 4e. Bounded accuracy has nothing to do with it... deviating from the designed progression does.
That's ridiculous. The game needs to function properly at every point from zero magic items, to every magic item is available. It is not only possible, but not even that hard, to build the game so that +x items can be just as available as other magic items, without any changes to the rules. It can be done, and it would benefit the game, therefor it should be done.
Why do you want to force the +x treadmill where you have to have +x by a certain level or you fall behind? It's better for +x items to be a true BONUS.
And no, the game doesn't NEED to account for a purely optional +x item that it feels shouldn't be there in the first place. That's like saying that the game needs to account for magical nuke disks because some DM out there will make one.
sweet! Now you're just flat out making things up! WHo needs logic when you can just pretend your opponent is saying things they're not saying?
Anyway, the game needs to account for things that are so popular that most groups will probably use them. To suggest otherwise has about as much value as a fart in the wind.
Why do you want to force the +x treadmill where you have to have +x by a certain level or you fall behind? It's better for +x items to be a true BONUS. And no, the game doesn't NEED to account for a purely optional +x item that it feels shouldn't
In 4e, when you got a +2 item, it raised your 40% chance to hit to 50% since it was part of the math.
In 5e, when you get a +2 item, it will raise your 50% to 60%, being a true bonus and not part of the math, and actually making you better than the baseline average to hit.
The point I and others have been trying to make is that getting a +2 item in 5e is like getting a +4 item instead of a +2 item in 4e. Bounded accuracy has nothing to do with it... deviating from the designed progression does.
The difference is, only in the bounded system does it remain a bonus. In 4e, that +4 sword starts as +2, becomes +1, then +1, then -1, AND you have to switch it out someday. You can't just keep it around like you can in a bounded system.
The point I and others have been trying to make is that getting a +2 item in 5e is like getting a +4 item instead of a +2 item in 4e. Bounded accuracy has nothing to do with it... deviating from the designed progression does.[/quote]The difference is
The difference is, only in the bounded system does it remain a bonus. In 4e, that +4 sword starts as +2, becomes +1, then +1, then -1, AND you have to switch it out someday. You can't just keep it around like you can in a bounded system.
Sure, assuming that the increasing accuracy system relies on improving magic items like 4e did, anyway. If that's the point you've been trying to make, then OK, I guess. It doesn't seem to be in any conflict with what I'm saying though, and you keep disagreeing with me.
Sure, assuming that the increasing accuracy system relies on improving magic items like 4e did, anyway. If that's the point you've been trying to make, then OK, I guess. It doesn't seem to be in any conflict with what I'm saying though, and you keep
That's ridiculous. The game needs to function properly at every point from zero magic items, to every magic item is available. It is not only possible, but not even that hard, to build the game so that +x items can be just as available as other magic items, without any changes to the rules. It can be done, and it would benefit the game, therefor it should be done.
Why do you want to force the +x treadmill where you have to have +x by a certain level or you fall behind? It's better for +x items to be a true BONUS.
And no, the game doesn't NEED to account for a purely optional +x item that it feels shouldn't be there in the first place. That's like saying that the game needs to account for magical nuke disks because some DM out there will make one.
sweet! Now you're just flat out making things up! WHo needs logic when you can just pretend your opponent is saying things they're not saying?
Anyway, the game needs to account for things that are so popular that most groups will probably use them. To suggest otherwise has about as much value as a fart in the wind.
Why don't you tell that to the developers, who said exactly that?
He didn't make this up, they did.
Why do you want to force the +x treadmill where you have to have +x by a certain level or you fall behind? It's better for +x items to be a true BONUS. And no, the game doesn't NEED to account for a purely optional +x item that it feels shouldn't
My understanding of what the developers have said is that +X items will be in the game, with X not getting too large. The game math, however, will assume that you don't have them.
Max sounds like he is saying that means +X items will be optional and discouraged. I don't see any good evidence for that. The L&L column specifically talked about them, and they have been in both PT adventures so far.
I think that DBW's point, which I agree with, is that if they put +X items in the game then people will mostly use them, so the rules should be able to account for them.
My understanding of what the developers have said is that +X items will be in the game, with X not getting too large. The game math, however, will assume that you don't have them.Max sounds like he is saying that means +X items will be optional and d
Because it's the only metric worth mentioning. I mean, I could have described why its effects on global warming aren't a useful metric, but I just didn't have the time.
The context of the thread was damage output. Before you say "fail" on a subjective judgment made by someone else pay a bit more attention.
Because it's the only metric worth mentioning. I mean, I could have described why its effects on global warming aren't a useful metric, but I just didn't have the time.The context of the thread was damage output. Before you say "fail" on a subjecti
You agreed it was a valuation. That is a subjective judgement. There's no objective reason to value relative damage increases over absolute ones.
And my statement actually referred to absolute damage anyway...
You agreed it was a valuation. That is a subjective judgement. There's no objective reason to value relative damage increases over absolute ones.And my statement actually referred to absolute damage anyway...
Sure there is. One way is accurate, and one way is not, and is usually caused by not understanding how hit chances work.
Look, I get how you want to jump in and play white knight, and prove to me my hypocrisy and show that I'm a jerk, but I really don't care. The post was made with a mathematical error.
Sure there is. One way is accurate, and one way is not, and is usually caused by not understanding how hit chances work.Look, I get how you want to jump in and play white knight, and prove to me my hypocrisy and show that I'm a jerk, but I really do
So a magic greataxe that does +1d6 extra damage on a hit is worth much less than a magic dagger with the same enchantment, because the relative damage increase on the dagger is so much larger?
So a magic greataxe that does +1d6 extra damage on a hit is worth much less than a magic dagger with the same enchantment, because the relative damage increase on the dagger is so much larger?
Sure there is. One way is accurate, and one way is not, and is usually caused by not understanding how hit chances work.
Look, I get how you want to jump in and play white knight, and prove to me my hypocrisy and show that I'm a jerk, but I really don't care. The post was made with a mathematical error.
The statement in question is:
The argument that +1 is more valuable in Next would only be true if you were more often fighting monsters that you need a 21 to hit than you did in 4e. So far there is no indication that will be the case. If you hit on something between 1 and 20, then it increases your DPR by 5% of your max damage either way.
There is no mathematical error in that statement. You may reasonably dispute my definition of valuable, since that is a subjective judgement. But the mathematical statement about damage is perfectly correct.
The statement in question is:There is no mathematical error in that statement. You may reasonably dispute my definition of valuable, since that is a subjective judgement. But the mathematical statement about damage is perfectly correct.
My understanding of what the developers have said is that +X items will be in the game, with X not getting too large. The game math, however, will assume that you don't have them.
Max sounds like he is saying that means +X items will be optional and discouraged. I don't see any good evidence for that. The L&L column specifically talked about them, and they have been in both PT adventures so far.
There were two articles that mentioned +x items. The first said that they would be included for those DMs who wanted to include them in their game. The second was more specific and mentioned a +2 earthquake weapon, but did not mention them as DM optional, however, nothing in the second article contradicted the DM optionality of +x items, so I am continuing under the assumption that they will be optional and not a standard part of the magic item treasure.
If they come out with an article in the future that says otherwise, I will of course change my position and arguments
I think that DBW's point, which I agree with, is that if they put +X items in the game then people will mostly use them, so the rules should be able to account for them.
Most magic items are bonuses. If my fighter has a ring of flying, flying is a bonus on top of everything else and isn't accounted for by the game, but by the DM. In my opinion, +x items need to be treated the same way. They need to be a bonus and not a requirement. The game needs to warn the DMs about the balance issues and should also give them advice on how to compensate for them if the DM needs/wants to. For example, +300 exp of monsters per plus or something along those lines.
There were two articles that mentioned +x items. The first said that they would be included for those DMs who wanted to include them in their game. The second was more specific and mentioned a +2 earthquake weapon, but did not mention them as DM op
The actual quote is "The bulk of our attention will focus on other items, but we will include the vanilla bonus items in the game to fill that space for DMs who want them."
Obviously they are optional, both in the sense that any game element is under the DMs control, and in the more profound sense that the game will not break if you leave them out. You go from that to statements like they are "not a standard part of the magic item treasure," and I don't see where that is justified. When I read the quote it sounds like vanilla +X items will be listed with everything else.
The actual quote is "The bulk of our attention will focus on other items, but we will include the vanilla bonus items in the game to fill that space for DMs who want them." Obviously they are optional, both in the sense that any game element is und
So, getting a +1 weapon in a BA system is the same as getting a +X weapon 5 levels early in 4e. They both result in you being 5% ahead of the game's math. I think that as long as this advantage is limited to 15% then that's fine.
So, getting a +1 weapon in a BA system is the same as getting a +X weapon 5 levels early in 4e. They both result in you being 5% ahead of the game's math. I think that as long as this advantage is limited to 15% then that's fine.
So, getting a +1 weapon in a BA system is the same as getting a +X weapon 5 levels early in 4e. They both result in you being 5% ahead of the game's math. I think that as long as this advantage is limited to 15% then that's fine.
Yes. The only difference being that in 5e, that same +1 weapon will be +5% for the entire campaign, where in 4e you will eventually have to ditch it for an upgrade.
Yes. The only difference being that in 5e, that same +1 weapon will be +5% for the entire campaign, where in 4e you will eventually have to ditch it for an upgrade.
I think that you either need to have a default setting, or make it clear that there are X different modules that you can choose to use.
For ease of use and introducing new DMs/Players, my vote would be for a default setting with added modules and/or settings adding their own options.
Eberron is going to have a different default then say Dark Sun.
I think that you either need to have a default setting, or make it clear that there are X different modules that you can choose to use.For ease of use and introducing new DMs/Players, my vote would be for a default setting with added modules and/or s
So, getting a +1 weapon in a BA system is the same as getting a +X weapon 5 levels early in 4e. They both result in you being 5% ahead of the game's math. I think that as long as this advantage is limited to 15% then that's fine.
Yes. The only difference being that in 5e, that same +1 weapon will be +5% for the entire campaign, where in 4e you will eventually have to ditch it for an upgrade.
Yep. And that's something I like. Now I can say my Dwarf Paladin's sword is a family heirloom, and not have to give it up in 5 levels for a +2 sword. 4e did handle this to some extent with Enchant Magic Item and Transfer Enchantment.
Yes. The only difference being that in 5e, that same +1 weapon will be +5% for the entire campaign, where in 4e you will eventually have to ditch it for an upgrade.[/quote]Yep. And that's something I like. Now I can say my Dwarf Paladin's sword is a
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Why don't you tell that to the developers, who said exactly that?
He didn't make this up, they did.
Please read my post fully before responding to it. I was refering to his comments as to what I was saying/trying to accomplish. He's making things up.
My understanding of what the developers have said is that +X items will be in the game, with X not getting too large. The game math, however, will assume that you don't have them.
Max sounds like he is saying that means +X items will be optional and discouraged. I don't see any good evidence for that. The L&L column specifically talked about them, and they have been in both PT adventures so far.
I think that DBW's point, which I agree with, is that if they put +X items in the game then people will mostly use them, so the rules should be able to account for them.
Yep. I think the exact number they referenced was +3, but I could be wrong. Nothing so far except Max's opinion suggests that +x items will be discouraged, or somehow "more" optional than magic items in general. The game math will be made to work whether you have magic items or not. That is something the designers have explicitely stated.
There is no evidence (and no logical foundation) to support the idea that statistical bonus items are not included in the stated default model of rare and wondrous magic you have to find in dungeons. Devs have talked more than once about how they think finding a +1 sword should be really cool and exciting, rather than expected, however.
That suggests that they plan to have them as part of the core game, but that the core game assumes magic item rarity, and the math works assuming no magic items, probably in part so that the math works no matter what magic items different party members have.
So, your monk could have no items related to combat, maybe just some cool thing that in 4e would be a wondrous item or something, while your rogue has a returning +1 dagger, the fighter has a flametongue bastard sword, and the warlock has some cool grimoire of power, and the math works for all of you.
That's great, and I applaud them. One of the reasons I use inherent bonuses in 4e even for high magic item campaigns is so that people are picking their items based on what is cool for their character, rather than making sure they're got a +3. however, if they don't check their math against no magic item and high magic item play, they'll get a much narrower band of functioning math than they are shooting for, and that's bad.
There's literally no reason not to do so, either. If +x only goes up to three, and price tables are done right for the high magic campaigns, +x items will have about the same total effect as frostbrands and flametongues and other magical weaponry.
None of this makes +x items a requirement. None of this creates a treadmill. Having magical weaponry readily available is going to be the default playstyle of many groups, and one oft used style amongst many for many more groups. It needs to be accounted for by the developers, so that it does not create a massive workload for DMs. It's easy to do, and there's no reason not to. It's going to involve some playtesting, but that's no big deal.
There is no reason not to do this, and therefor no reason to have a default setting for magic item rarity, as they've been saying they will have.
Please read my post fully before responding to it. I was refering to his comments as to what I was saying/trying to accomplish. He's making things up. Yep. I think the exact number they referenced was +3, but I could be wrong. Nothing so far except
You're too rich. Please (and I know you never will) show me where it says objectively that high magic = +x items. 
