|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 12:38PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2010
|
I just wanted to here what other peoples thoughts where on how AC and Attack bonuses should scale, with respect to Magic Armor and Weapons.
Lets say Monsters' average attack bonus increase by +1 every five levels. Should Magic Armor scale at the same rate, thus allowing you to keep up with monster attack bonus, or should it put you ahead of monster attack bonus?
If it should put you ahead, should it scale faster like +1 every four levels? Or should it scale at the same rate, and just always be ahead by the same amount, like +1 every five levels with level 1 magic armor starting at a +1 bonus, so that when monsters go up to +1 at level 5, level 5 armor is no +2.
Same thing for magic weapons. How should they scale vs how monster AC scales?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 12:43PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Apparently magic items will be completely optional, thank god.
So a +1 sword is huge, as it should be.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 27, 2012 - 1:00PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2010
|
Apparently magic items will be completely optional, thank god.
So a +1 sword is huge, as it should be.
I hope that this is true. If you need Magic items to keep up with monsters, then they don't feel special, and a campaign without them would gimp the players.
I hope that Player BABs scale with monster AC, that way when you get a +1 Sword, it feels like an amazing find. Also it makes you feel amazing when you go from 17 Strength to 18.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 2:51AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Probably the hope of bounded accuracy being the watchword of advancement is that someone in a high powered, magic item heavy campaign can use a similar monster set to someone in a lower magic sort of arena. The options would be nice. I'll be using +X magic items in my games 'cause I like them, but I'll be glad to not have to contrive ways for everyone to get magic all the time.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 3:30AM
#5
|
|
|
Players should keep up with monsters by their class levels alone.
Magic items should not be part of the scaling.
EDIT: missed a 'not' in the last sentance...
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 3:33AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Magic items should be part of the scaling.
I disagree, I want magic items completely detached from advancement/scaling (like in pre-3rd Ed).
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 3:34AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Dec 20, 2007
|
I was actually hoping magical weapons would have no "plusses" at all, but just be special.
Like "This is the Sword of Despair, you roll a d12 for damage (instead of a d8) and once per day can use a Fear spell" or something like that.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 3:34AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I think class features and stats should scale with monster stats.
Magic Items should be independent from that.
Like I hand out more powerful items to underpowered and "pure roleplay" PCs.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 4:02AM
#9
|
|
|
Magic items should be part of the scaling.
Oooops... I accidentally dropped an important NOT here....
I DONT wan't magic items to be part of scaling =P
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 28, 2012 - 5:36AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I was actually hoping magical weapons would have no "plusses" at all, but just be special.
Like "This is the Sword of Despair, you roll a d12 for damage (instead of a d8) and once per day can use a Fear spell" or something like that.
I like that also.
Granted - with the math the way it is currently, a +1 weapon doesn't 'break' anything and only takes the players from hitting on a 8 to hitting on a 7 (an 8% increasing in hit probability - unlike +1 plate which takes the enemy from hitting on a 17 to hitting on an 18 - a 33% reduction in hit probability for most of them).
However - I'd rather magic items were cool rather than just numerically better.
The drawback is that it is hard to come up with such 'coolness' that is useful in broad circumstances. Giving a weapon an accuracy bonus makes it generally useful - even if the special property isn't always useful. This actually opens the door for more potential properties since a more special use property isn't the only thing the weapon does.
I've been playing with the weapons which in AD&D might bave been +1, +3 versus {creature type}. One possibility I've been looking at is having them grant advantage when attacking creatures of that type. I'm a bit worried that is too good, however, My second thought (which goes back to the math a did a few weeks ago) is partial advantage against these creatures.
When I was playing with a partial advantage system, Iooked at the math of rolling a d12 and a d20 and using the highest. The net result was a bonus between +1 and +3 - which is in the right ballpark. This didn't work for what I wanted from a partial advantage system mostly because there was no convenient die size to grant partial disadvantage (it would take a d40 or so). But it means that this approach could be used to create magic weapons which improved a character's chance of hitting without actually competing with bounded accuracy.
For such weapons I am currently considering doubling the weapon damage (but not any other damage) from the attack. So - rather than a d8 becoming a d12 as in the above example, it would become 2d8.
Carl
|
|
|
