Am I alone in having no idea how to playtest this material? Seems like something that needs to be done over many many sessions of charachter development to know how this really works.
This is why I am unhappy with this packet. We are not playing at the levels required to accurately gauge magic items. The packet should have been levels 1-10 with some fixes and possibly some more character options (traditions, bloodlines, etc.).
Honestly I would love a packet full of 20 races and classes and 100 pages of magic items, but they should focus on the core classes, races and mechanics. Magic items shouldn't have been introduced (on this scale) until they have a robust core and we have played it enough, so that when the magic items are introduced we can see their effect on the game.
Now, when they release levels 1-10, if there are problems, it will be harder to determine if the problems were based on the level 5-10 material or the magic item material.
Is introducing magic items to players who will barely use them really playtesting? Without the proper system to implement these items (higher levels) the only feedback they will get is speculation.
I'm thinking that the last round of surveys might have caused the increase in levels to be postponed but since they promised us a packet in october and had the content they rlesed ready they were able to keep most of their promise with this release.
I imagint they are working ovrtime to get the feedback changes implemented and tested adequately before letting us have the rest of the stuff we expected. It is a play test, after all, and some things can't be done to a schedule. Maybe the next packet will be even longer in coming if the feedback causes etensive changes.
The legend and lore article did mention an adventure they are planning to release later maybe that's when the updated character files will appear. so for now lets all go back into those caves and murder us some monsters.
This is why I am unhappy with this packet. We are not playing at the levels required to accurately gauge magic items. The packet should have been levels 1-10 with some fixes and possibly some more character options (traditions, bloodlines, etc.).Hone
Still, I don't WANT my characters to wear such a ring if they could find out that a person's finger was purposefully severed in creating said ring. I would much rather have the Ring of Wizardry made from rare metal or crystal. There are no ethical dilemmas involved in wearing something made out of a mineral.
Still, I don't WANT my characters to wear such a ring if they could find out that a person's finger was purposefully severed in creating said ring. I would much rather have the Ring of Wizardry made from rare metal or crystal. There are no ethical di
"Still, I don't WANT my characters to wear such a ring if they could find out that a person's finger was purposefully severed in creating said ring. I would much rather have the Ring of Wizardry made from rare metal or crystal. There are no ethical dilemmas involved in wearing something made out of a mineral."
Are you considering the possibility that the ethical dilemna is part of the idea? That it is meant as an opportunity for role playing? Power or ethics, which one do you choose?
Next up, the Robe of Eyes...
"Still, I don't WANT my characters to wear such a ring if they could find out that a person's finger was purposefully severed in creating said ring. I would much rather have the Ring of Wizardry made from rare metal or crystal. There are no ethical d
Still, I don't WANT my characters to wear such a ring if they could find out that a person's finger was purposefully severed in creating said ring. I would much rather have the Ring of Wizardry made from rare metal or crystal. There are no ethical dilemmas involved in wearing something made out of a mineral.
What if it was made from an iron golem? would you wear it then?
What if it was made from an iron golem? would you wear it then?
Still, I don't WANT my characters to wear such a ring if they could find out that a person's finger was purposefully severed in creating said ring. I would much rather have the Ring of Wizardry made from rare metal or crystal. There are no ethical dilemmas involved in wearing something made out of a mineral.
This is when you change the lore of the item. I cringed several times reading the lore of some of those items. I cringed so much that I ignord the history and went to the meat of the item's descriptions without even reading them.
Most of those items are going to be parts of dozens of treasures so their history is moot anyway. The only way a history or an item's lore is important is when you decide that it's going to be a unique item that the group lucked upon, and by unique I don't mean uber powerful or world shattering.
Maybe the only ring of wizardry they find is one that gives 15 spell points or has asecret affinty to the invisibility spell which allows you to cast it as offten as you like as long as you have a second level spell slot available.
D&D is a game of imagination, do some imagining.
This is when you change the lore of the item. I cringed several times reading the lore of some of those items. I cringed so much that I ignord the history and went to the meat of the item's descriptions without even reading them. Most of those items
Still, I don't WANT my characters to wear such a ring if they could find out that a person's finger was purposefully severed in creating said ring. I would much rather have the Ring of Wizardry made from rare metal or crystal. There are no ethical dilemmas involved in wearing something made out of a mineral.
Still, I don't WANT my characters to wear such a ring if they could find out that a person's finger was purposefully severed in creating said ring. I would much rather have the Ring of Wizardry made from rare metal or crystal. There are no ethical dilemmas involved in wearing something made out of a mineral.
Unless you are a Geophyte
The lore is only suggested lore. If you are the DM, you are free to change it. If you are a player, you are free to roleplay not wanting to wear something made from a severed finger and turn the item down. As a DM, I would reward turning down an magic item for roleplay reasons with some bonus exp.
Unless you are a Geophyte[/quote]The lore is only suggested lore. If you are the DM, you are free to change it. If you are a player, you are free to roleplay not wanting to wear something made from a severed finger and turn the item down. As a DM,
I like some items having built in lore, gives the core game identity.
While I am all for re-flavouring/skinning, I do think sometimes it can go too far.
I like some items having built in lore, gives the core game identity. While I am all for re-flavouring/skinning, I do think sometimes it can go too far.
I like some items having built in lore, gives the core game identity.
While I am all for re-flavouring/skinning, I do think sometimes it can go too far.
I like it to, and 95% of the time I go with that lore. Sometimes I don't. I like it because then I don't have to come up with it myself and I have more time for creating other aspects of the game.
I like it to, and 95% of the time I go with that lore. Sometimes I don't. I like it because then I don't have to come up with it myself and I have more time for creating other aspects of the game.
I like that they kept the detrimental effects of combining a portable hole with a bag of holding. I always thought that was very cool.
I DON'T like the icky item creation fluff for the Ring of Wizardry. Holy Crap, wizards have to create clones of themselves and basically butchersaid clones in order to create Rings of Wizardry? It sounds like something that only an EVIL aligned wizard would do. I would rather have that sort of barbaric and squicky fluff entirely removed from items. I would want Rings of Wizardry to be made of any material, but I would NOT want those rings to be made from human bone or from the bones of one's own clone.
And before you ask...I AM advocating for equal rights for clones in fantasy/scifi. A clone would basically be one's younger identical twin, and they would be individuals in their own right if the clones were sentient. I do not want Parts: The Clonus Horror style exploitation in MY game unless the people who are doing so are evil.
I would allow clones to be created for immortality and resurrection purposes, but the rules for the cloning spell would need to be exactly the same as they are in the 3.5 SRD. The clone has to initially be inert and "lifeless" as it is in the 3.5 spell in order to be used as a vessel for resurrecting the soul of a departed person of whom the clone was made from.
Well, seriously. Clones are twins.
Obviously it is murder to kill ones twin.
If someone died, but their twin survived and is still alive. Well they would still be dead. There isnt actually any resurrection here.
Is there some kind of brain transplant going on into a hollow-headed organ shell?
It is possible to grow specific organs from the stem cells, like just a heart or an ear - or a finger - without growing an entire body. In this sense, one can ethically use these organs without harming another person.
Well, seriously. Clones are twins.Obviously it is murder to kill ones twin.If someone died, but their twin survived and is still alive. Well they would still be dead. There isnt actually any resurrection here.Is there some kind of brain transplant go
I absolutely love the fluff of the magic items. I loved the gory recipes in 1e for creating items too. Dust of Disappearance was also known as Pixie Dust and was created from crushing fairy wings into a powder. Awesome! I agree that fluff should be changed where apprpriate but I love magic being down and dirty as the default setting. Peasants fear wizards, most npc wizards are neutral or evil but alterations can be made to specific fluff if you use your imagination. Maybe that ring was forged from memory crystal infused with brain juice from a Nel-Thagglu? Just apply fantasy logic to give each item a unique history as appropriate.
I absolutely love the fluff of the magic items. I loved the gory recipes in 1e for creating items too. Dust of Disappearance was also known as Pixie Dust and was created from crushing fairy wings into a powder. Awesome! I agree that fluff should
armor +x armor and shields shield of deflection (additional + vs missiles)
potions:
healing extra-healing (vitality)
misc items (amulets, belts, boots,...etc):
amulet of health (periapt of proof against poison) amulet (scarab) of protection belt (girdle) of giant/titan strength boots of elvenkind boots of striding (speed) boots of striding and springing bracers of defense burglar's gloves (gauntlets of dexterity) cloak of elvenkind cloak of resistance (protection) gauntlets of ogre power ring of freedom of movement (free action) ring of invisibility ring of protection ring of regeneration ring of wizardry
wondrous items:
bag of holding dust of appearance feather boat (one of quall's feather tokens) flying carpet keoghton's ointment portable hole ritual (invocation) candle rope of climbing
In case anyone is interested, here is a list of magic items found in all the previous editions.implements:staff of powerwand of firewand of frostweapons:+x weaponsdagger, poisonsword, dancingsword, dragonslayersword, flamesword, frostsword, holy aven
Not that I agree with everything Tlanti said, because I do believe its a bit over the top, but balance for the most part should have nothing to do with creating a fun experience for players or giving them a sense of contribution. That's a myth that was added to pencil and paper RPG's because its true in MMO's. We never had these conversations in the late 70's or 80's. In fact the word balance and role-playing games had nothing to do with each other. Players didn't need to have their mechanical characters have "equal contribution in combat" in order for them to play an integral role in a role-playing game because combat was not the focal point and when it took place it was fast and violent. This is something that evolved from a generation of role-players who see "combat" as "role-playing" evident by it being the focal point of 4th edition and to some degree 3rd edition.
You misunderstand again. The reason you never had those conversations in the 70's and 80's (I was there too) was that the idea of balance never came up. You just had the grumbling of the fighter at higher levels because they felt like they didn't contribute and the Wizard pretty much took over the game. The problem is without house ruling the casters still dominated the game outside combat with spells like charm person, dominate, etc...etc... to the point where the only one that could compete would be an optimized bard. Many many players felt overshadowed unless the DM story ruled or house ruled the game to neutralize the casters for a while so the other players could feel useful. With balance (not to be confused with sameness) the DM doesn't have to house rule or story rule to accomplish this.
As to what is role playing. Role playing is a broad over arcing category. It can mean playing the role of your character (which can be just statistical combat), play acting your character, story telling your character or many other things. What you personally equate role playing to is probably play acting and story telling. Please be more specific when you mention role playing.
In early editions of D&D players often ran gimped characters that where entirely useless and no one complaint because they played intricate parts in the story. It was ok to be a blind, one legged 100 year old bard who could neither fight or sing as long as his story was clever and immersive. The concept of creating combat balance to ensure everyone in the group has an equal level of contribution is just the modern adaptation of PC games into pencil and paper role-playing games.
That's because the DM story ruled and house ruled their usefulness in. They bent or broke the rules in order to allow that character to shine. Now what I would like to see is a game where the DM can plug the right module in to allow a gimped and worthless character to be playable, but that where average characters are completely playable and no single choice can overshadow the others.
That said however, if you are going to make combat the focal point of the modern RPG, than it should be balanced, as now, this is the game and in that respect I agree with Lokaire that balance and equal are not the same as it applies to combat. Their are characters that are good at dealing damage, others good at supporting other characters, some have special ways to combat certain types of characters etc..etc... as long as the combat role is something that contributes to the fight the players have a sense of balance.
The combat has been the focal point of the game since its inception. Maybe you need to go back and read the books again, but the role playing aspects of the game have never been adequately explored in the books. This was done by individuals and groups and has never been a major part of the game rules. In other words the game only gives rules for combat because role playing is done outside of the game. You can have a great role playing session playing monopoly in the same way you can have a great role playing session of D&D...
You misunderstand again. The reason you never had those conversations in the 70's and 80's (I was there too) was that the idea of balance never came up. You just had the grumbling of the fighter at higher levels because they felt like they didn't con
... balance for the most part should have nothing to do with creating a fun experience for players or giving them a sense of contribution. That's a myth that was added to pencil and paper RPG's because its true in MMO's. We never had these conversations in the late 70's or 80's.
... The reason you never had those conversations in the 70's and 80's (I was there too) was that the idea of balance never came up.
I don't know where you two were. I was at TSR publishing AD&D and helping to design 2nd Edition, and we had conversations about balance all the time. Dragon articles and letters to the editor brought it up. That conversation was everywhere, or it seemed that way to us.
You just had the grumbling of the fighter at higher levels because they felt like they didn't contribute and the Wizard pretty much took over the game. The problem is without house ruling the casters still dominated the game outside combat with spells like charm person, dominate, etc...etc... to the point where the only one that could compete would be an optimized bard. Many many players felt overshadowed unless the DM story ruled or house ruled the game to neutralize the casters for a while so the other players could feel useful.
There you go. That's exactly how it came up. Maybe the word "balance" wasn't heard around your dining room tables, but we used it a lot.
In the end, we concluded that "balance" was a chimera not worth pursuing. There were too many variables that we as designers had no control over, beginning with DMs. Lead designers on later editions decided to tackle that problem head-on, and everyone has their own opinion on how suitable or successful those attempts were. I think 4E made a wonderful job of it objectively, but that begs the question of whether the job should have been done, and the answer to that question will be highly subjective.
Where the "balance" of magical item bonuses are concerned, in terms of whether they should or shouldn't be factored into the power curve, I believe there's a third option: Give players and DMs a reliable way to assess character power independent of experience level. My level 5 fighter with Str 12 and a hatchet is not the same as your level 5 fighter with Str 18 and a flametongue +2, but encounter budgets based on level alone treat them as if they are. DMs need a better tool. If they had one, then every campaign could establish its own power gradient and wouldn't need to be chained to the same, official curve.
I go into the idea in more detail at the Howling Tower, but that's the gist of it.
I don't know where you two were. I was at TSR publishing AD&D and helping to design 2nd Edition, and we had conversations about balance all the time. Dragon articles and letters to the editor brought it up. That conversation was everywhere, or it see
... balance for the most part should have nothing to do with creating a fun experience for players or giving them a sense of contribution. That's a myth that was added to pencil and paper RPG's because its true in MMO's. We never had these conversations in the late 70's or 80's.
... The reason you never had those conversations in the 70's and 80's (I was there too) was that the idea of balance never came up.
I don't know where you two were. I was at TSR publishing AD&D and helping to design 2nd Edition, and we had conversations about balance all the time. Dragon articles and letters to the editor brought it up. That conversation was everywhere, or it seemed that way to us.
You just had the grumbling of the fighter at higher levels because they felt like they didn't contribute and the Wizard pretty much took over the game. The problem is without house ruling the casters still dominated the game outside combat with spells like charm person, dominate, etc...etc... to the point where the only one that could compete would be an optimized bard. Many many players felt overshadowed unless the DM story ruled or house ruled the game to neutralize the casters for a while so the other players could feel useful.
There you go. That's exactly how it came up. Maybe the word "balance" wasn't heard around your dining room tables, but we used it a lot.
In the end, we concluded that "balance" was a chimera not worth pursuing. There were too many variables that we as designers had no control over, beginning with DMs. Lead designers on later editions decided to tackle that problem head-on, and everyone has their own opinion on how suitable or successful those attempts were. I think 4E made a wonderful job of it objectively, but that begs the question of whether the job should have been done, and the answer to that question will be highly subjective.
Where the "balance" of magical item bonuses are concerned, in terms of whether they should or shouldn't be factored into the power curve, I believe there's a third option: Give players and DMs a reliable way to assess character power independent of experience level. My level 5 fighter with Str 12 and a hatchet is not the same as your level 5 fighter with Str 18 and a flametongue +2, but encounter budgets based on level alone treat them as if they are. DMs need a better tool. If they had one, then every campaign could establish its own power gradient and wouldn't need to be chained to the same, official curve.
I go into the idea in more detail at the Howling Tower, but that's the gist of it.
Yeah, I remember trying to do math on my old Apple II computer and it taking forever to do things I could do on paper faster. However in modern times the developers can run millions of combinations mathematically and even run combats through a computer if they so desire to get a good idea of what is balanced and what isn't. That is if they are taking advantage of computers.
When I see what they produce I see in my mind a guy in a robe chiseling on a stone tablet. It might not be as bad as that, but really they need to set up an excel spreadsheet that crunches some numbers for them or something. That way they at least have an idea of what is unbalanced and what is not. Its literally as simple as filling in a number of ranges for ability scores, ability mods by race, ability mods by class, specialty mods, class feature mods, magic item mods, etc...etc... and then leaving the computer on all night to run the combinations, then coming back in the morning and seeing the lows and highs and what combined to make them.
There are programs out there that do this already. They are used by programmers to figure this stuff out for games and programs.
Personally I think its time to modernize the development process so they can tell right off what's broken and what's not at a glance...
I don't know where you two were. I was at TSR publishing AD&D and helping to design 2nd Edition, and we had conversations about balance all the time. Dragon articles and letters to the editor brought it up. That conversation was everywhere, or it see
You misunderstand again. The reason you never had those conversations in the 70's and 80's (I was there too) was that the idea of balance never came up. You just had the grumbling of the fighter at higher levels because they felt like they didn't contribute and the Wizard pretty much took over the game. The problem is without house ruling the casters still dominated the game outside combat with spells like charm person, dominate, etc...etc... to the point where the only one that could compete would be an optimized bard. Many many players felt overshadowed unless the DM story ruled or house ruled the game to neutralize the casters for a while so the other players could feel useful. With balance (not to be confused with sameness) the DM doesn't have to house rule or story rule to accomplish this.
I honestly never had that problem in any edition of D&D, It all seems bizzare to me that anyone who plays this game actually would. I don't need the mechanic to balance the game for me, I'm a DM I know how to arbitrait my own games to ensure balance. What I need is a good set of tools to do that with and 4th edition didn't give me any tools at all, all it gave me was rules that said to players "this is how you run the game and the DM shall not pass". It gave everyone the false impression that the DM was no longer the arbitraitor of the rules and his game world. That notion has completetly ruined D&D, it did not balance it.
I honestly never had that problem in any edition of D&D, It all seems bizzare to me that anyone who plays this game actually would. I don't need the mechanic to balance the game for me, I'm a DM I know how to arbitrait my own games to ensure balance
In the end, we concluded that "balance" was a chimera not worth pursuing.
You where correct, it wasn't and isn't worth pursuing for two reasons. First and foremost it can't be achieved, and 4th edition DID NOT achieve it, this is a myth that has somehow become a mantra for 4th edition but its as out of wack as 3rd edition ever was and its complete BS. Secondaly the mere attempt has done nothing but eliminated the DM as an arbitraitor of his own game world, his creation now lives under rules that must be followed and if he doesn't the 4th edition mechanic legitimizes your players complaints that "hey the DM didn't follow the rules". So now instead of creating the adventure you want to create, you are limited by your XP budget and other such stupid things.
You where correct, it wasn't and isn't worth pursuing for two reasons. First and foremost it can't be achieved, and 4th edition DID NOT achieve it, this is a myth that has somehow become a mantra for 4th edition but its as out of wack as 3rd edition
Hand it to a level 1 fighter pretend he is a paladin and so can attune it then see how many monsters he can run through?
Yet I won't see how it interacts with a Paladin's abilities, whatever they will be. It is obviously designed to be a weapon for one specific class. Such an item, I would hope, would not exist in a vacuum that does not compliment or suplement the other abilities of the class it is custom tailoured to.
Yet I won't see how it interacts with a Paladin's abilities, whatever they will be.It is obviously designed to be a weapon for one specific class. Such an item, I would hope, would not exist in a vacuum that does not compliment or suplement the other
You misunderstand again. The reason you never had those conversations in the 70's and 80's (I was there too) was that the idea of balance never came up. You just had the grumbling of the fighter at higher levels because they felt like they didn't contribute and the Wizard pretty much took over the game. The problem is without house ruling the casters still dominated the game outside combat with spells like charm person, dominate, etc...etc... to the point where the only one that could compete would be an optimized bard. Many many players felt overshadowed unless the DM story ruled or house ruled the game to neutralize the casters for a while so the other players could feel useful. With balance (not to be confused with sameness) the DM doesn't have to house rule or story rule to accomplish this.
I honestly never had that problem in any edition of D&D, It all seems bizarre to me that anyone who plays this game actually would. I don't need the mechanic to balance the game for me, I'm a DM I know how to arbitrate my own games to ensure balance. What I need is a good set of tools to do that with and 4th edition didn't give me any tools at all, all it gave me was rules that said to players "this is how you run the game and the DM shall not pass". It gave everyone the false impression that the DM was no longer the arbitrator of the rules and his game world. That notion has completely ruined D&D, it did not balance it.
Just because you never had that problem doesn't mean it didn't exist for others. Which means we need to solve that problem without getting in your way. What you want is a set of tools to arbitrate your own games to ensure balance. What we want is a balanced game so we don't have to use any tools to arbitrate our own games to insure balance.
The suggestion is a module that allows you to use tools to balance the game, and default for us is the core is balanced. We do it this way because balancing something after it is broken is harder than unbalancing something after its balanced.
I honestly never had that problem in any edition of D&D, It all seems bizarre to me that anyone who plays this game actually would. I don't need the mechanic to balance the game for me, I'm a DM I know how to arbitrate my own games to ensure balance
In the end, we concluded that "balance" was a chimera not worth pursuing.
You where correct, it wasn't and isn't worth pursuing for two reasons. First and foremost it can't be achieved, and 4th edition DID NOT achieve it, this is a myth that has somehow become a mantra for 4th edition but its as out of wack as 3rd edition ever was and its complete BS. Secondly the mere attempt has done nothing but eliminated the DM as an arbitrator of his own game world, his creation now lives under rules that must be followed and if he doesn't the 4th edition mechanic legitimizes your players complaints that "hey the DM didn't follow the rules". So now instead of creating the adventure you want to create, you are limited by your XP budget and other such stupid things.
Actually all of that stuff is optional. You can choose not to use the XP budget and rule 0 was in full effect in 4E. Many DMs just didn't feel the need to house rule because the game worked out of the box...
You where correct, it wasn't and isn't worth pursuing for two reasons. First and foremost it can't be achieved, and 4th edition DID NOT achieve it, this is a myth that has somehow become a mantra for 4th edition but its as out of wack as 3rd edition
Just because you never had that problem doesn't mean it didn't exist for others. Which means we need to solve that problem without getting in your way. What you want is a set of tools to arbitrate your own games to ensure balance. What we want is a balanced game so we don't have to use any tools to arbitrate our own games to insure balance. The suggestion is a module that allows you to use tools to balance the game, and default for us is the core is balanced. We do it this way because balancing something after it is broken is harder than unbalancing something after its balanced.
Actually all of that stuff is optional. You can choose not to use the XP budget and rule 0 was in full effect in 4E. Many DMs just didn't feel the need to house rule because the game worked out of the box...
Both are part of the same here and I don't disagree with you, but the problem was that while rule 0 existed, the issue was that its become a rejected part of D&D because the game attempts to balance itself, rather than leaving it to the DM who is in charge of his own game world. Hence players reject the idea that the DM can infiltrate the system and change it for a given scene, because the rules are clear, and consise and leave every aspect of the imagination out of it.
In classic D&D when you made a melee attack for example, it wasn't just a "melee attack", it was the roll you made to find out if what you where trying to do is successful, but what you where trying to do was firmly in the narrative as described by the player its resolution, modifiers and timing where all part of the creative process of creating a cinematic scene described in colaboration between the GM and the Player. The player stated the intent, the GM decided how it will work, the player rolled and the GM described the results Today, in 4th edition, we move our miniatures, we choose our power and we execute the power and mark its usage on the character sheet as used. There are rules governing every aspect of it and as such players have ceased functioning in the realm of the imagination and have begun functioning within the confines of the rules.
To put it bluntly (this is my personal opinion with all disclaimers) to me, this is not D&D. This is something, but its neither Gygax vision, tradition or how D&D was intended to be played. Its souless and uninspiring. In my opinion it was changed to mimic an MMO as a way to appease the nescessity for the current generation of players to feel they are playing a game, rather than what it should be a role-playing game. In short 4th edition has created firm borders which as a GM you are by design not intended to cross and when you do cross them, the players are quick to point out the rules.
The expectation for the GM to follow the rules and play within the mechanic have created a situation where your ability as a GM to manipulate the rules in order to create visuals and control important aspects like timing, cinematic and the narrative have been severly trampled on. Mike Mearl reckognizes this as a issue in 4th edition and its why he's changing it in 5th edition.
In 4th edition we spend too much time looking at our powers, our miniatures and maps, our modifiers and effects, are tactical positions on the grid and our various persistant effects and far too little time in our imaginations.
Both are part of the same here and I don't disagree with you, but the problem was that while rule 0 existed, the issue was that its become a rejected part of D&D because the game attempts to balance itself, rather than leaving it to the DM who is in
Since the Cleric can use swords (now), the Holy Avenger would equally be a Cleric weapon.
Except that it explicitely can only be attuned by Paladins, was designed for Paladins, and we have little idea (other than they will use swords and they will have Cleric Spells) what the Paladin will be doing and how the sword will interact with them. Will it be like AD&D 2nd where the Paladin has Class Features that key off this weapon? In absence this knowledge, we cannot propperly test the weapon.
Except that it explicitely can only be attuned by Paladins, was designed for Paladins, and we have little idea (other than they will use swords and they will have Cleric Spells) what the Paladin will be doing and how the sword will interact with them
Since the Cleric can use swords (now), the Holy Avenger would equally be a Cleric weapon.
Except that it explicitely can only be attuned by Paladins, was designed for Paladins, and we have little idea (other than they will use swords and they will have Cleric Spells) what the Paladin will be doing and how the sword will interact with them. Will it be like AD&D 2nd where the Paladin has Class Features that key off this weapon? In absence this knowledge, we cannot propperly test the weapon.
A limitation to a specific class became obsolete when the Cleric proficiency restriction became obsolete.
Except that it explicitely can only be attuned by Paladins, was designed for Paladins, and we have little idea (other than they will use swords and they will have Cleric Spells) what the Paladin will be doing and how the sword will interact with them
Just because you never had that problem doesn't mean it didn't exist for others. Which means we need to solve that problem without getting in your way. What you want is a set of tools to arbitrate your own games to ensure balance. What we want is a balanced game so we don't have to use any tools to arbitrate our own games to insure balance. The suggestion is a module that allows you to use tools to balance the game, and default for us is the core is balanced. We do it this way because balancing something after it is broken is harder than unbalancing something after its balanced.
Actually all of that stuff is optional. You can choose not to use the XP budget and rule 0 was in full effect in 4E. Many DMs just didn't feel the need to house rule because the game worked out of the box...
Both are part of the same here and I don't disagree with you, but the problem was that while rule 0 existed, the issue was that its become a rejected part of D&D because the game attempts to balance itself, rather than leaving it to the DM who is in charge of his own game world. Hence players reject the idea that the DM can infiltrate the system and change it for a given scene, because the rules are clear, and consise and leave every aspect of the imagination out of it.
In classic D&D when you made a melee attack for example, it wasn't just a "melee attack", it was the roll you made to find out if what you where trying to do is successful, but what you where trying to do was firmly in the narrative as described by the player its resolution, modifiers and timing where all part of the creative process of creating a cinematic scene described in colaboration between the GM and the Player. The player stated the intent, the GM decided how it will work, the player rolled and the GM described the results Today, in 4th edition, we move our miniatures, we choose our power and we execute the power and mark its usage on the character sheet as used. There are rules governing every aspect of it and as such players have ceased functioning in the realm of the imagination and have begun functioning within the confines of the rules.
To put it bluntly (this is my personal opinion with all disclaimers) to me, this is not D&D. This is something, but its neither Gygax vision, tradition or how D&D was intended to be played. Its souless and uninspiring. In my opinion it was changed to mimic an MMO as a way to appease the nescessity for the current generation of players to feel they are playing a game, rather than what it should be a role-playing game. In short 4th edition has created firm borders which as a GM you are by design not intended to cross and when you do cross them, the players are quick to point out the rules.
The expectation for the GM to follow the rules and play within the mechanic have created a situation where your ability as a GM to manipulate the rules in order to create visuals and control important aspects like timing, cinematic and the narrative have been severly trampled on. Mike Mearl reckognizes this as a issue in 4th edition and its why he's changing it in 5th edition.
In 4th edition we spend too much time looking at our powers, our miniatures and maps, our modifiers and effects, are tactical positions on the grid and our various persistant effects and far too little time in our imaginations.
Sure that's your take on it, but there are other opinions that are just as valid as yours. My opinion is the 4e cleaned the game up and gave players an idea of what their characters were capable of before the game even started, something that the DM couldn't take away without house ruling. Many 4E fans value this kind of player empowerment.
So 5E needs to work for both of those groups.
Both are part of the same here and I don't disagree with you, but the problem was that while rule 0 existed, the issue was that its become a rejected part of D&D because the game attempts to balance itself, rather than leaving it to the DM who is in
A limitation to a specific class became obsolete when the Cleric proficiency restriction became obsolete.
That could almost be taken as an indirect challenge to the validity of the Paladin as a discrete Class.
Heh.
Dont take it personally. Also think the validity of the Cleric as a discrete class is in doubt.
The Cleric is simply a Wizard with a Healing tradition.
A War Cleric is simply a Wizard/Fighter multiclass, with a Healing tradition.
A Paladin is simply a Fighter who dabbles in a Wizard Healing tradition.
That could almost be taken as an indirect challenge to the validity of the Paladin as a discrete Class.[/quote]Heh. Dont take it personally. Also think the validity of the Cleric as a discrete class is in doubt. The Cleric is simply a Wizard with a H
Just because you never had that problem doesn't mean it didn't exist for others. Which means we need to solve that problem without getting in your way. What you want is a set of tools to arbitrate your own games to ensure balance. What we want is a balanced game so we don't have to use any tools to arbitrate our own games to insure balance. The suggestion is a module that allows you to use tools to balance the game, and default for us is the core is balanced. We do it this way because balancing something after it is broken is harder than unbalancing something after its balanced.
Actually all of that stuff is optional. You can choose not to use the XP budget and rule 0 was in full effect in 4E. Many DMs just didn't feel the need to house rule because the game worked out of the box...
Both are part of the same here and I don't disagree with you, but the problem was that while rule 0 existed, the issue was that its become a rejected part of D&D because the game attempts to balance itself, rather than leaving it to the DM who is in charge of his own game world. Hence players reject the idea that the DM can infiltrate the system and change it for a given scene, because the rules are clear, and consise and leave every aspect of the imagination out of it.
I don't see this as a bad thing. When the rules make things fair, it's harder for a Player to accept a possible imbalance of DM fiat rather than a (supposed) tried and tested method. Unless the rule is considered bad by everyone and the DM changes it for the betterment of the group, such as 4E's moronic rule for limiting the use of magical items based on character level or giving Max HP at 1st level, then going outside the norm is (and should be) questionable. As a DM, I think the more rules that govern a majority of situations leaves me open for doing non-rule aspects that I enjoy (like City, NPC, and Plot creation). I don't want to have to worry about adjucating each and every situation and maintaining large house-rule books to keep up my consistancy.
In classic D&D when you made a melee attack for example, it wasn't just a "melee attack", it was the roll you made to find out if what you where trying to do is successful, but what you where trying to do was firmly in the narrative as described by the player its resolution, modifiers and timing where all part of the creative process of creating a cinematic scene described in colaboration between the GM and the Player. The player stated the intent, the GM decided how it will work, the player rolled and the GM described the results Today, in 4th edition, we move our miniatures, we choose our power and we execute the power and mark its usage on the character sheet as used. There are rules governing every aspect of it and as such players have ceased functioning in the realm of the imagination and have begun functioning within the confines of the rules.
An attack roll is an attack roll as an attack roll. You can reflavor, fluff, and describe ALL you want but in th end it's a roll + modifier vs. static defense. If a Player describes his attack as pushing someone 10 feet and knocking them prone and stomping on their weapon to disarm them and the DM adjucates it as JUST an attack roll......then there is some serious issues going on and I'd probably walk away from the table instantly. Without some sort of limit set or bounds to be followed, it becomes a battle of "I can imagine better than you can!" and hope that the DM favors you with your imagry. I do not want this to take precident in D&D:Next. Ever. If people DO want this, it's easy enough to implement with Rule 0 unless your players reject it outright. Then your decision is to keep it status-quo, leave, let someone else DM, or play a different game. But the overgall game shouldn't suffer because there are some who don't like codified rules.
To put it bluntly (this is my personal opinion with all disclaimers) to me, this is not D&D. This is something, but its neither Gygax vision, tradition or how D&D was intended to be played. Its souless and uninspiring. In my opinion it was changed to mimic an MMO as a way to appease the nescessity for the current generation of players to feel they are playing a game, rather than what it should be a role-playing game. In short 4th edition has created firm borders which as a GM you are by design not intended to cross and when you do cross them, the players are quick to point out the rules.
Gygax's version died a long, LONG time ago. And if that's the style of game he insipired, I don't think I'd like playing Gygaxian D&D anyways. That being said, how exactly is D&D supposed to be played? This is the crux of the problem because there are some who feel that D&D needs to be played a very focused and specific way and going outside that "isn't D&D". D&D:Next is attempting to make it so EVERY way to play D&D is the right way and I hope that design philosophy retains that focus. But I also question why you think 4E, specifically, is designed for DMs not to go outside some theoritical "box"? I cannot grasp this concept at all, so would you care to illuminate this theory with some examples? About the only one I can think of is removing player's ability to use their "powers" even with such "powers" can be performed. And that, to me, goes against the very aspect of RPGs.
The expectation for the GM to follow the rules and play within the mechanic have created a situation where your ability as a GM to manipulate the rules in order to create visuals and control important aspects like timing, cinematic and the narrative have been severly trampled on. Mike Mearl reckognizes this as a issue in 4th edition and its why he's changing it in 5th edition.
Again, I'm not understanding this philosophy. How does a DM manipulate the rules to create visuals or timing? Perhaps you just dislike the shift in design where the focus of control for visuals and timing are now in the hands of Players instead of DMs? As for DMs following rules, I disbanded the DM-Screen a LONG time ago because I'm fair 95% of the time. There are situations where perhaps the PCs just demolishing a bad-guy so I might make him harder (by giving him more HP, or a power that increases AC, etc.) to make it more dangerous for the PCs. And the reverse is true if a Bad-Guy is stomping over the PCs. But for the most part, I'm fair and balanced. I don't need to go outside the rules to make the game work, nor would I want to. I trust the players not to break the rules and attempt BS-stuff just as they trust me to adjucate and implement the rules fairly. The more clear the rules are the better the game is IMO.
In 4th edition we spend too much time looking at our powers, our miniatures and maps, our modifiers and effects, are tactical positions on the grid and our various persistant effects and far too little time in our imaginations.
Then this very fact was true in 3E and in 2E/AD&D. We had minis then. We had character sheets with options and powers then. We had a majority of the rules understood then. If your problem was because players weren't spending enough time with their imaginations, then that's a problem with those specific players, not with the system iteslf.
Both are part of the same here and I don't disagree with you, but the problem was that while rule 0 existed, the issue was that its become a rejected part of D&D because the game attempts to balance itself, rather than leaving it to the DM who is in
I don' t like the property for the boots of elvenkind. basically you walk silently even over dry leaves. That leaves a lot to interpretation and dm fiat. I like the shift toward more Dm fiat in DnDnext, but that is to far of a shift. I would like a bit more mechanics in the rules, something that could help in arbitration, how does this effect a random search check? This rule is lame.
Whoohoo!!!! droppin in here;I don' t like the property for the boots of elvenkind. basically you walk silently even over dry leaves. That leaves a lot to interpretation and dm fiat. I like the shift toward more Dm fiat in DnDnext, but that is to f
I don' t like the property for the boots of elvenkind. basically you walk silently even over dry leaves. That leaves a lot to interpretation and dm fiat. I like the shift toward more Dm fiat in DnDnext, but that is to far of a shift. I would like a bit more mechanics in the rules, something that could help in arbitration, how does this effect a random search check? This rule is lame.
Some people might argue that they like the item because it's truer to AD&D item rules, an edition they liked. Honestly, while I think it's not balanced, it might as well be included as a Module - 'Old-School Magic Items'. That would make those players and Dms happy. Of course, it would have a giant warning label 'Use With Caution: these magic items WILL make characters more powerful than the standard Magic Items - this can cause problems in your game'.
Me, personally I see the item like this:
Boots of Elvenkind - Uncommon Item (insert flavor text and appearance of item) Property: While wearing Boots of Elvenkind, you do not suffer Disadvantage on your Stealth checks due to circumstantial modifiers in the environment (for example, walking over dry leaves, down a creaky staircase, or across gravel). Property (Attuned): Twice per day, you can gain Advantage on a single Stealth check (or cancel out any Disadvantage on the check you might be recieving from armor or other sources).
This, I think, is an item that I'd want my character to wear, without having abilities that are 'absolute'. It also gives additional benefits if attuned, which is kind of what I'd want most of my items to have.
Some people might argue that they like the item because it's truer to AD&D item rules, an edition they liked. Honestly, while I think it's not balanced, it might as well be included as a Module - 'Old-School Magic Items'. That would make those player
In the end, we concluded that "balance" was a chimera not worth pursuing. There were too many variables that we as designers had no control over, beginning with DMs. Lead designers on later editions decided to tackle that problem head-on, and everyone has their own opinion on how suitable or successful those attempts were. I think 4E made a wonderful job of it objectively, but that begs the question of whether the job should have been done, and the answer to that question will be highly subjective.
Where the "balance" of magical item bonuses are concerned, in terms of whether they should or shouldn't be factored into the power curve, I believe there's a third option: Give players and DMs a reliable way to assess character power independent of experience level. My level 5 fighter with Str 12 and a hatchet is not the same as your level 5 fighter with Str 18 and a flametongue +2, but encounter budgets based on level alone treat them as if they are. DMs need a better tool. If they had one, then every campaign could establish its own power gradient and wouldn't need to be chained to the same, official curve.
I go into the idea in more detail at the Howling Tower, but that's the gist of it.
I read your details at the Howling tower, but I think you're just arriving at the same balance system as 4E attempted to do, but with needlessly complex mechanics added on.
More specifically, the moment you create your "effective level" metric, players are going to compare their characters to other characters using that metric and will complain if their effective levels are not in synch. If this situation continues for more than a session or two it's the same as saying "Bob gets to play a level 8 character while everyone else has to play a level 5 character"
You still have the exact same balance issues, but with the added (and needless) complexity of making "effective level" not the same as "xp level." It'd be far better, and easier on players and DMs alike, to simply work the same metrics you would use to determine effective level into the base mechanics and math of the game engine such that "effective level" equals "xp level."
The biggest problem with such a system would be that, in order for it to be effective you'd pretty much NEED to have the character creation and advancement system be more like a build point system (like HERO System or GURPS) than a level based one. Even something like an XP budget system (where you'd spend XP to be able to equip magic items or improve ability scores or what have you) is just build point systems in disguise (a "level" is just a really expensive item purchased with XP).
I read your details at the Howling tower, but I think you're just arriving at the same balance system as 4E attempted to do, but with needlessly complex mechanics added on.More specifically, the moment you create your "effective level" metric, player
I don' t like the property for the boots of elvenkind. basically you walk silently even over dry leaves. That leaves a lot to interpretation and dm fiat. I like the shift toward more Dm fiat in DnDnext, but that is to far of a shift. I would like a bit more mechanics in the rules, something that could help in arbitration, how does this effect a random search check? This rule is lame.
I loved stumbling upon that during my read! -- I think it's a great approach to adjudication.
I loved stumbling upon that during my read! -- I think it's a great approach to adjudication. :)
... balance for the most part should have nothing to do with creating a fun experience for players or giving them a sense of contribution. That's a myth that was added to pencil and paper RPG's because its true in MMO's. We never had these conversations in the late 70's or 80's.
... The reason you never had those conversations in the 70's and 80's (I was there too) was that the idea of balance never came up.
I don't know where you two were. I was at TSR publishing AD&D and helping to design 2nd Edition, and we had conversations about balance all the time. Dragon articles and letters to the editor brought it up. That conversation was everywhere, or it seemed that way to us.
You just had the grumbling of the fighter at higher levels because they felt like they didn't contribute and the Wizard pretty much took over the game. The problem is without house ruling the casters still dominated the game outside combat with spells like charm person, dominate, etc...etc... to the point where the only one that could compete would be an optimized bard. Many many players felt overshadowed unless the DM story ruled or house ruled the game to neutralize the casters for a while so the other players could feel useful.
There you go. That's exactly how it came up. Maybe the word "balance" wasn't heard around your dining room tables, but we used it a lot.
In the end, we concluded that "balance" was a chimera not worth pursuing. There were too many variables that we as designers had no control over, beginning with DMs. Lead designers on later editions decided to tackle that problem head-on, and everyone has their own opinion on how suitable or successful those attempts were. I think 4E made a wonderful job of it objectively, but that begs the question of whether the job should have been done, and the answer to that question will be highly subjective.
Where the "balance" of magical item bonuses are concerned, in terms of whether they should or shouldn't be factored into the power curve, I believe there's a third option: Give players and DMs a reliable way to assess character power independent of experience level. My level 5 fighter with Str 12 and a hatchet is not the same as your level 5 fighter with Str 18 and a flametongue +2, but encounter budgets based on level alone treat them as if they are. DMs need a better tool. If they had one, then every campaign could establish its own power gradient and wouldn't need to be chained to the same, official curve.
I go into the idea in more detail at the Howling Tower, but that's the gist of it.
Hey, many thanks for offering this insight! Very much appreciated.
I don't know where you two were. I was at TSR publishing AD&D and helping to design 2nd Edition, and we had conversations about balance all the time. Dragon articles and letters to the editor brought it up. That conversation was everywhere, or it see
I don' t like the property for the boots of elvenkind. basically you walk silently even over dry leaves. That leaves a lot to interpretation and dm fiat. I like the shift toward more Dm fiat in DnDnext, but that is to far of a shift. I would like a bit more mechanics in the rules, something that could help in arbitration, how does this effect a random search check? This rule is lame.
I loved stumbling upon that during my read! -- I think it's a great approach to adjudication.
There is no adjudication with the rule, only a description. What happens when a player is hiding thier movement in the bushes. Another npc is searching for them. How do you adjudicate "walk silently over dry leaves", when a npc is using eyes and ears to search for that character. Do you just make a spot check? All you can do is spot the guy, you can' t hear them. How does the silent footpads from the boots of elvenkind, effect your ability to move while trying to keep from being spotted? That is left up purly for the Dm to decide. People search with more than thier eyes and that is my point. how do you search for somebody is silent? How does being silent effect anothers ability to find you? As the rule stands, it offers more problems than it solves. That makes it a lame rule.
Listen I'm down with the new approach to guiding dms on how to adjudicate things in thier game and allowing for more Dm fiat. But IMO this is a bad rule. Again only my opinion and I am more than willing to listen to other opinions and counter arguments.
I loved stumbling upon that during my read! -- I think it's a great approach to adjudication. :)[/quote]There is no adjudication with the rule, only a description. What happens when a player is hiding thier movement in the bushes. Another npc is se
Boots of elvenkind won't even make you silent, they just make your footfalls silent. They don't affect breathing, other clothing/armour rattling, ect...
A limitation to a specific class became obsolete when the Cleric proficiency restriction became obsolete.
That could almost be taken as an indirect challenge to the validity of the Paladin as a discrete Class.
Heh.
Dont take it personally. Also think the validity of the Cleric as a discrete class is in doubt.
The Cleric is simply a Wizard with a Healing tradition.
A War Cleric is simply a Wizard/Fighter multiclass, with a Healing tradition.
A Paladin is simply a Fighter who dabbles in a Wizard Healing tradition.
I don't take it personally. I just wanted to be sure I understood where you are coming from.
Boots of elvenkind won't even make you silent, they just make your footfalls silent.They don't affect breathing, other clothing/armour rattling, ect... That could almost be taken as an indirect challenge to the validity of the Paladin as a discrete C
I just realized that the magic item table has no shortsword. This means that the iconic blue glowing shortsword isn't even possible in DnDNext.. odd!xkcd.com/1114/
Boots of elvenkind won't even make you silent, they just make your footfalls silent. They don't affect breathing, other clothing/armour rattling...,
Right so how do you adjudicat that. There is no rule only a vague description. So how do you even adjudicate move silent in that case? There is no suggestion, no ruling, only that description. It' s a vague description posing as a bad rule.
Right so how do you adjudicat that. There is no rule only a vague description. So how do you even adjudicate move silent in that case? There is no suggestion, no ruling, only that description. It' s a vague description posing as a bad rule.
I was just surprised to see it missing from the list of magical weapons and all other swords being either long or great.
Which die roll gets you that result :) I was just surprised to see it missing from the list of magical weapons and all other swords being either long or great.
In situations in which the enemy is not looking in the players direction, their Stealth check succeeds automatically.
In situations where the enemies can potentially see the PC , the DM shoud adjudicate a modifier to the stealth roll/perception roll (or use Advantage/Disadvantage) dependent on the situation.
The rule is deliberately vague to allow for the nuance of the suituation to apply, rather than saying "It's a +4" to Stealth". Because sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.
At the risk of opening up a potentially controversial other argument, it's the sort of crunch-light rule that encourages players to think outside of the box ("We throw a rock over the guards shoulder to make him look the other way") but also requires DM interperetation.
"Right so how do you adjudicat that."In situations in which the enemy is not looking in the players direction, their Stealth check succeeds automatically.In situations where the enemies can potentially see the PC , the DM shoud adjudicate a modifier
Clones are people two. I LOVE the flavor of that ring! It's creepy and very Gygaxian. Sure, take the magic out of my cold, dead finger.
Would you feel morally clean benefitting from a cloned / slaughtered wizard's digits and stolen magic ability? It is very much an evil-seeming item, if you think about it. Most wizards would use, it, with some kind of revulsion maybe. Good thing there's a keyword for that! "Good-aligned creatures feel revulsion at the crafting of this item". Makes you feel icky just thinking about it? Too bad!! Don't wear it if it bothers you! Everyone has their own moral compass to follow. Is it immoral to benefit from knowledge gleaned from Nazi experiments on unwilling human test subjects? Most people would probably say, why, sure it is. But we all drive on autobahns and BMW are not exactly out of business, are they. Or IBM for that matter. I wanted to chime in here and tell Wotc you're doing a very good job, hitting lots of right notes, though there are certainly glaring issues to fix as people in this thread have made clear.
A) Attunement is very cool. It fits perfectly for Holy Avenger, but I'd say to attune to it properly you should have to pray to your god or have your liege bestow or beknight you with it in some religious ceremony. It shouldn't be as easy as : you find it on the floor, and bam, 10 minutes later you are now uber. Attunement requirements should be variable and DM-dependent, or at least with some suggestions on a sidebar.
B) Magic rings need limits, eventually players will start collecting them all and have one on each finger. Each ring should take an attunement slot. So you might have to decide between that ring and a holy avenger, that's fine by me.
C) Charisma might work as a limit on attunement, but I'd say it should be level, period. So levels 1-6 you can be attuned to a single item, then two from 7-12, etc.
D) Ogre power / Belts of Giant Strength. I like the old school vibe but when I play a melee type who focused on strength, I really don't want to be outshone on strength by the wizard or rogue, all day every day. If they have 19 str now and I have 17, it's more worthwhile to give someone else a +8 bump than me a +2 bump, even though that would net me a +1. It's a rule that irks me, that those items exist. Unless there are equivalents to the other stats. Those items should not be "always on", they should have activation durations. Bam, all the balance issues are gone, all the munchkin / powergamey entitlement issues disappear. Maybe if you wear those ogre gloves you're as dumb as an ogre and as clumsy and noisy as one, too. That would work. Like how some of the other items have drawbacks (Oathbow!!! great design on that one)
E) Dwarven throwers : what, no Axes? Throwing axes are way more common than throwing hammers, except for Thor mythology, I'm not aware why that should be an artifact-level item with no options for other weapon types, especially those favored by ..err, Dwarves.
F) Returning property needs to be added. If Mage Hand is a cantrip, there should be a magic item that returns to your hand when you throw it. Bam, problem solved with E), above. Just have throwing axes with the returning property and I'll be happy
G) Why are throwing hammers using Dex, but throwing Axes using Strength? If anything, both should be Str-based as in 4e, since they aren't exactly a credible ranged weapon to use for a dex character, considering how much superior a bow is to either in every conceivable way. For str characters, it makes sense to keep a throwing axe strapped to your back for those pesky flying creatures, but without the returning magic property, it's kind of ...blah. Not really viable, except if your dex sucks as a backup ranged weapon. Let's make "throwing axe chucker guy" a viable concept in 5e.
H) Further elaborating on the Equipment.PDF (and how it relates to stat assignment), I wonder if there'll ever been a composite bow section, with a str-benefit. I personally think throwing weapons, regardless of weight or type, should use Dex to the to-hit and strength for the Damage bonus, and longbows get no benefit for dex to damage but also str-bonus. This means rogues, elves, anyone using longbows, have VERY good reason to not dump their strength. And having all thrown weapons use Dex to aim means that fighters can't tank their dex either if they want to be effective at ranged combat. Win-Win, if you ask me. Dexterity is MADE for that, it's what it models. Maybe give a minimum size or strength score to be able to throw certain weapons at all, or, even better, make the range of thrown weapons depend on the strength of the wielder. So you still aim with dex, but your strength gives it higher range and damage boost. Yeah I know it's more complex and will probably never be implemented that way, but one can always hope. ...anyone in the design team reading this?
I'm seeing balance more favorably now that I've quit RPGs for a while and had a chance to read and read and read other people's opinions on the various editions, but these magic items are pretty neat! Needs fixing the costs and so on. And the rarity values is completely nonsensical in relation to the probabilities in the table. You have rarer items being statistically more likely to show up in loot tables. hmm, that's wrong.
Clones are people two. I LOVE the flavor of that ring! It's creepy and very Gygaxian. Sure, take the magic out of my cold, dead finger. Would you feel morally clean benefitting from a cloned / slaughtered wizard's digits and stolen magic ability? It
In situations in which the enemy is not looking in the players direction, their Stealth check succeeds automatically.
In situations where the enemies can potentially see the PC , the DM shoud adjudicate a modifier to the stealth roll/perception roll (or use Advantage/Disadvantage) dependent on the situation
..., but also requires DM interperetation.
Now that would be a much better way to present a rule regarding the effect of boots of elvenkind. If you present the rule with at least a suggestion on how to adjudicate both dm and players have an idea on what to expect during game play. I am fine if the rules are presented with some latitude in interpretation. But as presented in the current packet there are no suggestions on how to adjudicate a ruling on "You make no sound when you move..,". All I' m asking for is a few suggestions on how to adjuticate certain situations, like the one quoted above, when a magic item is presented in a finished product.
They can lift it straight from DemoMonkey' s post, that would work just fine.
Now that would be a much better way to present a rule regarding the effect of boots of elvenkind. If you present the rule with at least a suggestion on how to adjudicate both dm and players have an idea on what to expect during game play. I am fine
Right so how do you adjudicat that. There is no rule only a vague description. So how do you even adjudicate move silent in that case? There is no suggestion, no ruling, only that description. It' s a vague description posing as a bad rule.
How do I adjudicate it? Simple. There is no mechanical affect by itself. However, it renders useless any sort of detection that relies on the sound of foot falls.
For the reasons I already mentioned, it offers no bonus or advantage to any form of stealth. It merely gets rid of penalties for walking on dry leaves, rice paper, or other noisie clutter that is foot based. It also renders automatic failure any attempt to make noise by stomping. I may also give the person wearing them disadvantage to detect fragile footing beneath them (break away floors, thin ice, ect...) as they won't hear tell tale echos, ect of their footfalls.
How do I adjudicate it?Simple. There is no mechanical affect by itself.However, it renders useless any sort of detection that relies on the sound of foot falls.For the reasons I already mentioned, it offers no bonus or advantage to any form of stealt
Right so how do you adjudicat that. There is no rule only a vague description. So how do you even adjudicate move silent in that case? There is no suggestion, no ruling, only that description. It' s a vague description posing as a bad rule.
How do I adjudicate it? Simple. There is no mechanical affect by itself. However, it renders useless any sort of detection that relies on the sound of foot falls.
For the reasons I already mentioned, it offers no bonus or advantage to any form of stealth. It merely gets rid of penalties for walking on dry leaves, rice paper, or other noisie clutter that is foot based. It also renders automatic failure any attempt to make noise by stomping. I may also give the person wearing them disadvantage to detect fragile footing beneath them (break away floors, thin ice, ect...) as they won't hear tell tale echos, ect of their footfalls.
The guys invisible quick throw out the bag of dry leaves and rice paper!
How do I adjudicate it?Simple. There is no mechanical affect by itself.However, it renders useless any sort of detection that relies on the sound of foot falls.For the reasons I already mentioned, it offers no bonus or advantage to any form of stealt
Phew, long thread and just a first read through the pack so far so I may be missing some points.
Some items are very powerful. Some are disappointing. Attunement is still a riddle to me at this point. Just one example. Ogre strenght belt giving you a free stat? Being more useful to a 8 str wizard instead of a 18 str fighter is not what I had in mind.
Magic items, crafting and economy are one and the same. You cant dodge one and try to tackle the rest pretending they dont exist.
A powerful rare legendary sword is uncovered but when you try to sell it you realize it's not worth much? Why not? Powerful individuals dont want it? Prices are based both in utility and rarity of an object. If we make a world full of flying carpets however useful, this item wont gonna sell much.
Can you craft it? What pains and sacrfices you need to make for it? Are magic items and arftifacts only the result of a lost rare ritual? This should be considered to price tags as well.
Attunement. Define it please. Is it only a mechanic to limit legendary artifacts per player or magic items in general? If the latter, please increase attunement application to all but the most mundane items like pots/scrolls and/or perhaps +1 items.
Next has to make a stand.
Variants are cool and helpful to all (no magic, low magic, high magic) but a default way (a mid magic approach?) to handle them in a consistent manner in a dnd world is much more helpful to dms and players. Especially new ones. This will help published adventures define treasure and the system in general to ignore them or include them in a specific manner without treasure variants in each encounter to cover all modules.
Make magic items with a consistent world in mind. Think of the other parameters as well, what if they dont want it? what if they replace it and try to sell the old one?. Think what use this item should have (should it help already strong characters? or you want it to be used as aid for the physically weak?). Make attunement a more clear mechanic.
Phew, long thread and just a first read through the pack so far so I may be missing some points.Some items are very powerful. Some are disappointing. Attunement is still a riddle to me at this point.Just one example. Ogre strenght belt giving you a f
I mentioned this is my first read so I may well have missed a lot of things daganev
Hard to sell? Completely understandable. Cheaper than "mundane" items though?
So a plate armor is worth 5k gold and I can find it in a reasonably well stocked equipment shop but when Im trying to sell a rare magic item and have the time to find the right person for it, its worth the same or less?
Sure if I dont have the time I could expect a "rip off" approach. But thats not gonna be a eveyday occurence now is it? No clue, but it does sound a bit like "you have sacrificed flesh and limbs for nothing bwahaha", doesnt it?
I mentioned this is my first read so I may well have missed a lot of things daganev :)Hard to sell? Completely understandable. Cheaper than "mundane" items though?So a plate armor is worth 5k gold and I can find it in a reasonably well stocked equipm
I mentioned this is my first read so I may well have missed a lot of things daganev
Hard to sell? Completely understandable. Cheaper than "mundane" items though?
So a plate armor is worth 5k gold and I can find it in a reasonably well stocked equipment shop but when Im trying to sell a rare magic item and have the time to find the right person for it, its worth the same or less?
Sure if I dont have the time I could expect a "rip off" approach. But thats not gonna be a eveyday occurence now is it? No clue, but it does sound a bit like "you have sacrificed flesh and limbs for nothing bwahaha", doesnt it?
Ah, so you havn't read the playtest packet yet with magic items? It explains it all in there, and people are pontificating based on what they read. (poorly I might add)
Ah, so you havn't read the playtest packet yet with magic items?It explains it all in there, and people are pontificating based on what they read. (poorly I might add)
I think you missed something. Magic items are hard to sell because ONLY important powerful people can afford to ask for them.
When you say 'important powerful people' do you mean 'Rich people who can hire an army to break your arms and legs' and when you say 'can afford to ask for them' do you mean 'here is fifty thousand gold pieces - Make me a golf club of castle destruction', or 'I'm King- I want your Flying Castle'?
When you say 'important powerful people' do you mean 'Rich people who can hire an army to break your arms and legs' and when you say 'can afford to ask for them' do you mean 'here is fifty thousand gold pieces - Make me a golf club of castle destruct
I think you missed something. Magic items are hard to sell because ONLY important powerful people can afford to ask for them.
When you say 'important powerful people' do you mean 'Rich people who can hire an army to break your arms and legs' and when you say 'can afford to ask for them' do you mean 'here is fifty thousand gold pieces - Make me a golf club of castle destruction', or 'I'm King- I want your Flying Castle'?
Here is what it says:
Selling Magic Items If a player character wants to sell a magic item, the lack of an established market makes doing so difficult. Usually, selling anything more than a common item requires an interested buyer first. Finding someone willing to purchase a magic item for anything even approaching its true worth is no simple matter, though. The buyer might be a wizard in a lonely tower in the hills, a wealthy dwarf lord with a mountain stronghold, or some other isolated or powerful person. A few buyers can afford to pay in coins or gems, but it's more likely that someone who wants the magic item will offer to trade some other item or service. Such negotiations can lead to interesting quests. If the characters do find someone willing to put up gold, they’ll probably have to settle for less than the item’s true worth. An item’s price is based on its rarity.
There is then a chart giving gold prices for each level of rarity.
When you say 'important powerful people' do you mean 'Rich people who can hire an army to break your arms and legs' and when you say 'can afford to ask for them' do you mean 'here is fifty thousand gold pieces - Make me a golf club of castle destruct
What's really fun is letting the party sell whatever they want to part with, and adding it to the BBEG's armory. Unprepared players get murdered by their own discarded stuff. Enterprising players sell the same +1 sword upwards of a dozen times.
This is also a great way to 'recycle' nonmagical swag, as well. All of those swords and spears the kobolds used to have have been sold to the goblins up in the mountains, while Merchant McMerchantson buys a castle on an island.
What's really fun is letting the party sell whatever they want to part with, and adding it to the BBEG's armory.Unprepared players get murdered by their own discarded stuff. Enterprising players sell the same +1 sword upwards of a dozen times.This i
What's really fun is letting the party sell whatever they want to part with, and adding it to the BBEG's armory. Unprepared players get murdered by their own discarded stuff. Enterprising players sell the same +1 sword upwards of a dozen times.
This is also a great way to 'recycle' nonmagical swag, as well. All of those swords and spears the kobolds used to have have been sold to the goblins up in the mountains, while Merchant McMerchantson buys a castle on an island.
Yup. No one told them to sell their items through a middleman named Shifty Sanderson. Detect Evil?That is what rings of False Alignment are for.
---
Oh yeah. Party, please give your 8 Str wizard the Gauntllet of Ogre Power. I want to see him melee that dragon. I hear the over under is 2 rounds.
Yup. No one told them to sell their items through a middleman named Shifty Sanderson.Detect Evil?That is what rings of False Alignment are for.---Oh yeah.Party, please give your 8 Str wizard the Gauntllet of Ogre Power.I want to see him melee that dr
What's really fun is letting the party sell whatever they want to part with, and adding it to the BBEG's armory. Unprepared players get murdered by their own discarded stuff. Enterprising players sell the same +1 sword upwards of a dozen times.
This is also a great way to 'recycle' nonmagical swag, as well. All of those swords and spears the kobolds used to have have been sold to the goblins up in the mountains, while Merchant McMerchantson buys a castle on an island.
Yup. No one told them to sell their items through a middleman named Shifty Sanderson. Detect Evil?That is what rings of False Alignment are for.
---
Oh yeah. Party, please give your 8 Str wizard the Gauntllet of Ogre Power. I want to see him melee that dragon. I hear the over under is 2 rounds.
Really you mean with Shield, Mirror Image, and the elemental resistance ritual up? Better defenses than a fighter in plate mail...
Yup. No one told them to sell their items through a middleman named Shifty Sanderson.Detect Evil?That is what rings of False Alignment are for.---Oh yeah.Party, please give your 8 Str wizard the Gauntllet of Ogre Power.I want to see him melee that dr
What's really fun is letting the party sell whatever they want to part with, and adding it to the BBEG's armory. Unprepared players get murdered by their own discarded stuff. Enterprising players sell the same +1 sword upwards of a dozen times.
This is also a great way to 'recycle' nonmagical swag, as well. All of those swords and spears the kobolds used to have have been sold to the goblins up in the mountains, while Merchant McMerchantson buys a castle on an island.
Yup. No one told them to sell their items through a middleman named Shifty Sanderson. Detect Evil?That is what rings of False Alignment are for.
---
Oh yeah. Party, please give your 8 Str wizard the Gauntllet of Ogre Power. I want to see him melee that dragon. I hear the over under is 2 rounds.
Really you mean with Shield, Mirror Image, and the elemental resistance ritual up? Better defenses than a fighter in plate mail...
Dragon has blindsense, Dispel Magic, and multiple attacks. Oh and a breath attack.
Wizard has d4 HD.
Yup. No one told them to sell their items through a middleman named Shifty Sanderson.Detect Evil?That is what rings of False Alignment are for.---Oh yeah.Party, please give your 8 Str wizard the Gauntllet of Ogre Power.I want to see him melee that dr
What's really fun is letting the party sell whatever they want to part with, and adding it to the BBEG's armory. Unprepared players get murdered by their own discarded stuff. Enterprising players sell the same +1 sword upwards of a dozen times.
This is also a great way to 'recycle' nonmagical swag, as well. All of those swords and spears the kobolds used to have have been sold to the goblins up in the mountains, while Merchant McMerchantson buys a castle on an island.
Yup. No one told them to sell their items through a middleman named Shifty Sanderson. Detect Evil?That is what rings of False Alignment are for.
---
Oh yeah. Party, please give your 8 Str wizard the Gauntllet of Ogre Power. I want to see him melee that dragon. I hear the over under is 2 rounds.
Really you mean with Shield, Mirror Image, and the elemental resistance ritual up? Better defenses than a fighter in plate mail...
Dragon has blindsense, Dispel Magic, and multiple attacks. Oh and a breath attack.
Wizard has d4 HD.
Where does it say that dragons get blind sense? I'm assuming the 1st level Wizard isn't going against a level 15 dragon too. At best the dragon might have multiple attacks if its level 3 or below. Dispel magic requires a roll and at best will take away one spell effect. Multiple attacks aren't helpful unless they hit, and the breath attack is negated by the elemental resistance...
Yup. No one told them to sell their items through a middleman named Shifty Sanderson.Detect Evil?That is what rings of False Alignment are for.---Oh yeah.Party, please give your 8 Str wizard the Gauntllet of Ogre Power.I want to see him melee that dr
Why would anything less than a level 3 wizard of gauntlets of ogre power?
Because the DM rolled them up randomly on the chart, but even a level 3 Wizard against a level 5 Dragon isn't going to have blind sense, Dispel Magic, multiple attacks, and a breath weapon more powerful than the Elemental Resistance ritual...
Because the DM rolled them up randomly on the chart, but even a level 3 Wizard against a level 5 Dragon isn't going to have blind sense, Dispel Magic, multiple attacks, and a breath weapon more powerful than the Elemental Resistance ritual...
Why would anything less than a level 3 wizard of gauntlets of ogre power?
Because the DM rolled them up randomly on the chart, but even a level 3 Wizard against a level 5 Dragon isn't going to have blind sense, Dispel Magic, multiple attacks, and a breath weapon more powerful than the Elemental Resistance ritual...
All you need is dispel magic, and multiple attacks and the wizard is dead.
Because the DM rolled them up randomly on the chart, but even a level 3 Wizard against a level 5 Dragon isn't going to have blind sense, Dispel Magic, multiple attacks, and a breath weapon more powerful than the Elemental Resistance ritual...[/quote]
Why would anything less than a level 3 wizard of gauntlets of ogre power?
Because the DM rolled them up randomly on the chart, but even a level 3 Wizard against a level 5 Dragon isn't going to have blind sense, Dispel Magic, multiple attacks, and a breath weapon more powerful than the Elemental Resistance ritual...
All you need is dispel magic, and multiple attacks and the wizard is dead.
I'm away from my Playtest Packett... Are those spells that are automatically dispelled, or are they roll to dispell level?
Because the DM rolled them up randomly on the chart, but even a level 3 Wizard against a level 5 Dragon isn't going to have blind sense, Dispel Magic, multiple attacks, and a breath weapon more powerful than the Elemental Resistance ritual...[/quote]
Roll to dispel, and takes away only one spell effect IIRC. So the dragon sits there wasting 3 turns dispelling all your defenses, 3 turns spent wailing on him. Or he can just go ahead and forget dispelling your buffs, but at the same time forget any chance he has oif hitting.
Roll to dispel, and takes away only one spell effect IIRC. So the dragon sits there wasting 3 turns dispelling all your defenses, 3 turns spent wailing on him. Or he can just go ahead and forget dispelling your buffs, but at the same time forget any
Roll to dispel, and takes away only one spell effect IIRC. So the dragon sits there wasting 3 turns dispelling all your defenses, 3 turns spent wailing on him. Or he can just go ahead and forget dispelling your buffs, but at the same time forget any chance he has oif hitting.
Actually
Next's Dispel Magic dispels all 2nd level or lower spells instantly, no save or check.
ActuallyNext's Dispel Magic dispels all 2nd level or lower spells instantly, no save or check.
Roll to dispel, and takes away only one spell effect IIRC. So the dragon sits there wasting 3 turns dispelling all your defenses, 3 turns spent wailing on him. Or he can just go ahead and forget dispelling your buffs, but at the same time forget any chance he has oif hitting.
Actually
Next's Dispel Magic dispels all 2nd level or lower spells instantly, no save or check.
You are also talking about a minimum caster level of 5 (Wizard) or 7 (Sorcerer guesstimate) to be able to cast Dispel Magic twice a day. So what happens when the Dragon casts it twice and then the Wizard casts their spells again? See a Wizard can cast Mirror Image or resistance up to 3 times a day by that level and shield 4 times a day. Then there is the 2nd level Counter Spell to counter the Dispel Magic...
So yeah bring it on...
ActuallyNext's Dispel Magic dispels all 2nd level or lower spells instantly, no save or check.[/quote]You are also talking about a minimum caster level of 5 (Wizard) or 7 (Sorcerer guesstimate) to be able to cast Dispel Magic twice a day. So what hap
Excuse me? Is this wizard the same one who walked into melee with a dragon and got his bufs dispelled on the dragon's turn?
Because he better not be casting spells in melee with a dragon unbuffed with d4 HD unless he's much higher level than the dragon.
He ought to be withdrawing and running for his life screaming "HELP HELP! MOMMY!".
Excuse me? Is this wizard the same one who walked into melee with a dragon and got his bufs dispelled on the dragon's turn?Because he better not be casting spells in melee with a dragon unbuffed with d4 HD unless he's much higher level than the drago
Excuse me? Is this wizard the same one who walked into melee with a dragon and got his bufs dispelled on the dragon's turn?
Because he better not be casting spells in melee with a dragon unbuffed with d4 HD unless he's much higher level than the dragon.
He ought to be withdrawing and running for his life screaming "HELP HELP! MOMMY!".
Nope, he just casts Mirror Image which targets someone within 5' so it doesn't cause disruption. Then next round casts resistance, and then shield after that.
Also the Dragon casted Dispel Magic and our Wizard casted Counter Spell and dispelled the Dragon's Dispel Magic spell. So yeah this is the same Wizard standing toe to toe with the Dragon...
Nope, he just casts Mirror Image which targets someone within 5' so it doesn't cause disruption. Then next round casts resistance, and then shield after that.Also the Dragon casted Dispel Magic and our Wizard casted Counter Spell and dispelled the Dr
Selling Magic Items If a player character wants to sell a magic item, the lack of an established market makes doing so difficult. Usually, selling anything more than a common item requires an interested buyer first. Finding someone willing to purchase a magic item for anything even approaching its true worth is no simple matter, though. The buyer might be a wizard in a lonely tower in the hills, a wealthy dwarf lord with a mountain stronghold, or some other isolated or powerful person. A few buyers can afford to pay in coins or gems, but it's more likely that someone who wants the magic item will offer to trade some other item or service. Such negotiations can lead to interesting quests. If the characters do find someone willing to put up gold, they’ll probably have to settle for less than the item’s true worth. An item’s price is based on its rarity.
There is then a chart giving gold prices for each level of rarity.
By my reading, Promitheas's point still stands. We know that there is an established market for armor, such that a PC can easily expect to acquire plate mail provided he has the 5k gold pieces. Many magical armors are less expensive than plate mail, which means there's no reason why they couldn't fit into the pre-existing armor market. They may be rare, but not so rare as to make them more valuable than plate.
As far as the charming conversation about whether or not a wizard can expect to survive in melee against a dragon goes, I think the balance question is more pressing when you have a cleric who invested in Wis and Con putting on that belt of giant strength and being able to leverage those lovely melee cleric abilities along with his good hp, AC, save DCs, and healing abilities.
By my reading, Promitheas's point still stands. We know that there is an established market for armor, such that a PC can easily expect to acquire plate mail provided he has the 5k gold pieces. Many magical armors are less expensive than plate mail,
Ah I see, the price tags are for selling purposes only. That answers to many of my concerns. Ty dag.
I still have many questions though. Many things could use clarifications imo. Im not saying doooom, this is a playtest and its a great opportunity to debate the things we see or not understand.
Are "mundane" plates, mithral chains or dragon scales very rare as well? My players could go to waterdeep and buy one or they should enter negotiations with the lords of waterdeep to get one? What if they find a +1 plate, do they have to do a quest to reach a dwarven lord to sell the mundane one since their price is as high or higher than many magical items or they fall to the now its used and worthless scenario? (gosh I hate that once you wear it off its junk excuse...)
So players are selling their items to get gold but they cant buy magic items in return if they want to? Wont high level adventurers or guilds, nobles, kings or wealthy merchants have magic items for sale or is it a must have reward scenario only? Are my players the only adventurers out there? Buying and crafting scenarios are mentioned but no price guidelines are provided.
If we cope with a magic item non purchaseable scenario. What are players are supposed to do with their money? Building castles, churches, hiring armies and everyday night revels sound fun but is that it? What if my players dont like the rich and famous concept? What about the ascetic clerics, shy no leader fighters, plain looking freedom lovers rogues with nothing but a backpack and a fast horse, reclusive wizards with a windmill as a home (see elminster or the always traveling gandalf), hermit druids and rangers etc? Are they gonna buy a lifetime's supply of pots and scrolls and give the rest to charity? Should I impose such restraints to my players if they dont want them?
Every 13th level npc out there must have a kingdom to rule or a dragon's treasure hoard to guard? What if I want to make my own artemis entreri, strahd or manshoon variant as a recurring villain? Will they only have magic items fit for my players? Wouldnt it be easier if I had an expected magic item wealth chart and price tags so I can equip them as much as I like (knowing what items they are likely to keep and sell based on my group and how much money they will get from it, like the old more or less half price) without disregarding balance and fortune issues?
How much is enough? How a dm, especially a new one, will know beforehand that he has given so many or so powerful magic items that most combats are now cake walks? Should we not have a better frame in which to use them than this is a dm's decision? If you fail this is probably the time for the "long talk" or the "rogues come and steal them" scenarios? I think the system should protect us from that.
I was under the impression we were gonna see a limited number of magic items that let you do interesting things without throwing bounded accuracy out of the window. A fire sword letting you do fire damage instead of slashing damage for example for x rounds per day or flying boots that would let you fly instead of walk for 5 rounds/day etc. You know things that give you versatility and utility but dont make you flat out better. So a player gets to decide what to do with his loot. Does he want some small versatility/utility benefit or follow his rich and famous dream knowing that if he wants to gamble all his money away or help homeless refugees to rebuild their homes he would not be left behind?
Dont get me wrong. I loved story telling magic item ideas. I also like powerful magic items (hey Im a 3.x fan after all), but if they are gonna make you flat out better than not having one in all aspects like more spells, having great strength out of nowhere, +3 to hit and damage and so on, thats definately things my players would love to have or aspire to get them through their hard earned money without relying solely on dm fiat (I will decide what you wear ha!) or having to introduce wish lists/puppy eyes for them. And I would definately could use some magic item limit (please no treasure parcels that was way too limiting) so we can avoid unbalanced situations. Reasonable character levels for magic items was a step in the right direction, but imo is not enough of a limiting factor. Example, if 11th level characters could resonably have artifacts, how many are appopriate for 15/18/20 level characters before every monster becomes a bothersome fly? How will I know how much is enough when I put 2 or 3 magic items to my npcs before realizing I made an invulnerable sure to gut them villain?
In short, if the designers want us to have a bounded accuracy system they should not present us so many unbounded items without any regards to econony, npc/monster power and pc power. Plus, magic items should be a dm and a player choice as part of their customise planning. Options should be provided for both. One sided desicions only are going to get many folks disappointed.
Who knows, perhaps the crafting methods soon to come can address some concerns. But at the moment I must say I cannot see how to include magic items module safely into the game or use them as a boon both me and my players can enjoy without some very serious effort on my part.
Ah I see, the price tags are for selling purposes only. That answers to many of my concerns. Ty dag.I still have many questions though. Many things could use clarifications imo. Im not saying doooom, this is a playtest and its a great opportunity to
Excuse me? Is this wizard the same one who walked into melee with a dragon and got his bufs dispelled on the dragon's turn?
Because he better not be casting spells in melee with a dragon unbuffed with d4 HD unless he's much higher level than the dragon.
He ought to be withdrawing and running for his life screaming "HELP HELP! MOMMY!".
Heh. And I love how now the wizard only had defensive spells memorized, yet still is somehow going to have all offensive spells memorized when Lokiare wants the wizard to do more damage than a fighter, and will ONLY have utility spells memorized when Lokiare wants the wizard to be better at utility than some class or other. It's amazing how Lokiare always has every spell the wizard knows memorized in all of a wizard's spell slots.
Heh. And I love how now the wizard only had defensive spells memorized, yet still is somehow going to have all offensive spells memorized when Lokiare wants the wizard to do more damage than a fighter, and will ONLY have utility spells memorized whe
Why are you in melee with a dragon? It's got 10 Dexterity if past bad ideas are anything to go by- tag it with Web and it's done, then pew-pew it to death with cantrips, ranged weapons and maybe reach weapons depending on if dragons have reach. Direct damage spells like Fireball are complete wastes of a wizard's valuable casting slots, which should be split between utility buffs and save-or-lose spells.
Why are you in melee with a dragon? It's got 10 Dexterity if past bad ideas are anything to go by- tag it with Web and it's done, then pew-pew it to death with cantrips, ranged weapons and maybe reach weapons depending on if dragons have reach. Dir
The amount of work a 10 str character would have to do to abuse the gauntlets almost nullifies the brokenness.
You are better off handling it to a warrior character who can melee already.
That is my point.The amount of work a 10 str character would have to do to abuse the gauntlets almost nullifies the brokenness. You are better off handling it to a warrior character who can melee already.
Ah I see, the price tags are for selling purposes only. That answers to many of my concerns. Ty dag.
I still have many questions though. Many things could use clarifications imo. Im not saying doooom, this is a playtest and its a great opportunity to debate the things we see or not understand.
Are "mundane" plates, mithral chains or dragon scales very rare as well? My players could go to waterdeep and buy one or they should enter negotiations with the lords of waterdeep to get one? What if they find a +1 plate, do they have to do a quest to reach a dwarven lord to sell the mundane one since their price is as high or higher than many magical items or they fall to the now its used and worthless scenario? (gosh I hate that once you wear it off its junk excuse...)
So players are selling their items to get gold but they cant buy magic items in return if they want to? Wont high level adventurers or guilds, nobles, kings or wealthy merchants have magic items for sale or is it a must have reward scenario only? Are my players the only adventurers out there? Buying and crafting scenarios are mentioned but no price guidelines are provided.
If we cope with a magic item non purchaseable scenario. What are players are supposed to do with their money? Building castles, churches, hiring armies and everyday night revels sound fun but is that it? What if my players dont like the rich and famous concept? What about the ascetic clerics, shy no leader fighters, plain looking freedom lovers rogues with nothing but a backpack and a fast horse, reclusive wizards with a windmill as a home (see elminster or the always traveling gandalf), hermit druids and rangers etc? Are they gonna buy a lifetime's supply of pots and scrolls and give the rest to charity? Should I impose such restraints to my players if they dont want them?
Every 13th level npc out there must have a kingdom to rule or a dragon's treasure hoard to guard? What if I want to make my own artemis entreri, strahd or manshoon variant as a recurring villain? Will they only have magic items fit for my players? Wouldnt it be easier if I had an expected magic item wealth chart and price tags so I can equip them as much as I like (knowing what items they are likely to keep and sell based on my group and how much money they will get from it, like the old more or less half price) without disregarding balance and fortune issues?
How much is enough? How a dm, especially a new one, will know beforehand that he has given so many or so powerful magic items that most combats are now cake walks? Should we not have a better frame in which to use them than this is a dm's decision? If you fail this is probably the time for the "long talk" or the "rogues come and steal them" scenarios? I think the system should protect us from that.
I was under the impression we were gonna see a limited number of magic items that let you do interesting things without throwing bounded accuracy out of the window. A fire sword letting you do fire damage instead of slashing damage for example for x rounds per day or flying boots that would let you fly instead of walk for 5 rounds/day etc. You know things that give you versatility and utility but dont make you flat out better. So a player gets to decide what to do with his loot. Does he want some small versatility/utility benefit or follow his rich and famous dream knowing that if he wants to gamble all his money away or help homeless refugees to rebuild their homes he would not be left behind?
Dont get me wrong. I loved story telling magic item ideas. I also like powerful magic items (hey Im a 3.x fan after all), but if they are gonna make you flat out better than not having one in all aspects like more spells, having great strength out of nowhere, +3 to hit and damage and so on, thats definately things my players would love to have or aspire to get them through their hard earned money without relying solely on dm fiat (I will decide what you wear ha!) or having to introduce wish lists/puppy eyes for them. And I would definately could use some magic item limit (please no treasure parcels that was way too limiting) so we can avoid unbalanced situations. Reasonable character levels for magic items was a step in the right direction, but imo is not enough of a limiting factor. Example, if 11th level characters could resonably have artifacts, how many are appopriate for 15/18/20 level characters before every monster becomes a bothersome fly? How will I know how much is enough when I put 2 or 3 magic items to my npcs before realizing I made an invulnerable sure to gut them villain?
In short, if the designers want us to have a bounded accuracy system they should not present us so many unbounded items without any regards to econony, npc/monster power and pc power. Plus, magic items should be a dm and a player choice as part of their customise planning. Options should be provided for both. One sided desicions only are going to get many folks disappointed.
Who knows, perhaps the crafting methods soon to come can address some concerns. But at the moment I must say I cannot see how to include magic items module safely into the game or use them as a boon both me and my players can enjoy without some very serious effort on my part.
All good questions, but they are also all over the place. Is the new DM using the Random treasure table or not? Is the DM who doesn't use the random table knowledgable enough to know what magic items are good to give the players? Do the players know what magic items are available and have a wish list?
It's all going to depend on DM and the world that is set up, but I don't think one way or another is going to break anything.
The plate armor is 5K, but the magic items that are 150 gold, don't give as much a benefit as the plate armor does.
All good questions, but they are also all over the place. Is the new DM using the Random treasure table or not? Is the DM who doesn't use the random table knowledgable enough to know what magic items are good to give the players? Do the players kno
Yup. cant help it Im afraid. That packet left me with so many questions unanswered... I tried to put them all in one post creating this ugly wall of post Im sorry about that. Still I think most if not all are valid concerns so far.
Plate, mithral chain etc for example costing 5k should be as rare as a 5k hypothetical magic item cost. Rare materials or a known to few crafting technique to make it or a very long period to make them or a combination of all the above. Thats why its so special and costly.
If any blacksmith can make them easily though, even if bonuses are great, prices will inevitably fall. Supply and demand. I'll assume blacksmiths are more common than knights in your world. Doesnt that make sense?
Core rules have nothing to fear from a module as far as Im concerned. But I would like to be able to use it easily and expect to roughly know what changes/considerations I have to make if any besides a vague dont overdo it dm.
Im inclined to disagree (admiteddly without playtesting so far) about breaking things. Please check the magic list again. Do you honestly believe that a party with 3 rare magic items each will have the same difficulty winning a specific combat encounter than a party with no magic items at all?
Yup. cant help it Im afraid. That packet left me with so many questions unanswered... I tried to put them all in one post creating this ugly wall of post Im sorry about that. Still I think most if not all are valid concerns so far.Plate, mithral chai
Excuse me? Is this wizard the same one who walked into melee with a dragon and got his bufs dispelled on the dragon's turn?
Because he better not be casting spells in melee with a dragon unbuffed with d4 HD unless he's much higher level than the dragon.
He ought to be withdrawing and running for his life screaming "HELP HELP! MOMMY!".
Heh. And I love how now the wizard only had defensive spells memorized, yet still is somehow going to have all offensive spells memorized when Lokiare wants the wizard to do more damage than a fighter, and will ONLY have utility spells memorized when Lokiare wants the wizard to be better at utility than some class or other. It's amazing how Lokiare always has every spell the wizard knows memorized in all of a wizard's spell slots.
Where did I say I was using the same Wizard? With 5 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 17 spells known at level 5 they have the versatility to do that. During that day that Wizard planned on tanking whatever they encountered so they memorized defensive spells. On another day they memorized all attack spells, that is the role of the Wizard, versatility from day to day...
Heh. And I love how now the wizard only had defensive spells memorized, yet still is somehow going to have all offensive spells memorized when Lokiare wants the wizard to do more damage than a fighter, and will ONLY have utility spells memorized whe
Yup. cant help it Im afraid. That packet left me with so many questions unanswered... I tried to put them all in one post creating this ugly wall of post Im sorry about that. Still I think most if not all are valid concerns so far.
Plate, mithral chain etc for example costing 5k should be as rare as a 5k hypothetical magic item cost. Rare materials or a known to few crafting technique to make it or a very long period to make them or a combination of all the above. Thats why its so special and costly.
If any blacksmith can make them easily though, even if bonuses are great, prices will inevitably fall. Supply and demand. I'll assume blacksmiths are more common than knights in your world. Doesnt that make sense?
Core rules have nothing to fear from a module as far as Im concerned. But I would like to be able to use it easily and expect to roughly know what changes/considerations I have to make if any besides a vague dont overdo it dm.
Im inclined to disagree (admiteddly without playtesting so far) about breaking things. Please check the magic list again. Do you honestly believe that a party with 3 rare magic items each will have the same difficulty winning a specific combat encounter than a party with no magic items at all?
Yeah, I'd be asking some question if the guy that walked into the store to buy regular plate mail and refused to buy my +1 plate mail for the same price...
Yeah, I'd be asking some question if the guy that walked into the store to buy regular plate mail and refused to buy my +1 plate mail for the same price...
In situations in which the enemy is not looking in the players direction, their Stealth check succeeds automatically.
In situations where the enemies can potentially see the PC , the DM shoud adjudicate a modifier to the stealth roll/perception roll (or use Advantage/Disadvantage) dependent on the situation
For the reasons I already mentioned, it offers no bonus or advantage to any form of stealth. It merely gets rid of penalties for walking on dry leaves, rice paper, or other noisie clutter that is foot based. It also renders automatic failure any attempt to make noise by stomping. I may also give the person wearing them disadvantage to detect fragile footing beneath them (break away floors, thin ice, ect...) as they won't hear tell tale echos, ect of their footfalls.
So thier we have it, two different interpretions of the same simple vague description. For an experienced dm with lot of trust with his players this would not be a problem. But for an inexperienced dm still building confidence and trust with a group of players, the vague description and lack of any suggestion on how to adjudicate the rule is going to lead to arguments from more confident players. If the rule for boots of elvenkind are printed in a final product as is, there going to have to quickly follow up with an article in Sage' s Advice, with suggestions on how to adjudicat the rule. The two very different examples of adjudication proves my point, that a short discription of a magic item effect is not a rule and the description of the boots of elvenkind does not adjudicate it' s use in the game.
So thier we have it, two different interpretions of the same simple vague description. For an experienced dm with lot of trust with his players this would not be a problem. But for an inexperienced dm still building confidence and trust with a grou
"But for an inexperienced dm still building confidence and trust with a group of players, the vague description and lack of any suggestion on how to adjudicate the rule is going to lead to arguments from more confident players."
True. And that DM should make his ruling and stand by it, confident players or not.
That's HOW you become an experienced DM and build confidence and trust in your players. It's practically a right of passage.
"But for an inexperienced dm still building confidence and trust with a group of players, the vague description and lack of any suggestion on how to adjudicate the rule is going to lead to arguments from more confident players."True. And that DM shou
"But for an inexperienced dm still building confidence and trust with a group of players, the vague description and lack of any suggestion on how to adjudicate the rule is going to lead to arguments from more confident players."
True. And that DM should make his ruling and stand by it, confident players or not.
That's HOW you become an experienced DM and build confidence and trust in your players. It's practically a right of passage.
An inexperienced Dm is going to have to do that anyway. That right of passage is going to have to be travelled for any would be Dm. But a good rule is going to offer suggestions, so that processes is easier for both the Dm and players. When there is just a vague description offered as a rule, all we get a point of contention. When that vague description is also presented with suggestions on adjudiction, then both Dm and player have a place to begin a discussion.
Vague rules do not help an inexperienced Dm gain confidence. A sentence or two, like you have offered as suggestion for adjudicating boots of elvenkind will be a lot more helpful for both inexerienced dms and players gain confidence in one another.
An inexperienced Dm is going to have to do that anyway. That right of passage is going to have to be travelled for any would be Dm. But a good rule is going to offer suggestions, so that processes is easier for both the Dm and players. When there
I admit, right up front, that the wording on the boots may just be sloppy. Or a placeholder until they put something else in. In either of those cases you are completely right.
However, there is a third possibility that gives the designers and their vision of "D&D for everyone" a little more credit. That is, that the rules for the boots are vague because they WANT different gaming groups to come up with their OWN mechanical in-game interperetation of the effects. In effect, a "fluff first" rather than "effect first" way of approaching magic items.
If they say "The boots give + plus 4 to Stealth", even as an example, then that becomes the right and only way to adjudicate them (apart from a house ruled change). But if they say "The wearer can move silently even over dry leaves" the mechanical effect of the boots can work however your group wants AND THAT WILL BE RIGHT. The way I suggested is only how I would adjudicate them; Verdegris_Sage had a completely different idea and that was good too. Neither of us should be wrong.
(The first argument against this approach will read something like "Why should I pay for a vague half-finished game?"; and that would be a valid concern if this "you guys decide" approach was widespread throughout the rules. However, I think miscellaneous magic items is the perfect place for a few examples of this style.)
sirkaikillahI admit, right up front, that the wording on the boots may just be sloppy. Or a placeholder until they put something else in. In either of those cases you are completely right.However, there is a third possibility that gives the designers
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Good thing magic items aren't necessary and math is bounded. That way, a 10 Str Fighter with a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength and a +3 attuned weapon can adventure with a 16 Str Human with a +1 weapon.
Really, what's a +8 to hit/damage edge really worth?
Yeah, powerful magic items make you a badass. I dont' really see a huge problem with that.
There's really two camps with magic items. Either the items are weak trinkets and you barely know they're there, like 3E/4E, or they produce an impact and having a girdle of giant strength makes you awesome, like in 1E/2E.
And unsurprisingly, a dude with two near-artifact level magic items is more powerful than a guy with a basic magic sword.
Yeah, powerful magic items make you a badass. I dont' really see a huge problem with that. There's really two camps with magic items. Either the items are weak trinkets and you barely know they're there, like 3E/4E, or they produce an impact and havi
Yeah, powerful magic items make you a badass. I dont' really see a huge problem with that.
There's really two camps with magic items. Either the items are weak trinkets and you barely know they're there, like 3E/4E, or they produce an impact and having a girdle of giant strength makes you awesome, like in 1E/2E.
And unsurprisingly, a dude with two near-artifact level magic items is more powerful than a guy with a basic magic sword.
Not necessarily true. There is some real legend and myth about heros whose personal mojo was so great it was like that of an artifact and their stories ofen featured them defeating enemies without using even basic tools.. Beowulfs and Lancelots and CuCulaines.
A Lancelot can stand next to a King Arthur (even assuming the Artifact flavored Excalibur) if the game supports things like Boons and Oaths (Lancelots strength of 10 men). Although Lance did have a magic sword it is very much overshadowed by the man himself (he may have never tapped there greater power) - I think elegant use of attunement can give us all options. The artifact user may be unable to attune other items for instance and those who have attained boons are affected similarly... and the Atlantean Warrior model (Xmas trees are us) may have many attuned trinkets so to speak.
4e didnt quite support the idea because the boons were all standard item class boons.. but it certainly could have been stretched to do so.
Not necessarily true. There is some real legend and myth about heros whose personal mojo was so great it was like that of an artifact and their stories ofen featured them defeating enemies without using even basic tools.. Beowulfs and Lancelots and C
Not necessarily true. There is some real legend and myth about heros whose personal mojo was so great it was like that of an artifact and their stories ofen featured them defeating enemies without using even basic tools.. Beowulfs and Lancelots and CuCulaines.
A Lancelot can stand next to a King Arthur (even assuming the Artifact flavored Excalibur) if the game supports things like Boons and Oaths (Lancelots strength of 10 men). Although Lance did have a magic sword it is very much overshadowed by the man himself (he may have never tapped there greater power) - I think elegant use of attunement can give us all options. The artifact user may be unable to attune other items for instance and those who have attained boons are affected similarly... and the Atlantean Warrior model (Xmas trees are us) may have many attuned trinkets so to speak.
Well, you can be as powerful as a guy with less equipment if you're a higher level, but in D&D it's generally assumed that the PCs aren't going to have widely fluctuating levels.
You generally don't want to ever really deviate from the basic level system, because then you'll simply run into problems when Lancelot finds Excaliber he overshadows Arthur even more. It's really kind of easier to just assume that the guy who gets the good magic item gets to be a badass until the next magic item goes to the second guy, and he catches up.
D&D is never really going to have a system where one guy is the Green Lantern, who gets most of his powers from a magic item and another guy is Superman who gets all his powers as innate and they're somehow balanced. Magic items are pretty much straight power-ups and the guy with the power up is better than the guy who doesn't have it. I don't really think D&D will ever evolve to anything beyond that, because magic items aren't something that's planned. You don't know when (or even if) a paladin will ever get a holy avenger, so you really can't base the cahracter's power around that until you know if he has it or not.
Well, you can be as powerful as a guy with less equipment if you're a higher level, but in D&D it's generally assumed that the PCs aren't going to have widely fluctuating levels. You generally don't want to ever really deviate from the basic level sy
Not necessarily true. There is some real legend and myth about heros whose personal mojo was so great it was like that of an artifact and their stories ofen featured them defeating enemies without using even basic tools.. Beowulfs and Lancelots and CuCulaines.
A Lancelot can stand next to a King Arthur (even assuming the Artifact flavored Excalibur) if the game supports things like Boons and Oaths (Lancelots strength of 10 men). Although Lance did have a magic sword it is very much overshadowed by the man himself (he may have never tapped there greater power) - I think elegant use of attunement can give us all options. The artifact user may be unable to attune other items for instance and those who have attained boons are affected similarly... and the Atlantean Warrior model (Xmas trees are us) may have many attuned trinkets so to speak.
Well, you can be as powerful as a guy with less equipment if you're a higher level, but in D&D it's generally assumed that the PCs aren't going to have widely fluctuating levels.
You generally don't want to ever really deviate from the basic level system, because then you'll simply run into problems when Lancelot finds Excaliber he overshadows Arthur even more.
Boons in 4e were a non-equipment based enhancement... And I am refering to using a slight extention of attunement presented by 5e... where magic items and boons use up the same attunement pts/slots or mystic attention or whatever you want to call that quota.
Well, you can be as powerful as a guy with less equipment if you're a higher level, but in D&D it's generally assumed that the PCs aren't going to have widely fluctuating levels. You generally don't want to ever really deviate from the basic level sy
In other words if you have gained the boon strength of 10 you are not the weapons fated wielder (and able to attune it) and cannot become it without being divested of that.
What I call transcendant skill 4e called grandmaster training could be handled the same and use up your attunement - The myth/legend goes tou cannot rely on magic items if you want to be the best... you loose it if you do.
In other words if you have gained the boon strength of 10 you are not the weapons fated wielder (and able to attune it) and cannot become it without being divested of that. What I call transcendant skill 4e called grandmaster training could be handle
Boons in 4e were a non-equipment based enhancement... And I am refering to using a slight extention of attunement presented by 5e... where magic items and boons use up the same attunement pts/slots or mystic attention or whatever you want to call that quota.
That's an interesting idea.
Attuning a weapon can be changed if you get a new weapon. Are you thinking that your "Strength of 10 men" boon could similarly be swapped for something else and then swapped back again after a 10 minute rest?
How does one take an innate boon away? A rust montser, Disjunction spell, various oozes or just being captured can destroy a magic weapon. What destroys an innate boon?
(This would probably only be an issue if you are trying to have Item boosted PCs and Non-item boosted PCs in the same party.)
Boons in 4e were a non-equipment based enhancement... And I am refering to using a slight extention of attunement presented by 5e... where magic items and boons use up the same attunement pts/slots or mystic attention or whatever you want to call th
Boons in 4e were a non-equipment based enhancement... And I am refering to using a slight extention of attunement presented by 5e... where magic items and boons use up the same attunement pts/slots or mystic attention or whatever you want to call that quota.
Yeah, there's really no reason you can't have item based powers that aren't items, but rather personal enhancements. Obtaining them would largely be pretty much the same as items and be mostly just a flavor thing. The only real difference is they can't be disarmed.
Yeah, there's really no reason you can't have item based powers that aren't items, but rather personal enhancements. Obtaining them would largely be pretty much the same as items and be mostly just a flavor thing. The only real difference is they can
Boons in 4e were a non-equipment based enhancement... And I am refering to using a slight extention of attunement presented by 5e... where magic items and boons use up the same attunement pts/slots or mystic attention or whatever you want to call that quota.
That's an interesting idea.
Attuning a weapon can be changed if you get a new weapon. Are you thinking that your "Strength of 10 men" boon could similarly be swapped for something else and then swapped back again after a 10 minute rest?
How does one take an innate boon away? A rust montser, Disjunction spell, various oozes or just being captured can destroy a magic weapon. What destroys an innate boon?
You also cant share them with somebody else - it balances out. I can hand that girdle of giant strength or throw it to the theif up the wall who wants to break through a gate where I cant reach for instance. In other words to who ever needs it.
However some boons are looseable and tied to Oaths and Geasa. Samson lost his when his hair was short... CuCulaine was induced in to Eating Dog and lost his.
Boons are hard to sell ... but might auto upgrade ie develop.
You also cant share them with somebody else - it balances out. I can hand that girdle of giant strength or throw it to the theif up the wall who wants to break through a gate where I cant reach for instance.In other words to who ever needs it.However
Yeah, powerful magic items make you a badass. I dont' really see a huge problem with that.
There's really two camps with magic items. Either the items are weak trinkets and you barely know they're there, like 3E/4E, or they produce an impact and having a girdle of giant strength makes you awesome, like in 1E/2E.
And unsurprisingly, a dude with two near-artifact level magic items is more powerful than a guy with a basic magic sword.
Not necessarily true. There is some real legend and myth about heros whose personal mojo was so great it was like that of an artifact and their stories ofen featured them defeating enemies without using even basic tools.. Beowulfs and Lancelots and CuCulaines.
A Lancelot can stand next to a King Arthur (even assuming the Artifact flavored Excalibur) if the game supports things like Boons and Oaths (Lancelots strength of 10 men). Although Lance did have a magic sword it is very much overshadowed by the man himself (he may have never tapped there greater power) - I think elegant use of attunement can give us all options. The artifact user may be unable to attune other items for instance and those who have attained boons are affected similarly... and the Atlantean Warrior model (Xmas trees are us) may have many attuned trinkets so to speak.
4e didnt quite support the idea because the boons were all standard item class boons.. but it certainly could have been stretched to do so.
Well, Arthur was probably a warlord with a higher Cha and Int than Strength so he needed a high rarity magic item to stand next to the high level munchkin that was Lancelot.
Still, boons are easy to implement with a module or house rule.
Not necessarily true. There is some real legend and myth about heros whose personal mojo was so great it was like that of an artifact and their stories ofen featured them defeating enemies without using even basic tools.. Beowulfs and Lancelots and C
Boons in 4e were a non-equipment based enhancement... And I am refering to using a slight extention of attunement presented by 5e... where magic items and boons use up the same attunement pts/slots or mystic attention or whatever you want to call that quota.
Yeah, there's really no reason you can't have item based powers that aren't items, but rather personal enhancements. Obtaining them would largely be pretty much the same as items and be mostly just a flavor thing. The only real difference is they can't be disarmed.
And cant hand the tool to there ally who needs it currently or sell it to obtain an upgrade or similar things. The main difference might indeed be flavor.. but the character sure feels different than the Atlantean Warrior decked out with many items or the Artifact bearer.
I actually would like more advanced attunement rules that had more potent items counting as more than one... and gaining levels allow one to gradually attune more.
Yeah, there's really no reason you can't have item based powers that aren't items, but rather personal enhancements. Obtaining them would largely be pretty much the same as items and be mostly just a flavor thing. The only real difference is they can
I admit, right up front, that the wording on the boots may just be sloppy. Or a placeholder until they put something else in. In either of those cases you are completely right.
However, there is a third possibility that gives the designers and their vision of "D&D for everyone" a little more credit. That is, that the rules for the boots are vague because they WANT different gaming groups to come up with their OWN mechanical in-game interperetation of the effects. In effect, a "fluff first" rather than "effect first" way of approaching magic items.
If they say "The boots give + plus 4 to Stealth", even as an example, then that becomes the right and only way to adjudicate them (apart from a house ruled change). But if they say "The wearer can move silently even over dry leaves" the mechanical effect of the boots can work however your group wants AND THAT WILL BE RIGHT. The way I suggested is only how I would adjudicate them; Verdegris_Sage had a completely different idea and that was good too. Neither of us should be wrong.
(The first argument against this approach will read something like "Why should I pay for a vague half-finished game?"; and that would be a valid concern if this "you guys decide" approach was widespread throughout the rules. However, I think miscellaneous magic items is the perfect place for a few examples of this style.)
Mind you, I'm in total support of your method at your table. I personally don't mind fairly vague descriptions, for my games, or for games where (as people have already mentioned) a rapor or understanding exists between me and the DM. Organized play may suffer. However, so long as everyone at the game table is on the same sheet of music, I imagine things will work out. Alternatively, the wording is vague enough that some DMs will just assume the boots grant advantage on stealth. Mayhaps a side-bar or suggestion in the DMG for adjudicating such gray areas would be helpful, especially to the newer DM.
Mind you, I'm in total support of your method at your table.I personally don't mind fairly vague descriptions, for my games, or for games where (as people have already mentioned) a rapor or understanding exists between me and the DM. Organized play
I actually would like more advanced attunement rules that had more potent items counting as more than one... and gaining levels allow one to gradually attune more.
Great idea.
It is simple and effective.
Not only does it help the DM keep track of magic items to make sure each of the players are getting a fair share. It also helps the DM use the number of “magic item points” to “dial up or down” how much magic they want in their campaign.
Personally, I would like each and every magic item to be measured by their “XP Adjustment”. This is the amount of power that the item adds to the character, with the possibility that the character is functioning as if one or more levels higher.
The amount of the XP Adjustment could also be used as the points that determine the quota for attunement.
Great idea.It is simple and effective. Not only does it help the DM keep track of magic items to make sure each of the players are getting a fair share. It also helps the DM use the number of “magic item points” to “dial up or down&
I admit, right up front, that the wording on the boots may just be sloppy. Or a placeholder until they put something else in. In either of those cases you are completely right.
However, there is a third possibility that gives the designers and their vision of "D&D for everyone" a little more credit. That is, that the rules for the boots are vague because they WANT different gaming groups to come up with their OWN mechanical in-game interperetation of the effects. In effect, a "fluff first" rather than "effect first" way of approaching magic items.
If they say "The boots give + plus 4 to Stealth", even as an example, then that becomes the right and only way to adjudicate them (apart from a house ruled change). But if they say "The wearer can move silently even over dry leaves" the mechanical effect of the boots can work however your group wants AND THAT WILL BE RIGHT. The way I suggested is only how I would adjudicate them; Verdegris_Sage had a completely different idea and that was good too. Neither of us should be wrong.
(The first argument against this approach will read something like "Why should I pay for a vague half-finished game?"; and that would be a valid concern if this "you guys decide" approach was widespread throughout the rules. However, I think miscellaneous magic items is the perfect place for a few examples of this style.)
I tend to think it is incomplete as other magic items offer both a description and at least a suggestion on adjudication. If the attempt was to just give vague descriptions and let each game table discover thier own methods for adjudicating rules with out any suggestions, then why offer suggestions for adjudication for some magic items and only a vague discriptions for others. Brief vague discriptions work great for experienced Dms and established groups but not for an inexperienced Dm or new group. IMO a D&D rule book should at least offer suggestions on adjudication of rules for specific magic items. A pair of sentences is all that most would need.
Mind you, I'm in total support of your method at your table. I personally don't mind fairly vague descriptions, for my games, or for games where (as people have already mentioned) a rapor or understanding exists between me and the DM. Organized play may suffer. However, so long as everyone at the game table is on the same sheet of music, I imagine things will work out. Alternatively, the wording is vague enough that some DMs will just assume the boots grant advantage on stealth. Mayhaps a side-bar or suggestion in the DMG for adjudicating such gray areas would be helpful, especially to the newer DM.
Mind the both of you, I think both of you offered really good suggestions on adjudication. I also think that an experienced Dm with an established group could easily house rule any suggestions regarding a specific magic item in an official rule book to suite his group and game needs. It' s kind of a tradition for many Dms. But those rule should offer at least a suggestion on adjudication if only as a starting point for a discussion on such house rules.
Anyway thanks for the discussion. Smart thoughtful debate is always good fun and educational. You both diffenetly expanded my view on the subject, despite my disagreement.
[/quote]I tend to think it is incomplete as other magic items offer both a description and at least a suggestion on adjudication. If the attempt was to just give vague descriptions and let each game table discover thier own methods for adjudicating
The amount of the XP Adjustment could also be used as the points that determine the quota for attunement.
Sure I am in the has abandoned XPs long ago except for deciding strength of adversaries camp... because they take too much bookkeeping but I see how your idea has merits.
We need an idea of how much magic items are impacting the potency of the characters anyway... right?
Sure I am in the has abandoned XPs long ago except for deciding strength of adversaries camp... because they take too much bookkeeping but I see how your idea has merits. We need an idea of how much magic items are impacting the potency of the charac
I don't think granting more attunement slots as you gain levels is a good idea. As you adventure more and gain levels, you're going to be finding more and more powerful items to fit into those slots. So, if you offer more slots while simultaneously increasing the power of what goes into those slots, you're getting into what I'll preemptively call the "quadratic attunement problem".
I don't think granting more attunement slots as you gain levels is a good idea. As you adventure more and gain levels, you're going to be finding more and more powerful items to fit into those slots. So, if you offer more slots while simultaneously i
I don't think granting more attunement slots as you gain levels is a good idea. As you adventure more and gain levels, you're going to be finding more and more powerful items to fit into those slots. So, if you offer more slots while simultaneously increasing the power of what goes into those slots, you're getting into what I'll preemptively call the "quadratic attunement problem".
Actually the mightier items take up more slots Stormbringer is more character defining and takes up more of your attention and so on. The other element is the idea was items sometimes grow and take up more slots.. .so you are awakening more of there powers.
Excaliber/Stormbringer only gets more power when you become more intwined with it.
Actually the mightier items take up more slots Stormbringer is more character defining and takes up more of your attention and so on.The other element is the idea was items sometimes grow and take up more slots.. .so you are awakening more of there p
The amount of the XP Adjustment could also be used as the points that determine the quota for attunement.
Sure I am in the has abandoned XPs long ago except for deciding strength of adversaries camp... because they take too much bookkeeping but I see how your idea has merits.
We need an idea of how much magic items are impacting the potency of the characters anyway... right?
Pretty much.
XP is used in two ways. The first one matters mainly when building a character or leveling. So maybe the second way is the only one that needs simplification?
One way is having XP. Each level costs a specific amount XP to attain. But at a finer level, individual features such as feats could be worth a specific amount of XP. This would help the DM assess how much certain options are worth, such as a hero with a background in the same team as a hero without a background. Magic items are essentially extra features.
The second way to use XP is, is gaining XP from a successful challenge. The hero gains about 10% of the XP that the monster is worth - if adding together all of the features that the monster or encounter has. For example, if the monster was instead a player character that had 2500 XP, depending on the total of the features of its build, if a hero defeated this monster, then the hero would gain 250 XP.
In terms of gaining XP there should be an easy way to guestimate how much a particular encounter is worth.
Sure I am in the has abandoned XPs long ago except for deciding strength of adversaries camp... because they take too much bookkeeping but I see how your idea has merits. We need an idea of how much magic items are impacting the potency of the charac
I don't think granting more attunement slots as you gain levels is a good idea. As you adventure more and gain levels, you're going to be finding more and more powerful items to fit into those slots. So, if you offer more slots while simultaneously increasing the power of what goes into those slots, you're getting into what I'll preemptively call the "quadratic attunement problem".
Actually the mightier items take up more slots Stormbringer is more character defining and takes up more of your attention and so on. The other element is the idea was items sometimes grow and take up more slots.. .so you are awakening more of there powers.
Excaliber/Stormbringer only gets more power when you become more intwined with it.
Sounds like you'll still end up with roughly the same number of attuned items equipped.
Actually the mightier items take up more slots Stormbringer is more character defining and takes up more of your attention and so on.The other element is the idea was items sometimes grow and take up more slots.. .so you are awakening more of there p
