|
9 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:02AM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Say what? Don't use it, but use it on every magic item?
Look. I'm not saying it shouldn't ever happen. The crafting of an item very personal to you (ala your werewolf fetish) would be one way I could see it happen. I'm just saying it shouldn't be a common happening.
My apologies for being unclear. I meant that if you (general "you" here) don't like the attunement property, then any magic item that has an attunement restriction can just have that lifted in your game, and any properties normally restricted for attunement work for anyone using the item.
Hopefully that makes more sense - I'm about to head out for work, so typing this quickly. If I'm still unclear, I can try to clean it up when I get home later this evening.
Heh. No worries. That was MUCH clearer. Usually I can tell what people are trying to say, but that one just baffled me 
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:10AM
#92
|
|
|
And really, why spend 5000 gold on Full Plate when you can get Magical Full Plate (which is Very Rare and thus 2000-5000 value) for on average a cheaper price? Or save up a little bit more and get a Legendary/Artifact item.
Because you can't but them. The only way to get legendary items or any other would be to go out and dig one up there are no magic marts in Next. If the DM doesn't put it in the game you ain't getting it.
5,000 might be too much for the mundane armor but comparing it to an artifact is a bit silly. Then again WotC D&D has a history of doing the absurd with a straight face.
The existence of a magic mart is up to the DM. I am hoping that this is just a issue that the exact value haven't been settled on for the current playtest. I am wondering however, if they set the price lower with the assumption the items would not be purchased and it purely to lower the resale value. Hopefully that is not the case, because it would cause a lot of confusion.
Playing D&D also requires you to do the absurd with a straight face; we should expect nothing less from WotC :D
 | Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts
D & D: A Documentary Kickstarter (http://kck.st/SyKNzf)
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl |
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:24AM
#93
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
The magic items rules seem very retro at this point, which isn't a surprise. What is annoying is that they seem to incorporate some of the worst features of old style D&D.
Attunement isn't a bad idea in general, but they either need to go with it, generalize it and build it into the base rules or chuck it entirely. As an odd bit optional rule it doesn't add anything to the game but some more complexity and some more special cases for the DM to deal with. Number of items based on statistic is obviously badly broken. You will end up with high level fighters with only armor and weapon because they are never going to have more then +2 charisma and sorcerers walking around with half a dozen items.
It seems to me that attunement based on level would work well. Each character gets attunement points equal to their level and all non-consumable items have an attunement cost based on their power level. That provides enough range to allow some trade off between taking a couple of powerful items or several minor items without getting bogged down in accounting. From there you could layer on some options, such as class/feat/racial/stat abilities that tweak the number of attunement points, and adjusting the overall total based on the campaign's desired magic level. Legacy items could be handled by granting different bonuses based on how many attunement points the character invests in an item.
The rules for identifying items cleared up and it needs to be easy enough that characters can usually identify items. The occasional unidentified item is fun, but having too many bogs the game down.
One thing the rules clearly need is to separate power level and rarity. This mistake was made in 4e also and leads to a lot of confusion, particularly if a campaign isn't using the default rarity levels. It would also be nice to have some indication of how an items powerful changes across levels, items with fixed numbers are often very powerful when introduced but become less valuable over time, while items that provide even a small bonus that stacks with other options remain very powerful over a characters career.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:33AM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2004
|
Items shouldn't give a specific stat score (Belt of Giant's Strength), it is overpowering. The +2, +4, +6 from 3.x was a better mechanic.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:58AM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Only common and uncommon magic items need to be balanced. The DM can hand out little +1s and such without breaking the game.
But the book needs to say "hey DM. Rare or better items are broken. If you give them to PCs and monsters, they will become a lot better. Be careful how you hand them out."
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 8:59AM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2008
|
Items shouldn't give a specific stat score (Belt of Giant's Strength), it is overpowering. The +2, +4, +6 from 3.x was a better mechanic.
100% agree. I do not want magic items overpowering intrinsic character stats like the current ones do. Giving a boost to the stat is plenty good enough.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 9:05AM
#97
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Items shouldn't give a specific stat score (Belt of Giant's Strength), it is overpowering. The +2, +4, +6 from 3.x was a better mechanic.
I completely disagree. If an item is called Gauntlets of Ogre Power, it should make me as strong as an ogre. No more, no less. If I've got a strength of 10 and I put on Gauntlets of Ogre Power and get a strength of 12, I'm suing for false advertising. They aren't called Gauntlets of A Little Bit Stronger Than You Already Are...
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 9:10AM
#98
|
|
|
Also granting a specific Strength is a cap. If a person already has 18 Strength, then Guantlets of Ogre power dont benefit them, prevent boosting Strength too high, thus help maintain balance.
Suppose the Gloves had a prereq of Strength 14 or higher, in order to achieve attunement, then granted Strength 18. It would tightly measure the limits of power.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 9:18AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Feb 18, 2010
|
Items shouldn't give a specific stat score (Belt of Giant's Strength), it is overpowering. The +2, +4, +6 from 3.x was a better mechanic.
I completely disagree. If an item is called Gauntlets of Ogre Power, it should make me as strong as an ogre. No more, no less. If I've got a strength of 10 and I put on Gauntlets of Ogre Power and get a strength of 12, I'm suing for false advertising. They aren't called Gauntlets of A Little Bit Stronger Than You Already Are...
So you would prefer a game breaking item to be allowed so that the Ogre smiths can avoid a lawsuit?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 9:21AM
#100
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Items shouldn't give a specific stat score (Belt of Giant's Strength), it is overpowering. The +2, +4, +6 from 3.x was a better mechanic.
I completely disagree. If an item is called Gauntlets of Ogre Power, it should make me as strong as an ogre. No more, no less. If I've got a strength of 10 and I put on Gauntlets of Ogre Power and get a strength of 12, I'm suing for false advertising. They aren't called Gauntlets of A Little Bit Stronger Than You Already Are...
So you would prefer a game breaking item to be allowed so that the Ogre smiths can avoid a lawsuit?
It's not going to break my game. If I put it in, I'm going to deal with it accordingly. If a character with 18 strength would break your game, don't let your players have it.
|
|
|
