|
8 months ago ::
Oct 08, 2012 - 10:44PM
#11
|
|
|
There are a number of problematic items in the Magic Item document:
Minor Properties: Guardian. Initiative is universally good in combat. One minor property shouldn't be better than any other.
It's utterly impossible to avoid. Given the subjectivity of "better", there are always going to be abilities that people feel are better than others.
Ethereal Plate: Weighs as much as cotton. What interaction does that have with spells, movement, etc...why is cotton restrictive(or not)?
Make a judgment call. We don't need the game to tell us how our characters wipe their arses. We don't need it to tell us every other little detail, either.
Yes there will be variance between properties of a type, however that variance should be as small as possible. That's how we avoid imbalance and a return of the min/max as the only way to play...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 08, 2012 - 11:28PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
I can't help but think people might be missing the point of the OP. In principle I have to agree, each quality should be on par with the others in that category. That doesn't mean equal, but usually the indicator I use is by watching what players pick for items with their starting wealth. Like the belt of battle and the healing belt in 3e... Every single player, without exception, would grab those items no matter what. As a DM my reaction then is to up the difficulty of the encounters to deal with those items and I adjusted how they worked a little bit. The ring of invis is another good example, but the price kept most people out of it (I started stipulating that no more than 1/3 of their starting wealth be spent on a single item). I have one player who's reaction was to buy as many as 50 potions of invisibility at a time. A money sink but it speaks volumes about how valuable invisibility is to that player. Thing is, this is a playtest and they've handed us stuff. To say that the DM should be able to adjust is fair enough if we're clawing through magic items in a published book, but the whole point of this is for us to complain about stuff so they can read what we say and adjust it. So yes, there are problems with the magic items. There are gonna be, that's the point. Let's focus on what adjustments need to be made rather than dismiss concerns on the grounds that the DM can fix it.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 12:11AM
#13
|
|
|
I can't help but think people might be missing the point of the OP.
In principle I have to agree, each quality should be on par with the others in that category. That doesn't mean equal, but usually the indicator I use is by watching what players pick for items with their starting wealth.
Like the belt of battle and the healing belt in 3e... Every single player, without exception, would grab those items no matter what. As a DM my reaction then is to up the difficulty of the encounters to deal with those items and I adjusted how they worked a little bit.
The ring of invis is another good example, but the price kept most people out of it (I started stipulating that no more than 1/3 of their starting wealth be spent on a single item). I have one player who's reaction was to buy as many as 50 potions of invisibility at a time. A money sink but it speaks volumes about how valuable invisibility is to that player.
Thing is, this is a playtest and they've handed us stuff. To say that the DM should be able to adjust is fair enough if we're clawing through magic items in a published book, but the whole point of this is for us to complain about stuff so they can read what we say and adjust it.
So yes, there are problems with the magic items. There are gonna be, that's the point. Let's focus on what adjustments need to be made rather than dismiss concerns on the grounds that the DM can fix it.
The only problem I see is that the DM shouldn't be forced to balance the game, that's the developers job. If they want to throw a broken module into the mix that is optional I'm all for it, but the base core game should be balanced...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 12:38AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
yes. Which is why the playtest response needs to shy away from saying the DM will do it. Once that puppy's live, the DM will have to do it but by then probably it'll mostly be fine.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 1:42AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2004
|
My view on ability boost items is that they should give them approximate abilities, not try to replicate monster stats that are clearly going to p*ss all over the bounded system.
Strength boost items should grant the carrying capacity of the strength in question and a daily ability to perform feats of strength (such granting the carrying capacity of giant-sized creatures - presumably doubled - and a boost to stregnth based checks equal to the damage boost below) for a number of rounds equal to the wearer's con modifier. It should grant a bonus to damage equal to the difference between 16 strength and the strength in question (assuming that ogres will retain 18 strength), a boost to the distance you can throw objects, and weapon charts for hurled rocks. Stone giant strength can be distinguised by having a greater range on thrown rocks.
Sure it's a more complex item but it retains its flavour and it doesn't need to boost attack rolls to be useful or interesting, it wont break bounded accuracy, and the characters's strength score is still relevant to the damage boost and skill check boost. If they want a boost to attack rolls, grant a flat +1 very rare, +2 legendary, and +3 artifact but personally I can live without it or you could add it to the feats of strength feature for a few rounds each day.
I'm fine with at-will abilities but they need to come with a downside. Maybe using the belt means the wearer has to make endurance checks to avoid being exhausted if its powers are used for more rounds than your con mod, same with boots of speed. People in the hit points thread have been moaning that con will be rubbish if you don't get extra hp every level - well here is a way to redress the balance. They can use cha for the same effect for mental items.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 2:17AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
We all know that flat bonuses are here to stay; it's a central defining characteristic to D&D magic items. As for how common they are, that's really out of the hands of the books. Maybe toning them down from +1-5 to +1-3 isn't such a bad idea, but the idea of making them exceedingly rare is probably not gonna fly in the mainstream. I know that has implications for the bounded system but I think this also highlights the limitations of the bounded system as a design choice. Maybe trying to stick to it to the letter is a mistake? Anyway I've got my reservations.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 2:35AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
Thing is, this is a playtest and they've handed us stuff. To say that the DM should be able to adjust is fair enough if we're clawing through magic items in a published book, but the whole point of this is for us to complain about stuff so they can read what we say and adjust it.
So yes, there are problems with the magic items. There are gonna be, that's the point. Let's focus on what adjustments need to be made rather than dismiss concerns on the grounds that the DM can fix it.
Well said. Some people seem to forget that this is a playtest, and that we're supposed to offer feedback on things that we think need improvement. Taking the "just let the DM fix it" cop out isn't going to improve the game. And it's a silly argument to make, in any case. Good rules empower the DM far more than bad rules do.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 3:14AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
I feel that magic items don't need to be as balanced as in 4E because they are not within the purview of players to choose from. They are handled by DMs. Personally i don't want items giving small bonus ex, +1 or +2 saves or death saving throws so they are less unbalancing. I want them to be bigger and more meaningful and advantage on saves is more significant and what i want magic items to be cabable of doing. But i agree that some items could be toned down a little bit.
The Potion of Speed is another item i think is problematic. It may affect some of your effect's durations and end them prematurly because your next turn comes faster than it should. I'd prefer if it'd double your movement and give an additional action rather than giving an additional turn for exemple.
RE: Plate Mail of Etherealness; While it weight as much as cotton, i'd say it still doesn't allow Wizard to cast spell as its still an armor which Wizards can't cast into. It may still be too rigid and limit arms movement even if it weight almost nothing for exemple.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 3:19AM
#19
|
|
|
Thing is, this is a playtest and they've handed us stuff. To say that the DM should be able to adjust is fair enough if we're clawing through magic items in a published book, but the whole point of this is for us to complain about stuff so they can read what we say and adjust it.
So yes, there are problems with the magic items. There are gonna be, that's the point. Let's focus on what adjustments need to be made rather than dismiss concerns on the grounds that the DM can fix it.
Well said. Some people seem to forget that this is a playtest, and that we're supposed to offer feedback on things that we think need improvement. Taking the "just let the DM fix it" cop out isn't going to improve the game. And it's a silly argument to make, in any case. Good rules empower the DM far more than bad rules do.
Just let the DM fix it is not a cop out if this is an area that is intended specifically for the DM to adjust. This is such an area.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 09, 2012 - 3:24AM
#20
|
|
|
My view on ability boost items is that they should give them approximate abilities, not try to replicate monster stats that are clearly going to p*ss all over the bounded system.
Strength boost items should grant the carrying capacity of the strength in question and a daily ability to perform feats of strength (such granting the carrying capacity of giant-sized creatures - presumably doubled - and a boost to stregnth based checks equal to the damage boost below) for a number of rounds equal to the wearer's con modifier. It should grant a bonus to damage equal to the difference between 16 strength and the strength in question (assuming that ogres will retain 18 strength), a boost to the distance you can throw objects, and weapon charts for hurled rocks. Stone giant strength can be distinguised by having a greater range on thrown rocks.
I completely disagree.
If an item is to grant an ability score change (as they should be able to), then that item should change your ability score directly, not give a bunch of derived bonuses.
If game mechanics breaks if a character gains 25 STR, then the game mechanics are broken to begin with, not the item granting 25 STR.
|
|
|
