|
8 months ago ::
Oct 18, 2012 - 9:43PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
I'm not too worried about the +3 items. I don't think that the +3 items by themselves could break the game. My concern is the belts of giant strength in the upper end. Combine those with the +3 weapons, and the game becomes "roll to see if you critically miss." Despite what Mike Mearls says, a 95% hit chance is not fun to play for many people, even if hit points balloon to huge levels. At that point, it's just a hit point grind to see which one falls first.
And that's if the monsters can even hit you.
I like how 4E made certain magic items affect different things. I would like to see +hit and +damage solely the domain of weapons (with maybe +damage on things like bracers and gauntlets). I'd like to see shields add their enhancement bonuses not to AC, but to Dexterity saves to avoid damage (like with Fireball). I'd like to see the belts of giant strength apply to things like encumbrance and Strength checks rather than just giving someone a set Strength score to even further boost their chance to hit and do damage.
As a DM, I know and fully embrace that I control the distribution of items in my game. But that doesn't mean that it's not in the game's best interests to curb blatantly game-breaking combinations off the bat.
Ideally, I'd like to see monster to-hit go up, player to-hit and sustained damage go down (spike damage should be high), and magic items kept within some sort of constraints at most times (artifacts should be the exceptions). That way, this insane exponential curve they're using for monster hit points to make them challenging with a 95% hit chance can be flattened out some.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 19, 2012 - 7:26AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2008
|
I'm not too worried about the +3 items. I don't think that the +3 items by themselves could break the game. My concern is the belts of giant strength in the upper end. Combine those with the +3 weapons, and the game becomes "roll to see if you critically miss." Despite what Mike Mearls says, a 95% hit chance is not fun to play for many people, even if hit points balloon to huge levels. At that point, it's just a hit point grind to see which one falls first.
Bolded for emphasis.
I think this is the key part of this, because the argument against these items seems to be based on the assumtion that magic items are handed out at random by a robot picking from a hat. Putting aside the fact that artifacts (such as the Belt of Storm Giant Strength or a +3 weapon) are rediculously rare (to the point where managing to get two of them that also synergise perfectly should allow you to be awesome!), the game is actually designed with the assumption that a DM will be behind the decisions. And the DMG will, as always, be about educating DMs to help them make informed decisions.
So, for example, if I (as the DM), am thinking up items for my party, and the Belt of Storm Giant Strength comes up, I will think about how it will impact the party. If the Fighter (or whoever will be most likely to get the item) already has a powerful magic weapon, I might pick a different item to give out (or, if I know that my group wouldn't care, I'd stick with it...again, this is the great thing about the DM; they know what their group likes). If the Fighter doesn't have a magic weapon, this would be a great item to give out.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 19, 2012 - 7:42AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2005
|
I'm not too worried about the +3 items. I don't think that the +3 items by themselves could break the game. My concern is the belts of giant strength in the upper end. Combine those with the +3 weapons, and the game becomes "roll to see if you critically miss." Despite what Mike Mearls says, a 95% hit chance is not fun to play for many people, even if hit points balloon to huge levels. At that point, it's just a hit point grind to see which one falls first.
I do think the problem is that Belts of Giant Strength are mechanically too similar to +3 Swords, so instead of items working together in an interesting way they just stack for big numbers.
I'd prefer Giant Strength to add the giant damage, and allow feats of giant-like strength and hurling boulders, but not be a Belt of Giant Accuracy. I think that is how 1e potions of giant strength worked (but I can't find my 1e DMG to double check). If accuracy was left to magic weapons, then I think the items would feel more like they contibuted different things, whether they were both on one character or on different characters within the same party.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 19, 2012 - 2:18PM
#24
|
|
|
I'm not too worried about the +3 items. I don't think that the +3 items by themselves could break the game. My concern is the belts of giant strength in the upper end. Combine those with the +3 weapons, and the game becomes "roll to see if you critically miss." Despite what Mike Mearls says, a 95% hit chance is not fun to play for many people, even if hit points balloon to huge levels. At that point, it's just a hit point grind to see which one falls first.
Bolded for emphasis.
I think this is the key part of this, because the argument against these items seems to be based on the assumtion that magic items are handed out at random by a robot picking from a hat. Putting aside the fact that artifacts (such as the Belt of Storm Giant Strength or a +3 weapon) are rediculously rare (to the point where managing to get two of them that also synergise perfectly should allow you to be awesome!), the game is actually designed with the assumption that a DM will be behind the decisions. And the DMG will, as always, be about educating DMs to help them make informed decisions.
So, for example, if I (as the DM), am thinking up items for my party, and the Belt of Storm Giant Strength comes up, I will think about how it will impact the party. If the Fighter (or whoever will be most likely to get the item) already has a powerful magic weapon, I might pick a different item to give out (or, if I know that my group wouldn't care, I'd stick with it...again, this is the great thing about the DM; they know what their group likes). If the Fighter doesn't have a magic weapon, this would be a great item to give out.
+1
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 24, 2012 - 4:47PM
#25
|
|
|
My real problem is that any +x items are not actually a in-game effect. It's a metagame effect. They increase some abstract stats that the charactor can't even really understand.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 25, 2012 - 9:07AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
How are they not an ingame effect? The sword uses magic to hurt things more effectively. The armor uses magic to be more resistant to attacks.
Saying they're not an ingame effect makes about as much sense as saying Magic Missile isn't an ingame effect.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 25, 2012 - 8:56PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2007
|
Though I favor creative effects over +X items...
The easiest solution to "always on" +X items is to limit the usage. Items can be activated X/day to help you in a pinch, but you can't rely on them all the time.
Lots of people seem to like Spell Slots, why not have Magic Item Slots: you can use a level 5 magic item X/day.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 25, 2012 - 9:11PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I hate slots, but I like Attunement.... not utterly sure how that interacts with your idea but perhaps enhancing the attunement system so some items can only be attuned once and some items count as more (as they take more of your attention and are more central to your identity)
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 25, 2012 - 10:04PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jun 25, 2007
|
Or if you don't want to deal with slots, flat-out 1 attunement = X use(s)/day.
However, if usage were that limited, I think +X power bump items have to be toned down so that creative/situational items are competitive choices.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Oct 26, 2012 - 1:03PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2009
|
A +3 Sword and a Belt of Storm Giant Strength are both artifact level items. The possessor of them (and in most cases there will be only 1) SHOULD be the mightiest of warriors, not just in his own party but in all the world.
(And a magnet for every young bravo on the continent.)
These items are like The One Ring. Finding owning and keeping one is something the whole campaign would revolve around. They are, for all intents, plot devices and not equipment.
Worrying about system math based on these components is like worrying that the HP and saving throw system is broken because you gave one of the players the Rod of Orcus.
What the rules need is more emphasis on how truly game changing and rare these items are even in a "High Magic" campaign. In a low magic campaign they just won't exist at all.
|
|
|
