|
4 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 4:47AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
Giants are supposed to gain this strength from their size. Increasing abilities scores to reflect the advantage given by size lead to this kind of abberations : little guys who deal the same damage with equal strength without having the stature required to deliver blows of the same magnitude.
A flat bonus to damage would preserve a semblance of coherency.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 5:18AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
Guantlets of Ogre Power, Belts of Giant Strength, etc. should only grant bonuses to damage, as there is not a good reason to explain why a higher strength instantly improves the accuracy of a character. This will also help distinguish spells like bulls strength, or enlargement.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 6:42AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
With Bounded Accuracy, and the removal of the assumption of PC scaling, magic items don't have to be balanced.
Really, they don't.
When you get your belt of giant strength, your strength is now higher. Woo! Now you're actually better, not just better relative to the ever-increasing assumed scale that you have to be perpetually catching up with.
The point of magic items in Next is that they are game-changers. Working as intended, and they work that way thanks to the removal of assumptions that BA brings to the table. Yes, it may mean that someone with a belt of giant strength is much better at killing that orc than someone without it, but that's the point of the belt of giant strength, is it not?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 6:53AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
With Bounded Accuracy, and the removal of the assumption of PC scaling, magic items don't have to be balanced.
Really, they don't.
When you get your belt of giant strength, your strength is now higher. Woo! Now you're actually better, not just better relative to the ever-increasing assumed scale that you have to be perpetually catching up with.
The point of magic items in Next is that they are game-changers. Working as intended, and they work that way thanks to the removal of assumptions that BA brings to the table. Yes, it may mean that someone with a belt of giant strength is much better at killing that orc than someone without it, but that's the point of the belt of giant strength, is it not?
+1. Though, I still REALLY don't like this magic item, but not on the principle of balance. As Mand12 said, magic items really don't have to be balanced anymore. The assumption is that the game works without them. When you add them into the game the game becomes unbalanced. It is up to the DM to modulate that imbalance effectivly, and that is fine! But, this item is most usefull to fighters and yet it makes the fighter's primary attack stat feel useless. Who cares what Str you built yourself up to, now you have a belt! It should give you a bonus to your existing STR, not grant you a flat Str. So, the Hill Giant belt would give you a +1 Str, the Stone Giant belt would give you a +3, the Fire Giant belt would give you a +5, the Could Giant Belt a +7, and the Storm Giant belt a +9. You would end up with the same Str as what it currently gives you (if you have a Str of 20, which all Str based fighters will eventually have), but it still makes your character's stat feel meaningful.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 6:58AM
#35
|
|
|
So if there are magic items (artifacts!) that grant Strength beyond 20, there needs to be similar items that grant Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha beyond 20.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 6:59AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2008
|
Guantlets of Ogre Power, Belts of Giant Strength, etc. should only grant bonuses to damage, as there is not a good reason to explain why a higher strength instantly improves the accuracy of a character. This will also help distinguish spells like bulls strength, or enlargement.
My personal opinion is that strength should only add to damage, never to hit.
Dexterity, conversely, should only add to hit, never to damage.
AC should be some combination of strength allowing heavier armor and dexterity giving better avoidance of attacks.
Initiative should be wisdom based, reflecting better awareness, or no bonus at all.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 7:09AM
#37
|
|
|
Count me as someone who likes the 2nd edition and next belts a lot more than the 3rd edition ones.
(If you think I am just a fanboy, look at enworld where I propose 2nd edition belts for 4e as well)
As long as you can create magic items that enhance your already high abilities, it opens up a playstyle I really don´t like:
characters only increase their best abilities at the cost of everything else! I rather see someone improving in their weak spots. IMHO it is a much more iteresting storiy, when the formery weak rogue gets a gautlet of ogre power making him as strong as the barbarian.
It is also a lot less unbalancing, as the rogue is still not better than the barbarian, only about as strong and without abilities that really make use of that high strength.
Even a belt of giant strength would not make the rogue more powerful than the barbarian. It is a much harder decision, who will get that belt, while it is obvious who will get the belt, if it just gives a straight bonus to strength.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 8:01AM
#38
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
So if there are magic items (artifacts!) that grant Strength beyond 20, there needs to be similar items that grant Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha beyond 20.
There doesn't need to be anything. You want a Belt of Rakshasa's Charisma that grants the wearer a 22 Charisma? Use the Belt of Giant Strength as a template and run with it.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 8:18AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
Has D&D devolved to the point where people cannot ad hoc things and can't use their brain to either
A: Compensate for such an item or
B: Not use the belts if they cause a problem.
This is the rule 0 fallacy, i.e. "it's not broken if you can fix it."
Only if you start by assuming it is broken, which it isn't.
You can't have interesting magical items and balance at the same time.
And this is the fallacy of the excluded middle. It most certainly is possible to have magic items that are both interesting and balanced.
Agree, that statement was poorly chosen.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 22, 2013 - 8:21AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
What I don't like about Belts of Gaint is that it reward characters who didn't put any points in Str.
I like the ones in 3.5e were they made the strong get stronger.
I agree. It's awful that a character who didn't invest anything in Str gets way more benefit from the item than a person who did. This problem was solved in 3rd edition with +X stat items. Once again, the game design progress of the last decade is being tossed aside and the mistakes of the distant past are being repeated.
It is a Belt of X Giant Strength; it gives the wearer the Strength of an X Giant.
You could have Belts of STR+X, if you want.
|
|
|
