D&D 5E If an option is presented, it needs to be good enough to take.

Patryn of Elvenshae · Sep 28, 2012

Mishihari Lord said:
That's a meaningless statement.

3.XE says it's not.

Which is superior, the mage that sets an ogre on fire, the one who keeps the enemies away with a wall of ice, or the one who charms the orc into revealing a secret door?

The first one is subpar compared to the other two.

Neonchameleon · Sep 29, 2012

Mishihari Lord said:
That's a meaningless statement. Which is superior, the mage that sets an ogre on fire,... or the one who charms the orc into revealing a secret door? It depends what you need. Apples and oranges.

How about the one who charms the orc into revealing a secret door ... and charms the ogre into beating on his mate rather than beating on the other PCs.

Hussar · Sep 30, 2012

billd91 said:
Heck no. Keep the pluses. They make some magic items easy to administer from a player and DM perspective.

The truth of the matter as I see it is that any magic item that has a useful effect in adventuring will affect the power of the character. Armor that makes you fly? WAY more powerful than any +1 to +3 armor, guaranteed.

The issue isn't that magic will enhance the PCs, the issue is understanding how it does so and managing that.

Kinda sorta. Flying armor will be situationally very useful. But, that +1 armor will be useful every single attack. Every single die roll trying to hit you is affected by that plus on the armor. Flying might be useful, unless I'm indoors with a 10 foot ceiling - something that probably does happen fairly often in many campaigns.

And, depending on how often and how long I can fly, it becomes even less useful. Additionally, since I'm the only guy in the party that can fly, it doesn't really come into effect that often because, any time the group travels, I have to stay with the group.

Is fly powerful? Sure. Is it as powerful as +3 armor? I doubt it very much. It just doesn't come into effect as often.

I really, really hate pluses. They're boring, which is the main problem, but, also, they are so good that it's virtually guaranteed that players will choose the plus over anything else.

Think of it this way. In a bog standard campaign (ie, not a nautical one), which would you rather have - armor that lets you swim unimpeded or +2 armor?

billd91 · Sep 30, 2012

Hussar said:
Kinda sorta. Flying armor will be situationally very useful. But, that +1 armor will be useful every single attack. Every single die roll trying to hit you is affected by that plus on the armor. Flying might be useful, unless I'm indoors with a 10 foot ceiling - something that probably does happen fairly often in many campaigns.

The +1 may affect every attack but makes a difference with relatively few. Flying neutralizes all ground-based close combat. Advantage: flying.

Hussar said:
Is fly powerful? Sure. Is it as powerful as +3 armor? I doubt it very much. It just doesn't come into effect as often.

The same can be said of charm person, yet I think most people around here would say the charm is more powerful than +3 armor too. In this case, I'd still give the advantage to flying.

Hussar said:
Think of it this way. In a bog standard campaign (ie, not a nautical one), which would you rather have - armor that lets you swim unimpeded or +2 armor?

I notice that you picked a very different power this time. Swimming isn't in flying's class... Outside of a campaign that offers a lot of opportunity for undersea adventuring, that is. But how about armor that offers freedom of movement? A significant bonus to movement? Protection from fire? Then, +1 or +2 aren't a dominating strategy at all.

I like basic pluses to armor and weapons. They are simple. Their effects are relatively easy to control and understand.

Mattachine · Sep 30, 2012

I would like a game where a glowing sword--no bonus to hit or damage, but one that simply glows on and off on command--is a significant magic item for low or mid-level heroes.

Hussar · Oct 1, 2012

billd91 said:
The +1 may affect every attack but makes a difference with relatively few. Flying neutralizes all ground-based close combat. Advantage: flying.

Again, sort of. For one, in most indoor combat, flying is pretty much useless. And, let's be honest, a lot of combat does occur indoors. Plus, any character focused on melee has just pretty much neutralized himself by flying. Flying armor doesn't do that 3.5e two sword wielding ranger any favours forex. Even if that +1 only comes into account 5% of the time, considering the number of attacks, that's still going to be significant.

The same can be said of charm person, yet I think most people around here would say the charm is more powerful than +3 armor too. In this case, I'd still give the advantage to flying.

Really? You think a Charm Person is more powerful than +3 armor? Charm monster? Ok, I'd buy that. But Charm Person? It only affects a tiny slice of the creatures that you're going to face, has a saving throw and costs you an action to use. And, even if it succeeds, isn't guaranteed to do anything other than stop someone from attacking you - it might still attack your allies depending on your Cha check.

Charm Monster as an at-will effect? Ok, that's very powerful. But, that's due to the nature of save or die effects, more than the spell itself.

I notice that you picked a very different power this time. Swimming isn't in flying's class... Outside of a campaign that offers a lot of opportunity for undersea adventuring, that is. But how about armor that offers freedom of movement? A significant bonus to movement? Protection from fire? Then, +1 or +2 aren't a dominating strategy at all.

I like basic pluses to armor and weapons. They are simple. Their effects are relatively easy to control and understand.

Let's go through your examples. Freedom of movement is edition dependent. Outside of 3e, it's pretty much pointless as either very little actually can grab you (AD&D) or the effects of grab aren't terribly strong (4e). So, outside of 3e, I'd say +1 AC is a much bigger, certainly more often used, effect.

Significant bonus to movement. Ok, let's say it doubles your movement. Again, who cares? It's so situational that it isn't going to come into effect that often. Most encounters occur at distances under 100 feet. Being able to move double isn't going to have that much of an effect. Particularly in 3e where the costs of movement are so high.

Protection from fire? You're kidding right? Again, who cares? It's nice to have and all, but, it's going to come into effect FAR less often than that +1 armor.

The most significant effect you can have is any static plus. Doesn't matter what the plus is for, it's that plus that will have the broadest effect. It has to. Protection from Fire (for example) only matters when facing certain creatures, but, a +1 sword kicks in every single attack. We're talking about affecting literally hundreds of die rolls vs dozens (at most).

Sure, it's easy. But, the effects are so broad reaching that an entire edition had to base all its math around the presence of those pluses. Because, at the end of the day, it's not that +1 armor that's making the difference. It's the +1 armor, +2 weapon, +1 amulet of natural armour, etc, that every single character in the group has.

Between stat pluses and straight up equipment bonuses, a character is effectively adding levels onto herself. What's the difference between a 4th level fighter with +1 weapon, +1 armor and +1 shield and a 5th level fighter? The armor bonuses make up for the HP and he's attacking exactly the same. 2 skill points? That's about the entire difference.

Would adding Protection from Fire and a Sword that Casts Light really add an entire level to a fighter?

pemerton · Oct 1, 2012

Hussar said:
Protection from fire? You're kidding right? Again, who cares? It's nice to have and all, but, it's going to come into effect FAR less often than that +1 armor.

I'm going to try and work out the maths for 4e.

The default hit rate in 4e is 12/20. With the extra +1 from armour, you drop that to 11/20 ie you reduce all damage taken by 1/12. Default damage is level+8. So at 4th level, the +1 saves you 1 hp per attack. In one combat, it should save you about 5 hit points (assuming you get attacked 5 times - that would be on the low side for a front line PC, and I'm also ignoring the protection from effects you get).

Assuming resistance effects at 5 per tier, that is going to protect you the same, in each combat, as your resistance armour would from one fire attack. Do you take one fire attack per combat, on average? Probably not, though it is one of the more common damage types.

Lanefan · Oct 1, 2012

Hussar said:
Again, sort of. For one, in most indoor combat, flying is pretty much useless. And, let's be honest, a lot of combat does occur indoors.

Even indoors in a 10' high passage, flying can be very useful - shoot or throw missiles over the front line, come in from above to give your side an extra front-line combatant, fly right over the front line to get into the enemy back-liners (nothing says one always has to fly in a standing-upright position, so just fly with your back to the ceiling), and so forth.

Plus, any character focused on melee has just pretty much neutralized himself by flying.

Why?

And given all the other times fly comes in handy - aerial recon., ferry service across a chasm, etc., I'd take Flying armour over +1 (or even +3) armour of the same type every single time.

Really? You think a Charm Person is more powerful than +3 armor? Charm monster? Ok, I'd buy that. But Charm Person? It only affects a tiny slice of the creatures that you're going to face, has a saving throw and costs you an action to use. And, even if it succeeds, isn't guaranteed to do anything other than stop someone from attacking you - it might still attack your allies depending on your Cha check.

Charm Monster as an at-will effect? Ok, that's very powerful. But, that's due to the nature of save or die effects, more than the spell itself.

Charm's tricky, in that the target gets a save. I'll still take Fly, thank you.

Let's go through your examples. Freedom of movement is edition dependent. Outside of 3e, it's pretty much pointless as either very little actually can grab you (AD&D) or the effects of grab aren't terribly strong (4e). So, outside of 3e, I'd say +1 AC is a much bigger, certainly more often used, effect.

Free Action is hugely important whenever the following otherwise-deadly conditions arise: you are targeted by Hold Person, Paralysis, any ghoul, or similar; you are Webbed; you are fighting underwater or in mud; someone is trying to grapple/bind/lasso you; you are in combat with a monster that kills by constriction, etc., etc. Not perhaps as always-useful as Fly but again I'd take Free Action armour over +1 of the same type if only because the time will arise - more than once, guaranteed - when it's flat-out gonna save my life.

[snipped extra-movement example, you're right in saying that one's not so useful]

Protection from fire? You're kidding right? Again, who cares? It's nice to have and all, but, it's going to come into effect FAR less often than that +1 armor.

This one's a bit more edition-dependent. In 1e (and 2e?), where a failed save vs. fireball or similar means all your items also have to save, fireproof is gold on the occasions where it comes up. In 3e and 4e, not as critical.

All that said, one of the more useful-to-the-wearer effects I've seen on armour is what I call "Fearless" - it gives immunity to Fear effects. Again, every now and then this is an outright life-saver.

Lan-"my usual approach to magic items: if it gets me in the air, I want it"-efan

Leatherhead · Oct 1, 2012

billd91 said:
Flying neutralizes all ground-based close combat

Actually, it doesn't. Any flying creature (or PC) that uses melee attacks still needs to get into melee range. Which makes them vulnerable to practically any close combat attack from their ground-bound targets.

Ranged attacks, on the other hand, neutralize close combat. It's just that most games of D&D have gobs of melee bias in their typical encounter design, so when something like flying over and raining arrows down in an open field (where melee will be at a severe disadvantage) comes into play, it becomes especially jarring for people, rather than just another fantastic encounter.

Hussar · Oct 2, 2012

Lanefan said:
Even indoors in a 10' high passage, flying can be very useful - shoot or throw missiles over the front line, come in from above to give your side an extra front-line combatant, fly right over the front line to get into the enemy back-liners (nothing says one always has to fly in a standing-upright position, so just fly with your back to the ceiling), and so forth

Again, that's edition specific. Flying over the front line with a 10 foot ceiling in 3e or 4e grants free shots to everyone you passed over. Probably a very bad idea. Additionally, in 3e you generally don't have a rear line because you don't have that many critters in an encounter.