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

JamesonCourage · Oct 2, 2012

I know everyone is chipping in, but add me to the "I'd so take flying armor over +1 armor" group. It's just so much more use to it in my group's typical sessions that +1 armor. Heck, even in a game where there might be three or four fights in a night, I'd take the flying armor. Just too useful to pass up. As always, play what you like

Hussar · Oct 3, 2012

JamesonCourage said:
I know everyone is chipping in, but add me to the "I'd so take flying armor over +1 armor" group. It's just so much more use to it in my group's typical sessions that +1 armor. Heck, even in a game where there might be three or four fights in a night, I'd take the flying armor. Just too useful to pass up. As always, play what you like

I probably would too, simply because I HATE plused items. Like you said, the flying armor is a heck of a lot more interesting and useful.

But that's not my point. The plussed items are just flat out better than most other items. There's a reason that the Big 6 items are almost all plussed items. Those flat bonuses are just too good to pass up and they futz with game balance too much. To the point where 3e had to design everything based on the presumption that you would have these plusses.

billd91 · Oct 3, 2012

Hussar said:
I probably would too, simply because I HATE plused items. Like you said, the flying armor is a heck of a lot more interesting and useful.

But that's not my point. The plussed items are just flat out better than most other items. There's a reason that the Big 6 items are almost all plussed items. Those flat bonuses are just too good to pass up and they futz with game balance too much. To the point where 3e had to design everything based on the presumption that you would have these plusses.

The plus items were too good for their price in 3e (for what it's worth, ones in 1e were priced better compared to many other magic items). That AND the ability to actually pursue a strategy of obtaining them and keeping them at the highest affordable level (thanks to magic item creation feats and the presumption of a magic item economy) were what made them the Big 6. It wasn't because they were better than flying armor that you might have found in some hoard somewhere, it was that you could pursue them as a rational and affordable strategy that was the problem behind the Big 6.

And no, 3e is not designed under the presumption you had those pluses. It was designed under the assumption you had some of them. The statistical analysis behind (I think it was) Trailblazer indicated that.

JamesonCourage · Oct 3, 2012

Hussar said:
I probably would too, simply because I HATE plused items. Like you said, the flying armor is a heck of a lot more interesting and useful.

But that's not my point. The plussed items are just flat out better than most other items. There's a reason that the Big 6 items are almost all plussed items. Those flat bonuses are just too good to pass up and they futz with game balance too much. To the point where 3e had to design everything based on the presumption that you would have these plusses.

The +1 armor is better for combat in most combat situations. However, most situations in my game aren't combat. Your point is they're just straight better; my point is they aren't. In combat the +1 is better, but that's not as good, in general, as the versatility and utility of the flying armor.

I also tend to agree with bill91; there are far more factors for why there was the Big 6 than "+1's are too useful." The Big 6 shouldn't be repeated, for sure. And, 3.X did assume magic item use. Hopefully, by not assuming their use in the math / DR / etc., their presence won't be deemed "necessary" for PCs.

My point, though, was that the +1 is every bit as situational as flying armor is. That +1 requires being attacked to be useful; no doubt a common enough situation at the large majority of tables. I'd imagine, though, that the majority of tables would find plenty of situations present themselves where flying is exceedingly useful. Which is why I'd prefer it. As always, play what you like

Lanefan · Oct 3, 2012

billd91 said:
The plus items were too good for their price in 3e (for what it's worth, ones in 1e were priced better compared to many other magic items).

Also, don't forget that in 1e magic items tend to break much more often than in the more recent editions (e.g. fail a save vs. fireball and all your items also have to save); so even if you had a decent + item there was no guarantee on how long you'd keep it...

That AND the ability to actually pursue a strategy of obtaining them and keeping them at the highest affordable level (thanks to magic item creation feats and the presumption of a magic item economy) were what made them the Big 6. It wasn't because they were better than flying armor that you might have found in some hoard somewhere, it was that you could pursue them as a rational and affordable strategy that was the problem behind the Big 6.

3e's magic item creation system was perhaps its single biggest mistake.

Lanefan

Bluenose · Oct 3, 2012

billd91 said:
And no, 3e is not designed under the presumption you had those pluses. It was designed under the assumption you had some of them. The statistical analysis behind (I think it was) Trailblazer indicated that.

Try playing without them, with the sort of magic items a pre-generated character from AD&D modules has. See how the characters do, compared to their performance under AD&D rules. What they succeed at, what they fail at. If you keep track of the numbers rolled, you can then play out the same encounter in both editions, and see how similar the results are - or more likely aren't.

Hussar · Oct 4, 2012

JC- fair enough I suppose. But, I'm willing to bet that a PC is attacked far more often in the course of a campaign than he absolutely needs to fly somewhere. Overall, the plussed items are just too useful.

Put it another way. I mentioned before that a +1 weapon, +1 armor and +1 shield effectively raises the level of a fighter by one. More or less. He's hitting the same as one level higher (and doing more damage on average) and the AC and save bonuses from the magic armor effectively raise his HP to the next level as well. The only thing he's missing out on is a couple of skill points.

Would you say that at-will flight effectively raises that character by one level?

Lanefan · Oct 4, 2012

Hussar said:
Put it another way. I mentioned before that a +1 weapon, +1 armor and +1 shield effectively raises the level of a fighter by one. More or less. He's hitting the same as one level higher (and doing more damage on average) and the AC and save bonuses from the magic armor effectively raise his HP to the next level as well. The only thing he's missing out on is a couple of skill points.

Everything you mention here is strictly combat related; except the skill points, which don't appear in every edition anyway. There's more to the game than just combat...or at least there should be.

Would you say that at-will flight effectively raises that character by one level?

Strictly in combat terms, no. In terms of overall usefulness to the party, absolutely.

Lanefan

JamesonCourage · Oct 4, 2012

Hussar said:
JC- fair enough I suppose. But, I'm willing to bet that a PC is attacked far more often in the course of a campaign than he absolutely needs to fly somewhere. Overall, the plussed items are just too useful.

I'm guessing the times you need to fly are usually more useful than the time that the +1 turned a hit into a miss. But, again, campaign style comes into this. Lots of interior fights (especially caves compared to castles)? Lots of combat? Lots of traps? All these things (and more) will make the value of the +1 armor go up.

On the other hand, do you have lots of exterior fights? Not a lot of combat? Lots of exploration (flying to feel upper walls, check ledges, etc.)? Lots of sneaking around? All these things (and more) will make the value of the +1 armor go up.

Hussar said:
Put it another way. I mentioned before that a +1 weapon, +1 armor and +1 shield effectively raises the level of a fighter by one. More or less. He's hitting the same as one level higher (and doing more damage on average) and the AC and save bonuses from the magic armor effectively raise his HP to the next level as well. The only thing he's missing out on is a couple of skill points.

Would you say that at-will flight effectively raises that character by one level?

It depends on what edition you're talking about. Saves come into play (I hear they're good for the Fighter pre-3e

), as do feats/skills in 3.5, powers in 4e, etc. And, since you don't get AC bonuses for level-ups in 3.5, the +1 armor/shield don't add there, I don't think.

But, regardless, I've seen people do far more with flying races than I've seen people do with +1 weapons, armor, and shields. Those things are nice, too, but again, I'd say that "you can fly" is a damn good class feature, and I wouldn't feel cheated at all by only getting that in a level. As always, play what you like

SLOTHmaster · Oct 4, 2012

In general an effect that alters your interaction with the world is more useful than something which alters your plusses. Plusses are only useful in combat situations, while with enough creativity things like flight can be used to a much greater effect. Which is part of why spellcasters have traditionally dominated over non-casters.