D&D 5E Attack Bonuses

[the Jester]

They are 'forced' because it is quite obvious these attack-bonus increasing items dramatically break the rules of Bounded Accuracy - which, in D&DNext, is probably the most important rule not to break.

I dispute your assertion that they are forced into the game. Don't like them, then don't use them. They really aren't necessary, even at higher levels. I'm running a lvl 7 playtest game, and the party has been fine with a few healing potions and one permanent magic item each- a +1 spear for the druid, a pearl of power for the wizard and a cloak of elvenkind for the ranger. Without those items, they'd still be fine.

 

[DEFCON 1]

For all the complaints we heard in 4E about how magic items weren't "magical enough"... here's a situation where an artifact can do something truly magical... (allowing the 20 level Fighter to potentially attack and hit 95% of the time)... and people are getting bothered by it.

Bounded accuracy is fantastic to keep most games from expanding out of control. That's what it's there for. But some games don't need that kind of control-- expanding outward into bizarro-land is what some games look for and desire.

And not putting these artifacts in the game so that the dreaded "forbidden fruit" isn't there to tempt most games from using them (and then screwing up said game because the DM doesn't know how to deal with it) I think is kind of stupid.

WotC should never design the game to save gamers from themselves. At some point, personal responsibility has to come into play.

 

[KidSnide]

I think the Belt of Storm Giant Strength is a great playtest item because I'd really like to see how it playtests against other other artifact level items. (And it would be better if there were other artifacts in the packet.) Has anyone played a game where a character with a Belt of Storm Giant Strength is compared to the legendary items in the packet?

My one playtest experience with Belt of Giant Strength was with a Belt of Hill Giant Strength that (with a Rare item) gave a Wisdom-focused 11th-level cleric a ok melee attack that was still unbelievably worse than the 11th level fighter.

Yes, there are some abusive builds if you create a character that is designed to use strength as an attack stat, but have dumped strength because they are sure to get a belt of giant strength. But that's a pretty odd situation. When compared with Str 18-20 fighters, the bonuses are mostly comparable to magic weapons with a +1 to +3 bonus. Yes, they stack, but I think that's mostly a feature. If character are getting +3 magic weapons and belts of giant strength, than that's because the DM wants a monty haul style game and it's all to everyone's fun to push the system. If you want game balance, then use give out balanced magic items.

I only see this as a problem if the result is unexpectedly unbalanced. Has anyone seen unexpected results?

-KS

 

[Li Shenron]

For all the complaints we heard in 4E about how magic items weren't "magical enough"... here's a situation where an artifact can do something truly magical... (allowing the 20 level Fighter to potentially attack and hit 95% of the time)... and people are getting bothered by it.

Bounded accuracy is fantastic to keep most games from expanding out of control. That's what it's there for. But some games don't need that kind of control-- expanding outward into bizarro-land is what some games look for and desire.

And not putting these artifacts in the game so that the dreaded "forbidden fruit" isn't there to tempt most games from using them (and then screwing up said game because the DM doesn't know how to deal with it) I think is kind of stupid.

WotC should never design the game to save gamers from themselves. At some point, personal responsibility has to come into play.

Well said!

Some groups like "magic items as technology", some others like "magic items as plot device" and some others more like "magic items as destructive fun". The DM should know where her gaming group stands, use those magic items that fit with that, and ignore those others which can break their game and spoil their fun.

Furthermore, I think the problems with +X items (which the Belts are) eventually stem from the fact that they are permanent items. If they weren't, but would last only a few encounters, they wouldn't be such a problem. So maybe they could put guidelines for customizing them into temporary items, and I don't just mean the usual items with charges, but also for example giving them a % chance of shattering (who says that magic items must be always tougher than mundane ones?), or cursing the wielder overtime, or attracting danger and thieves. This is just to say that there are many ways to balance a magic item after it is found to be too powerful, if only the DM has the guts, rather than nerfing everything into minor trinkets in fear of breaking the game (as if minor trinkets couldn't break the game and spoil the fun too... see the xmas tree effect in 3e).

 

[Falling Icicle]

Magic items can be fun and powerful without taking a wrecking ball to game balance. In fact, the vast majority of the magic items in Next are very well balanced. There are just a few broken exceptions, the belt of giant strength being one of them. I think it's particularly important that the magic items in the core rules be well balanced, since they will serve as the basis for comparison for all of the magic items that come after. If people want to make game-breaking items for their own games, they can do so at their own peril. But for the core rules of the game, balance should be paramount.

By what standard do I determine that the belt is broken? Comparing it to other items. The very best magic sword can give someone a +3 to hit and damage. The belt of storm giant strength can grant a +4 or more to hit and damage, and this bonus applies no matter what weapon the character is wielding. A character wielding two weapons, for example, normally would have to have two magic weapons in order to get a bonus to hit and damage with both weapons. A belt of giant's strength, on the other hand, applies to any or all weapons a person uses (as long as they benefit from str, obviously). The bonus goes even further than that, since it applies to ALL strength rolls and saving throws.

The effect gets even more powerful for those who had a low strength to begin with. A puny person with an 8 Str can put on one of these belts and suddenly become one of the mightiest warriors in the world. He might even have a better attack bonus than the fighter character who doesn't have the fortune of owning one of these belts! If he had "just" got a magic weapon, on the other hand, he'd be a bit better at fighting, but still at a distinct disadvantage.

You can tell when a magic item is too powerful when it becomes a "must have" item or when it's plainly superior to other items. I can't think of any other item I'd rather have for a fighter-type character than this. Nothing else even comes close.

 

[Libramarian]

That would be fine, as it doesn't turn bounded accuracy on its head.

Do you understand why AC bonuses are much more important to keep under control than attack bonuses?

Quick demonstration--let's say you do 10 average damage per hit. You hit at 50% so you do 5 damage per attack. Now your attack bonus is maxed so you hit at 95%: your damage per attack is 9.5. So your damage is almost doubled. Significant, but not game-breaking.

Now AC: your opponent does 10 average damage at 50% for 5 damage per attack. Your AC gets maxed so now they hit at 5% for 0.5 damage per attack. You now take only ONE TENTH as much damage. This would be game-breaking.

You can tell when a magic item is too powerful when it becomes a "must have" item or when it's plainly superior to other items. I can't think of any other item I'd rather have for a fighter-type character than this. Nothing else even comes close.

Doesn't matter--players don't get to choose their magic items in DDN.

 

[Dausuul]

You can tell when a magic item is too powerful when it becomes a "must have" item or when it's plainly superior to other items. I can't think of any other item I'd rather have for a fighter-type character than this. Nothing else even comes close.

And when D&DN allows PCs to create belts of storm giant strength, I will be the first to say that that is broken and needs to go. I'm not too worried about that, however. No edition of D&D has allowed PCs to create artifacts, even minor ones.

(Edit: Just realized this isn't strictly true. PCs could create artifacts in BD&D, once they became immortals. But when the characters have become, not just "gods of war," but actual Gods of War, balance has gone out the window anyway.)

 

[Jester David]

For all the complaints we heard in 4E about how magic items weren't "magical enough"... here's a situation where an artifact can do something truly magical... (allowing the 20 level Fighter to potentially attack and hit 95% of the time)... and people are getting bothered by it.

I think many of the people bothered by this are likely the same people who dismissed comments that 4e magic items were not magical enough.

 

[Jester David]

You can tell when a magic item is too powerful when it becomes a "must have" item or when it's plainly superior to other items. I can't think of any other item I'd rather have for a fighter-type character than this. Nothing else even comes close.

This is how you tell if options are broken, when they're must have or better than all other options.
But artifacts break that rule because you cannot choose them and they're always going to be the best. They set the curve. If you wouldn't pick an artifact over any other magical item then they've done a bad job designing artifacts.

 

[DonAdam]

This is way anti-traditional, but I'd be much happier if belts of giant strength increased damage but not attack rolls.