If inherent bonuses and enchantment bonuses stack - what are the implications?

[Nahat Anoj]

But by doing so you are moving beyond the expectations of the system math. So my question is: if enchantment bonuses stack with inherent bonuses, what implication would that have for the DM and the game?

+1 and +2 swords would be useful through an adventurers career, while +4 and +5 swords would be extremely powerful. The former could be more or less common, while the latter should probably be very rare, perhaps coming with drawbacks and/or being the province of artifacts.

I don't actually think it's a bad idea, but there should be a discussion in the book somewhere that details how potent a +5 bonus is and the ramifications for the game.

 

[KarinsDad]

If one goes back to AD&D and looks in the DMG, items were handed out because the DM wanted to, or because the DM rolled random dice for treasure.

If rolled random, the odds of getting a +1 sword of some type out of a single magical item roll were a little over 5%.

The odds of getting a +5 sword of some type were about 0.3%.

It wasn't a system of PCs getting a +1 item at level 3, a +2 at level 6, etc.

It was a system of the either the DM controlling what was handed out, or the system itself attempting to minimize PCs getting uber items.


Given the OP's question, my first thought is that inherent bonuses do not have to be +6 max, nor do magic items have to increase to +6 either.

There are problems in the game system such as the fact that several ability scores for most PCs only increase by 2 overall for a grand total of +1 while others can increase by 10 for a grand total of +5.

If the ability scores increased less frequently, that would be less of an issue. If all 6 ability scores increased every time, that would be less of an issue.

So let's redesign the entire system:

1) Monsters get +1 to hit and to defenses every level.

2) PCs get +1 to all ability scores on levels 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30. For simplicity, this could be +2 to all ability scores on levels 10, 20, and 30. The absolute largest delta on a defense (without class or racial abilities) is 6 using point buy. For example, a PC that has a 20 Str, 9 Wis, and 9 Cha. But more often, the delta would be 4.

Increasing ability scores appears to be a sacred cow now. It's not really needed, but some people will throw canaries if it is dropped.

3) PCs get +1 to hit and to defenses 4 levels out of every 5 and there are no inherent bonuses. +1 at levels 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, etc. Total: +24.

So, the total automatic bonus is +27 for PCs. +29 for monsters.

Magic items range from +1 to +3. DMs are encouraged to hand out a few +1 items at heroic, +2 at paragon, and +3 at epic, but it is not required. In fact, a PC might have a +3 sword at level 25, but only have a +1 neck item and no magical armor whatsoever.

An artifact or relic can be +4 (e.g. a Holy Avenger might be a relic), but these items should be super rare and should strongly affect their owners/wielders.

There are no non-conditional feat or Class or Paragon Path or Epic Destiny bonuses to hit or to defenses. A bonus to hit should have conditions attached to it such as "only when the PC has combat advantage" or "only when the foe is bloodied" and these should be rare. Most bonuses should be given by Leaders via powers and bonuses should almost always be in the +1 to +2 range and only on Dailies be based on ability score modifiers (i.e. +5 to hit).

Finally, magic items should have more umph than just +1 to hit and +1 damage. There should be other benefits of having any magical weapon or armor. For example, maybe all magic armor gives damage resist 3 per plus automatically. Players would really work hard to acquire magic armor if it did that and damage resist was difficult to get otherwise.

 

[Mercurius]

One problem I have with this issue is that the emphasis on balance and "how the math works" moves the game further and further away from any sense of realism or immediacy. What I mean by "immediacy" is that the rules reflect what is actually happening in the game narrative; this relates to the criticism of the 4E mechanics being too abstracted from what is actually going on.

Bonuses to items actually makes sense. A finely crafted weapon is easier to wield and does more damage than a shoddy one. But this may or may not have anything to do with magic, which is why I would suggest that bonuses be converted to masterwork qualities, perhaps with two or three tiers--perhaps a masterwork (+1), grandmasterwork (+2) and legendarywork (+3), all dependent on how good the crafter was (and what they rolled for their skill challenge in making the item).

The cost to buy such items would go up exponentially, and they could also form the basis for items of different tiers. In other words, a Heroic tier magic item has the default assumption of being a masterwork item, a Paragon tier item, a grandmasterwork, and a Epic tier item a legendarywork. In some ways that goes against my insistence on the rules making sense, but it makes things simpler.

To put it another way, I don't like the idea of taking out bonuses from items simply because of game balance issues, especially when they actually make sense. A finely forged katana is easier to hit with than a clumsy, orc-forged blade (think the swords made by the orcs in the LotR movies).

 

[NewJeffCT]

If you want to make magic special, bonuses don't factor into the equation.

Focus on magic effects, and on things like artifacts. Stop trying to make people care about Iron Armands of Power outside of CharOp.


Also, turf CharOp.

I agree - when you have too many magic items, people are bound to forget something. With 6 players in my group and each one having a magic weapon/totem/tome/etc, as well as magic armor, neck slot, arm slot, foot slot, waist slot, back slot, miscellaneous items, etc, somebody is bound to forget something important each combat between the 50 or so magic items the group has.

I recently found my old character sheet from the late 90s in a fantastic 2E campaign set in Kalamar that went from level 1 through level 9 at the end. (like 1-18 in 3E/3.5E or 1-27 in 4E) My human ranger had a special magical longsword +3 (DM creation special item). The other magic items he had were leather armor +1, a ring of protection +1, a short sword +1 for his off-hand and a couple of healing potions, which cured 4-10 hit points of damage each. But, he had nothing else. No arm slot items, or waist items or shoulder/neck items or head items, etc. In that game, when each PC got their DM creation item, it was a special/memorable occasion.

 

[NewJeffCT]

If one goes back to AD&D and looks in the DMG, items were handed out because the DM wanted to, or because the DM rolled random dice for treasure.

If rolled random, the odds of getting a +1 sword of some type out of a single magical item roll were a little over 5%.

The odds of getting a +5 sword of some type were about 0.3%.

It wasn't a system of PCs getting a +1 item at level 3, a +2 at level 6, etc.

It was a system of the either the DM controlling what was handed out, or the system itself attempting to minimize PCs getting uber items.

XP for your idea. However, going back to old school D&D, it was controlled by the DM, yes. However, I think the unwritten rule was levels 1-4 was no magic items (though, maybe a +1 dagger or short sword at level 3 or so, maybe a few arrows +1) , levels 5-8 was +1 magic items (similarly, maybe a +2 around level 7 or 8) and scaling up by +1 every four levels. Of course, most 1E/2E/AD&D games didn't go beyond level 10 or so, so a +3 item was rare.

 

[Dragon Sin-Camealot]

Search: Is DnD well-balanced: By me.