Top end of +N weapons and armor?

[howandwhy99]

Without knowing what the numbers mean in the game system they're pretty much worthless.

 

[Pyromantic]

I personally would use whatever the system is set up to use.

There's nothing wrong with higher numbers, and the math can work just fine as long as everything is designed to work together. That said, if the math assumes that you have a weapon of a certain bonus, it certainly changes the nature of magic items in the game. It means that you need to keep such items fairly accessible. It also means that you discourage the use of switching between weapons, implements and the like, as you either need to keep multiple magic items around or miss out on the bonus part of the time.

I think the game should assume almost no bonuses to hit and defenses from magic items, and if that's the case each additional +1 should be increasingly rare. If the math of the game functions according to you having no such bonuses, but you actually have +3 to all attack rolls and +3 to all defenses, that represents a huge shift in balance.

 

[dangerous jack]

Voted +2, and the game should assume that PCs have no bonus to their attack rolls coming from their weapon.

+0 for most magic weapons.
+1 for truly masterwork and some magic weapons.
+2 reserved for those magic weapons that have their magic specifically tuned to accuracy (at the expense of not being a flametongue, for example).
I would allow higher, if the weapon also had drawbacks (e.g. cursed, or intelligent with a high ego). It shouldn't be a no brainer to always use this kind of weapon unless you mitigate the effects through other resources.

If the system assumes PCs will have a +5 weapon/armour, then I have to give a +5 weapon & armour to each PC (or I could just do what I do now in 4e and subtract 2/tier from all monster defences.). Where's the magic in that?

 

[Yora]

Either there are +X weapons, or there are not. If there are, the maximum available to the PC should be decided by the DM for the campaign.

 

[Sound of Azure]

I'd like D&DNext to reflect how awesome my character is, not how awesome his magic doodads are. All the same, I voted for +1, since I'd like for there to be a simple option for swords and armour, as opposed to flaming, holy, etc items.

D&D should not factor PC magic item bonuses into monster stats, so any such effects should be minimal. It will allow for much more flavourful magic items in my opinion.

 

[jeffh]

The question is meaningless without knowing the context those numbers appear in.

 

[the Jester]

I favor much flatter math, but am okay with +5 weapons. However, I'd prolly reserve anything above +3 for artifacts- but I'd also do artifacts more like they were presented in the old Book of Artifacts.

 

[Stoat]

To use 4E terms, I'd prefer items to have one plus per tier. +1 is heroic, +2 is paragon, +3 is epic.

 

[billd91]

I voted +4 to +5, but I'd be satisfied with +3. For that +4/+5, I would expect a little more lateral power as well. I'm finding that I really like PF's use of +3 and higher to penetrate material and alignment-based DR. If D&DNext has any similar element of DR (and I hope there's some form of it), I'd like to see an idea like that incorporated.

 

[Kraydak]

I voted +5. But really, it depends on campaign length. I want gear upgrades to come at a reasonable rate at a function of play-time. A single significant upgrade/character every few sessions is about as low as you want to go. 6 "big" item slots, and an upgrade every 2-3 sessions get you to about 15 sessions/full upgrade. For an active group (30 sessions/year) that'll mean about 2-3 years to cap magic items... and they'll also be level capping at the same time.

Basically, you want upgrades that individually significant, just rare enough that you appreciate them when they happen while common enough that you don't get frustrated when you hit a relatively dry spell.