Something similar happened in one my games. Grateful dwarves rewarded the party with a flaming mace, a cursespewing longsword and a shortsword that could turn the wielder invisible. At the time, the PC's were around 3rd level. They upgraded the weapons and kept them all the way to 20th level.
What's wrong with the magic item Christmas tree?
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
Something similar happened in one my games. Grateful dwarves rewarded the party with a flaming mace, a cursespewing longsword and a shortsword that could turn the wielder invisible. At the time, the PC's were around 3rd level. They upgraded the weapons and kept them all the way to 20th level.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Meh, I'm not convinced that slots are even necessary. They're such a gamist concept -- which isn't unusual in D&D -- but I'm not convinced that they balance the game in any meaningful way. I dunno, there's probably some cheesy combos that a 3e power gamer could come up with if slots were dropped -- but I can't think of any.
It's even easier to think of dropping slots in 4e, with its finely balanced/boring items. Maybe I'm wrong though; I'd actually love if someone could point out a super cheesy combo that item slots prevent from happening.
Jeff Wilder
First Post
Slots aren't completely gamist. They're taken to their ultimate expression in Magic of Incarnum, but the idea of different parts of the body having affinity for different types of magic is a pretty ancient one.
Two things I think should be mentioned.
First off, AC is horrible. It's not only the worst scaling defense in the game, it's also the most binary. It's a yes or no "do I take damage," and it didn't scale at all. Unless you were a front line fighter, you were really typically better off going for things like stoneskin or displacement or other such effects. Now, as the game progressed, this got fixed in a number of ways. Tome of Battle gave martial classes several potential abilities to help their AC and their skills, so they wouldn't be ironically the least defended people in the game, with abilities that would give you skills to saves or AC, or even your attack bonus to AC.
Secondly, it's interesting to see how baseline stats have been going up and up with each edition (at least since 2e, which is the earliest edition I've played).
In 2e, having a 16 in your main stat gave you an experience bonus, and the standard of character creation was rolling your stats, though - at least from what I saw - the most often used method was 4d6 drop one. Races would have +1 and -1 to two stats. Mechanically, it was because dexterity was how you figured all rogue abilities, strength was for attacking and lifting gates/bending bars/other feats of strength, intelligence governed your ability to potentially learn spells, etc. What it ended up meaning was that characters had fairly average, if random, statistics, and that thieves were nimble and quick, fighters were strong and powerful, wizards were knowledgable and smart, clerics were wise and understanding, etc, etc. Having an 18/00 in strength was a big deal, having an ogre's strength meant literally having the strength of an ogre.
In 3e, the push was made towards point buy, with 28 being the standard. Because statistics were altered to give a +1 modifier for each even all around, races gained +2 and -2 to their stats. Lastly, stats are no longer static - they rise as you level. Mechanically, the lines of what stat can be used was blurred a bit, with things like Weapon Finesse giving dexterity to hit, and skills were given to everyone rather then different classes having different subsets of skills, though "class skills" were kept. What this meant mechanically is that most characters were somewhat above average, perhaps with one skill greatly increased, or two skills fairly increased. Rogues were greatly more skillful then fighters, but overall classes are blending together, and stats are more abstracted.
In 4e, point buy reigns supreme, and the stats are much higher. Stats go to your various attacks, your defenses, and your skills, which can lead to oddities like there being no class that wants high dex and intellect at the same time (in fact, my favorite stat combo tends to be punished
). Characters tend to have strongly above average stats, with one incredibly exceptional stat, or two very potent stats. Furthermore, players do not have lower then an 8 in any stat, and that's only in one stat. Skills tend to be more even across classes, along with a reduced number of skills. Stats are very abstracted at this point.
It makes me wonder what we'll see in any future theoretical editions, at least as far as stats go.
First off, AC is horrible. It's not only the worst scaling defense in the game, it's also the most binary. It's a yes or no "do I take damage," and it didn't scale at all. Unless you were a front line fighter, you were really typically better off going for things like stoneskin or displacement or other such effects. Now, as the game progressed, this got fixed in a number of ways. Tome of Battle gave martial classes several potential abilities to help their AC and their skills, so they wouldn't be ironically the least defended people in the game, with abilities that would give you skills to saves or AC, or even your attack bonus to AC.
Secondly, it's interesting to see how baseline stats have been going up and up with each edition (at least since 2e, which is the earliest edition I've played).
In 2e, having a 16 in your main stat gave you an experience bonus, and the standard of character creation was rolling your stats, though - at least from what I saw - the most often used method was 4d6 drop one. Races would have +1 and -1 to two stats. Mechanically, it was because dexterity was how you figured all rogue abilities, strength was for attacking and lifting gates/bending bars/other feats of strength, intelligence governed your ability to potentially learn spells, etc. What it ended up meaning was that characters had fairly average, if random, statistics, and that thieves were nimble and quick, fighters were strong and powerful, wizards were knowledgable and smart, clerics were wise and understanding, etc, etc. Having an 18/00 in strength was a big deal, having an ogre's strength meant literally having the strength of an ogre.
In 3e, the push was made towards point buy, with 28 being the standard. Because statistics were altered to give a +1 modifier for each even all around, races gained +2 and -2 to their stats. Lastly, stats are no longer static - they rise as you level. Mechanically, the lines of what stat can be used was blurred a bit, with things like Weapon Finesse giving dexterity to hit, and skills were given to everyone rather then different classes having different subsets of skills, though "class skills" were kept. What this meant mechanically is that most characters were somewhat above average, perhaps with one skill greatly increased, or two skills fairly increased. Rogues were greatly more skillful then fighters, but overall classes are blending together, and stats are more abstracted.
In 4e, point buy reigns supreme, and the stats are much higher. Stats go to your various attacks, your defenses, and your skills, which can lead to oddities like there being no class that wants high dex and intellect at the same time (in fact, my favorite stat combo tends to be punished
). Characters tend to have strongly above average stats, with one incredibly exceptional stat, or two very potent stats. Furthermore, players do not have lower then an 8 in any stat, and that's only in one stat. Skills tend to be more even across classes, along with a reduced number of skills. Stats are very abstracted at this point.It makes me wonder what we'll see in any future theoretical editions, at least as far as stats go.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
I see my mistake. I thought you were talking about 3.x, not 4e. Since 4e doesn't have the Christmas tree problem, I hadn't really thought about it.
I don't count DMG2 as core, though.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Thank You Jeff I periodically have issues with that (amnesia sets in or something) I like figuring out how the game elements can have connection to myth and legend.
Contrast with BECMI, where it really wasn't as big a deal since the bonuses were spread over a larger range of values. 16 Strength was nice, yes, but 13 gave you advantages too. Characters simply don't need high stats the way they did/do in other editions.
To get on topic, there are two things I dislike. One, when the magic items are necessary for the character to be effective. Two, when the magic items define the characters abilities more than the characters own abilities do.
Last edited:
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
For me ... Arthur and Lancelot need to be viable along side one another.... Arthurs magic item and maybe even some of its accessories were intentionally definitional and Lancelot.... well him being item focused feels silly. Alternative rewards from DMG2 while not genius (pointing out they could be seen as just a reskinning Lancelots 'magic items' as divine/legendary gifts and grand master training.) ... are a fair answer. It also suggests that items that were part of the characters story may become the recipients of the gifts.
But in general its about allowing some or even most of those bright lights to be inherent to the characters.... or to become a progressive thing... Arthur becoming more in tune with his kingship perhaps...learns to invoke Excalibur in new ways.
I wonder if something along the lines of 3.5s Items of Legacy could be made to work. Combine with the alternative rewards concept, allow people to choose which they prefer and to describe it as they like, and there might be something workable in it.
Jeremy Ackerman-Yost
Explorer
In game, there is no meaningful mechanical difference between Arthur's power coming from Excalibur or Arthur's power actually being inherent while he believes it comes from Excalibur. The character is fully capable of chalking up his good performance while wielding a different blade to divine providence, if it ever comes up.
Similar Threads
