In Defense Of: +X items
- Thread starter MarkChevallier
- Start date
DonTadow
First Post
They are too iconic to drop. Too mamy non nerds joke about +2 weapons allthe time.
But lets take the math out. Maybe now the +x is how many weapon enhancements (or armor enhancements)are on the item. You escape the extra math (and unbalance) and add more mystic. One +1 item is different than another.
But lets take the math out. Maybe now the +x is how many weapon enhancements (or armor enhancements)are on the item. You escape the extra math (and unbalance) and add more mystic. One +1 item is different than another.
FitzTheRuke
Legend
Maybe they could leave 'em out of the standard math, but leave the concept in as a per-encounter bonus, or somesuch. So if you have a +3 Mace, you get a +3 to hit (on top of your usual to hit) once per encounter. Use it after you roll to make it more fun/powerful.
I'm sure some people would hate that, so I don't know how well it would work if your design goal is to please everyone, but I prefer it to what's come before.
I'm sure some people would hate that, so I don't know how well it would work if your design goal is to please everyone, but I prefer it to what's come before.
TwinBahamut
First Post
I'd prefer it if +X weapons and items were completely purged from the game. The biggest problem isn't even how they are boring or necessary, it is how that necessity strongly impacts both the economy of the game and the flexibility with which people can choose their level of magic in their own games. The linear progression of +X bonuses is the primary reason that there are magic items of varying power levels. This leads to a constant treadmill of magic item upgrades, and a system where gold is directly equivalent to character power and must be strictly regulated. This, in turn, makes it much more difficult to use gold as a valuable roleplaying tool (for things like bribes, building castles, running businesses, etc). Removing +X items cleans up this whole mess and gives players and DMs a lot more flexibility with magic items and wealth.
Also, they're boring. Really boring. Horrendously boring. In fact, the +X naming convention is downright ridiculous-sounding.
I also don't like the "newbie DM" argument. +X magic items cause a lot of troubles regarding careful allotment of wealth and items in order to maintain balance. They are deceptively powerful, far more so than many other bonus types. They also fail to be memorable, and don't provide the interesting stories that many other magical effects do. As such, it would probably be a bad idea for new DMs to give out a lot of +X items without thought. It would also be easier for a any DM to hand out items if there were no +X items around, so the negatives outweigh the positives here.
If people absolutely had to keep this scared cow around for sheer nostalgia's sake, I'd accept the removal of any +X bonus to hit rates or raw defense. Those are the bonuses that tend to mess everything up. Bonuses to damage tend to be fine. Also, I'd prefer it if the +5 in a "Flaming Sword +5" referred to the quality of the Flaming bonus, rather than a totally separate bonus. I'd still rather not see tiered magic items effects, though...
Also, they're boring. Really boring. Horrendously boring. In fact, the +X naming convention is downright ridiculous-sounding.
I also don't like the "newbie DM" argument. +X magic items cause a lot of troubles regarding careful allotment of wealth and items in order to maintain balance. They are deceptively powerful, far more so than many other bonus types. They also fail to be memorable, and don't provide the interesting stories that many other magical effects do. As such, it would probably be a bad idea for new DMs to give out a lot of +X items without thought. It would also be easier for a any DM to hand out items if there were no +X items around, so the negatives outweigh the positives here.
If people absolutely had to keep this scared cow around for sheer nostalgia's sake, I'd accept the removal of any +X bonus to hit rates or raw defense. Those are the bonuses that tend to mess everything up. Bonuses to damage tend to be fine. Also, I'd prefer it if the +5 in a "Flaming Sword +5" referred to the quality of the Flaming bonus, rather than a totally separate bonus. I'd still rather not see tiered magic items effects, though...
Crazy Jerome
First Post
It can be made worth less. It would require some reworking of things away from the core math and/or extra options, but it can be done.
If nothing else, they could always kludge it with a "soft stacking" that gets progressively more stringent the more bonuses you get. You wouldn't do this for just magic items, but if you still want things to stack, and some of those other things aren't always present, it is one way to handle it. That would also handle some of the ridiculous range in the d20 mods.
For example, if a +7 to +10 mod is the expectation at 5th level, then you get a +6 even if you don't have that much (assuming certain play expectations), and if you have over +10, then you only get another +1 for getting to +12, the next one for +15, and so on. You can chase stacks if you want, but it really isn't worth it. And set the range right, and normal people who aren't deliberately trying to break the game don't even worry about that rule most of the time (or at all, and the group polices itself and allows ocassional divergence). The in-world rationale is that a lot of things stack, but the more you stack, the less it helps.
It wouldn't surprise me if someone came up with a more elegant way to do the same idea or some variant on it, either.
A couple of points on +X things.
1> The reason that a +1 sword was valuable in 2e and earlier was the same reason that a Silver sword was valuable in 2e and earlier. The value was not in the modifier to hit a target (nice to have but not the real value). The value was in some creatures needed a certain item to do any damage at all. If you fought a Were creature and did not have a silver weapon or better then you were doing no damage to it. If you fought a Wight or a Wraith then you better have a +X item or you need to be running the other way. You either had the item or you did not as there was no damage reduction.
2> The problem with +X is not with a magical item or any item. Even a +5 from a single source is not hard to account for in design as that only changes the math by 25% from low +0 to peak +5.
The trouble is the multiple sources of bonuses (I mentioned this in more detail in the Making Magical Items Wondrous). You have bonuses from attributes, feats, spells, magical items, class features, situational bonuses, and others in 3.5/PF and 4e.
It is less noticeable in the low game of level 1 to 5 but it becomes much more pronounced in the high game. When you have four or five sources of bonus (or more in some cases) and all those bonuses are +3 to +5 then you can easily have a swing of +25 or more (in PF I could get a Paladin up to AC defense measured in the high 30s with hitting of +30 or more against foes I was smiting at a level in the late teens).
If the GM did not want my Paladin to hit on 2+ then the defense required many of the party rogues to need 18+ to hit. If the monsters were to hit the Paladin on a roughly 50% or better chance than the GM needed 2+ to hit the rest of the party (Paladin was maxed for AC defense and carried a really good weapon with good buffs).
{Do not bother with discussing the example of the Paladin and how the GM 'should' have handled the situation. ~ In the end the GM made a singular Anti-paladin that killed the character and stole the body with much of the magic but that just created a new problem with next character that again maxed bonuses}
3> Just because something existed before is a lousy reason to 'include' the item or rules associated with it. I would rather have monsters with a Damage Reduction of 15 or 20 against anything not silver or gold or dipped in the blood of a saint or a dozen other more characterful ideas that require the players to learn of the special defense and create a solution that solves the special defense. Not every lock should have 'sledgehammer' as the solution (though lightsaber may be the universal lockpick).
4> Limiting bonus sources or only creating certain items in the core books does not work. It did not work in 3e or 4e. When the copy goes out the door then every new person looks at the creation and all they 'see' is an 'obvious' error of a 'missing' item/feat/buff/debuff that they will fix with their 'invention'. The 'inventions' are published on websites, magazines, and splat books where others follow the 'pattern' of 'clevernous' and the result is back to multiple bonuses adding together.
5> What if the +X of weapons added to damage and +X armour added to defense. Then you would quickly have people carrying weapons that hurt like the hulk was wielding them but never connecting because the defenses were too high.
6> What if the +X of weapons added to damage and the +X armour subtracted from damage. The good of this is hit points generally have more range to 'absorb' modifiers but the trouble creates a new problem as 'helpful' designers step up to fill the 'perceived gap'. They will create weapons with bigger dice rolls of damage and defenses will then have to increase to subtract greater amounts of punishment. The wizard then steps into a fight between two fighters in God plate with God weapons and is killed with one sweep. This is less a problem with one source of bonus but every other source of bonus multiplies the problem of the last bonus in the stack unless there is a clear rule that says no stacking and no making feats or character options or spells to get around the rule (because that has never happened in the past).
1> The reason that a +1 sword was valuable in 2e and earlier was the same reason that a Silver sword was valuable in 2e and earlier. The value was not in the modifier to hit a target (nice to have but not the real value). The value was in some creatures needed a certain item to do any damage at all. If you fought a Were creature and did not have a silver weapon or better then you were doing no damage to it. If you fought a Wight or a Wraith then you better have a +X item or you need to be running the other way. You either had the item or you did not as there was no damage reduction.
2> The problem with +X is not with a magical item or any item. Even a +5 from a single source is not hard to account for in design as that only changes the math by 25% from low +0 to peak +5.
The trouble is the multiple sources of bonuses (I mentioned this in more detail in the Making Magical Items Wondrous). You have bonuses from attributes, feats, spells, magical items, class features, situational bonuses, and others in 3.5/PF and 4e.
It is less noticeable in the low game of level 1 to 5 but it becomes much more pronounced in the high game. When you have four or five sources of bonus (or more in some cases) and all those bonuses are +3 to +5 then you can easily have a swing of +25 or more (in PF I could get a Paladin up to AC defense measured in the high 30s with hitting of +30 or more against foes I was smiting at a level in the late teens).
If the GM did not want my Paladin to hit on 2+ then the defense required many of the party rogues to need 18+ to hit. If the monsters were to hit the Paladin on a roughly 50% or better chance than the GM needed 2+ to hit the rest of the party (Paladin was maxed for AC defense and carried a really good weapon with good buffs).
{Do not bother with discussing the example of the Paladin and how the GM 'should' have handled the situation. ~ In the end the GM made a singular Anti-paladin that killed the character and stole the body with much of the magic but that just created a new problem with next character that again maxed bonuses}
3> Just because something existed before is a lousy reason to 'include' the item or rules associated with it. I would rather have monsters with a Damage Reduction of 15 or 20 against anything not silver or gold or dipped in the blood of a saint or a dozen other more characterful ideas that require the players to learn of the special defense and create a solution that solves the special defense. Not every lock should have 'sledgehammer' as the solution (though lightsaber may be the universal lockpick).
4> Limiting bonus sources or only creating certain items in the core books does not work. It did not work in 3e or 4e. When the copy goes out the door then every new person looks at the creation and all they 'see' is an 'obvious' error of a 'missing' item/feat/buff/debuff that they will fix with their 'invention'. The 'inventions' are published on websites, magazines, and splat books where others follow the 'pattern' of 'clevernous' and the result is back to multiple bonuses adding together.
5> What if the +X of weapons added to damage and +X armour added to defense. Then you would quickly have people carrying weapons that hurt like the hulk was wielding them but never connecting because the defenses were too high.
6> What if the +X of weapons added to damage and the +X armour subtracted from damage. The good of this is hit points generally have more range to 'absorb' modifiers but the trouble creates a new problem as 'helpful' designers step up to fill the 'perceived gap'. They will create weapons with bigger dice rolls of damage and defenses will then have to increase to subtract greater amounts of punishment. The wizard then steps into a fight between two fighters in God plate with God weapons and is killed with one sweep. This is less a problem with one source of bonus but every other source of bonus multiplies the problem of the last bonus in the stack unless there is a clear rule that says no stacking and no making feats or character options or spells to get around the rule (because that has never happened in the past).
vagabundo
Adventurer
None of the reasons you gave for keeping them are really good enough. They are pointless. Players just forget about that +1 sword after about 5 minutes unless it has another power. They add so little to the game that it would be best to ignore them.
Thank God for inherent bonus' in 4e.
Thank God for inherent bonus' in 4e.
Incenjucar
Legend
Thanks to inherent bonuses, the players in my game have almost completely lost interest in magical weapons, armor, and neck items. They're much more inclined to ask for Darkvision Goggles or Magical Candy-Making Machines.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
I say move the +X quality to the craftsmanship of the weapon/item. Let a master craftsman create a +5 weapon, if they have decent enough skill.
Save the "magic" part of magic items for unusual effects; dancing, flaming, displacement and the like.
And I dislike tying the bonuses to the math. Let someone who has a +X weapon have a real advantage, instead of a scramble to keep up. The we DMs wouldn't have to feel we're being so prudish about sending rust monsters, disenchanters and the like at characters.
Save the "magic" part of magic items for unusual effects; dancing, flaming, displacement and the like.
And I dislike tying the bonuses to the math. Let someone who has a +X weapon have a real advantage, instead of a scramble to keep up. The we DMs wouldn't have to feel we're being so prudish about sending rust monsters, disenchanters and the like at characters.
Li Shenron
Legend
I don't think +X items are boring.
It's the designers assuming every PC has them which is boring.
This is IMHO one of the biggest faults of 3ed. Designers built the game around the assumption that level N characters had +X weapons, +Y ring of protection, +Z cloak of resistance... the inevitable consequence is that the DM has to give them out to everyone in treasure or let them buy in shops, and also that NPCs must have them to be balanced encounters (and all published adventures do so), which ultimately makes the D&D world literally full of those 3 types of items more than anything.
It's the designers assuming every PC has them which is boring.
This is IMHO one of the biggest faults of 3ed. Designers built the game around the assumption that level N characters had +X weapons, +Y ring of protection, +Z cloak of resistance... the inevitable consequence is that the DM has to give them out to everyone in treasure or let them buy in shops, and also that NPCs must have them to be balanced encounters (and all published adventures do so), which ultimately makes the D&D world literally full of those 3 types of items more than anything.
Similar Threads
