+2 max for magic items?

[Lanefan]

In the "Should the +1 sword exist in 5e" thread, I noticed several common sentiments, one of which was a desire to restrict magical plusses to a maximum of +2.

I think higher + values should exist; the root design can certainly make them uncommon but then leave it up to the individual DM whether to throw more in or cap it at +2 or even +1 (these options should be noted in the DMG).

The other one was that magical plusses should NOT be incorporated into the expected mathematical balance of the system.

If +3 vs. +1 throws off the systemic mathematical balance there's a much bigger problem at the root design level of said balance being waa-aaay too tight.

I don't want magical plusses of any kind incorporated into the system (other than some specific monsters requiring +x to hit, I'm cool with this), but I do want them to exist; and at the same time I want the system to be loose enough to handle +0 just as well as it handles +5.

Keep in mind plusses are almost certainly still going to come from things other than weapons - strength, focus/spec./finesse, spells, etc. are a few sources - thus a plus or two up or down on the weapon isn't likely to matter much. My only hope is that all those plusses are kept SMALL.

Lanefan

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm not sure why they couldn't break down +X into tiers.
1-5: +1 max
6-10: +2 max
11-15: +3 max
16-20: +4 max
20+: +5 and up

The magical powers associated would increase in diversity and power as we work our way up. If a +5 hit/damage bonus is breaking the game around max level....well, that's a serious design flaw, because the natural variability of damage and dice rolls is going to be well within a +/-5 variance.

If you want a reasoning as to why players can't wield a higher +X magic item, just throw something out there along the lines of the inherent magic being too powerful for a player. Along the same lines you could also provide players with self-improving weapons that represent their improving prowess with those weapons. IE: Your weapon has a maximum +X value based on your level.

 

[Incenjucar]

It all comes out to a magic item tax. The fewer taxes, the better.

 

[mkill]

I'm repeating myself, but "not miss when stabbing with pointy things" does not balance the fighter against the wizard. Not if the competition can stop time and scribble a mustache on the enemy's face for the lulz. Doing moar hit point damage does not balance the fighter, when the competition can disintegrate the enemy with a single spell. We're going to fight an aircraft carrier, here is a better katana.

That said, if the 5E math is flatter than older edition, so that monster attack / defense goes up 1/2 levels, I'd make magic items +1 per tier: +1 at heroic, +2 at Paragon, +3 at epic.

 

[Leatherhead]

If you are capping it low, the cap should be +1

 

[BobTheNob]

Any speculating about this being right or wrong is premature. Without understanding how the game scales, +1, +2 or even +6 we have no real idea of what is appropriate.

That said, I agree with winding back the mandatory nature of the the "+" nature of equipment. Not removing altogether, but when the effect of the number is such that it needs to be compensated in monster design, you define it as mandatory, and you end up in that oh-so-painful arms race.

I agree with equipment being interesting and dynamic, I disagree with it being a requirement.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

If you are capping it low, the cap should be +1

Yeah, I agree. Put the regular plusses into the math and allow +1 items to exist (for old time's sake) but that's "all" it does.

D&D wouldn't quite be D&D without +1 longswords, and a +1 longsword would be a true item of amazing power if the +1 to-hit came on top of an already well-balanced to-hit system.

If you didn't "need" it, and you had to take the +1 at the expense of some other interesting enchantment, +1 weapons would be something really awesome to have.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yeah, I agree. Put the regular plusses into the math and allow +1 items to exist (for old time's sake) but that's "all" it does.

D&D wouldn't quite be D&D without +1 longswords, and a +1 longsword would be a true item of amazing power if the +1 to-hit came on top of an already well-balanced to-hit system.

If you didn't "need" it, and you had to take the +1 at the expense of some other interesting enchantment, +1 weapons would be something really awesome to have.

Yes, but imagine how tight that math would need to be. Such a system in which a +1 makes for a HUGE difference would be completely incapable of taking into account dice rolls.

 

[Quickleaf]

Any speculating about this being right or wrong is premature. Without understanding how the game scales, +1, +2 or even +6 we have no real idea of what is appropriate.

That said, I agree with winding back the mandatory nature of the the "+" nature of equipment. Not removing altogether, but when the effect of the number is such that it needs to be compensated in monster design, you define it as mandatory, and you end up in that oh-so-painful arms race.

I agree with equipment being interesting and dynamic, I disagree with it being a requirement.

Personally I'd love for the +X magic items to die and be completely replaced by flavorful magic items.

However, since that's got a snowball's chance in hell of happening, I second this post.

 

[BobTheNob]

Yes, but imagine how tight that math would need to be. Such a system in which a +1 makes for a HUGE difference would be completely incapable of taking into account dice rolls.

When we dumped out exisitng equipment and reverted to inherent bonus in 4e, one the the items a party member eventually got was an "of accuracy" item (homebrew) which was simply a +1 item bonus to hit.

Other gear was "funkier", but the +1 to hit was just a +1 to hit. So the +1 became a special, one of a kind item.

But admittedly, that was 4e where such a difference counted. Without knowing 5e's mechanics, I have no idea whether it would have the same effect.

The thing I did like though : it allowed bonus to BE a bonus, rather than a requirement. SO much better.