+2 max for magic items?

[Ahnehnois]

On one hand, I really agree with the sentiment that a +5 sword should not be an expected or necessary piece of equipment for a high-level fighter. On the other, I just don't think three iterations of quality (+0, +1, and +2) is enough granularity to give weapons the complexity D&D players desire.

Perhaps we should have "rusty short swords" and such that actually give penalties, indicating that a +0 weapon is actually pretty decent. After all, a thief using improvised tools to pick a lock takes a penalty, so why not make it more common for low-level characters to use crap weapons? Not that this has never been done, but it isn't commonplace these days.

Also, I think the attack and damage should be separated.
And I'd like to see the +x bonuses achieved without magic, and leave more dynamic effects for magic swords.

 

[FireLance]

We don't need to limit the plusses; we just need better guidelines so that players and DMs who are concerned about the math can adjust the level of challenge depending on whether they are armed with no magic weapons, +1 weapons, +3 weapons or +5 weapons.

If we start with a system that assumes that a party of characters without magic items can take on an encounter of equal level with a standard chance of success, magic items should enable the characters to take on the same encounter with better chances of success, or a more powerful encounter at the same chance of success.

So maybe if you're a 30th-level party, you can take on an elder wyrm red dragon (also a 30th level monster) without any magic items whatsoever. However, if you want to take on Orcus (a 35th level monster) you'd better have your +5 gear.

 

[Serendipity]

I opted for no, but then I think the plusses of a weapon should only add to damage.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

Depends on what you mean by HUGE. A constant 5% increase (all the time) to your standard level of accuracy is huge if it's the only one you're likely to get, and all your friends don't have it as well.

 

[Tallifer]

Because without the higher-end magical item arsenal, the non-magic classes fall even further behind the magical ones.

The Fourth Edition showed the way with powerful things for high level Fighters and Rogues to do without magic. All the more reason for powers and martial practices.

No need for magical items to help Fighters then. (Also that never solved the problem, because the Wizard can buy or craft magical items as well.)

 

[GM Dave]

I'm dealing with this problem right now.

I'm running a PF game and I have a player with a 2nd going on 3rd level Inquisitor character.

Making things a little more realistic and less treasure robbing, I've made sure most of the players have a source of patron support (the Inquisitor has the church that he is associated with backing him for equipment and some manpower needs).

The player wants a magic +X weapon. Yet, the character by being an Inquisitor already has a battery of powers that can enchant + effects on to items (through Judgements and will later get other class effects and spells).

I've offered items with powers instead but all he is concerned and focused on is getting +Xs which really makes my job as GM become pretty narrow with opponents. I have no desire to start getting into the stacks of +X item plus Class abilities plus increased attributes plus ... (the list goes on).

Part of me understands what his aim as a player. The other side of it as a GM is that it will cause me more hassles because then I'll have all the other players wanting a similar 'upgrade' for offense items sparking a new round of requests for +X items.

I'm not opposed to powerful items in the hands of the players if they offer interesting choices or ways to solve situations but a plain +X items doesn't change anything but math which results in my needing to counter the +X with my own +X monster.

-------------------------

Historically, the +X items were a series marking how 'tough' the defense of monsters might be and it was important to have a certain level of +X item to hurt the monster at all.

I much preferred it when they brought out more flavourful descriptions for items to get through defenses.

I'd rather give my players a recipe for making a Wolvesbane poison to coat their weapons to hunt werewolves then have them get a +1 items and say it is magic now and it can harm werewolves.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'm dealing with this problem right now.

I'm running a PF game and I have a player with a 2nd going on 3rd level Inquisitor character.

Making things a little more realistic and less treasure robbing, I've made sure most of the players have a source of patron support (the Inquisitor has the church that he is associated with backing him for equipment and some manpower needs).

The player wants a magic +X weapon. Yet, the character by being an Inquisitor already has a battery of powers that can enchant + effects on to items (through Judgements and will later get other class effects and spells).

I've offered items with powers instead but all he is concerned and focused on is getting +Xs which really makes my job as GM become pretty narrow with opponents. I have no desire to start getting into the stacks of +X item plus Class abilities plus increased attributes plus ... (the list goes on).

Part of me understands what his aim as a player. The other side of it as a GM is that it will cause me more hassles because then I'll have all the other players wanting a similar 'upgrade' for offense items sparking a new round of requests for +X items.

I'm not opposed to powerful items in the hands of the players if they offer interesting choices or ways to solve situations but a plain +X items doesn't change anything but math which results in my needing to counter the +X with my own +X monster.

-------------------------

Historically, the +X items were a series marking how 'tough' the defense of monsters might be and it was important to have a certain level of +X item to hurt the monster at all.

I much preferred it when they brought out more flavourful descriptions for items to get through defenses.

I'd rather give my players a recipe for making a Wolvesbane poison to coat their weapons to hunt werewolves then have them get a +1 items and say it is magic now and it can harm werewolves.

I'd give him a stupidly hard quest through his patron for it.

That said, the game is always about balancing the wants and needs of the player and the wants and needs of the DM. If you absolutely refuse to give it to him, stand firm. Since it seems to bother you, why not talk to him outside of the game as to WHY he needs it. Perhaps he doesn't understand that his class already offers the same features.

 

[Hassassin]

No caps. Just tell the DMs +X items are possible but not necessary and tell them how they affect balance if used. For example, you can add +X/Y to encounter levels if your party has +X average on weapons and armor.

 

[Guest 85555]

I never had an issue with weapons getting into +5 territory.

 

[GM Dave]

I never had an issue with weapons getting into +5 territory.

I've played in 3e/PF games that have gotten in the 15+ level area and the difference that +X items, attributes, and other things begins to pile up.

My last fight witch such a character at level 20 I had a list of around 7 or 8 bonuses (and it could be more depending on actions like charges and number of attacks in a round) to keep track and modifiers to damage to track.

It can be a real trap that if you don't keep a watch on the door then it explodes as each bonus becomes a multiple problem. Then you get faced with the trouble that the fighter has a gap in bonus to hit (+20 from class where Wizard is +10 making an AC gap of 10 to hit without all the other modifiers like item, attributes and buffs). [this is 3e/PF mainly issue]