+2 max for magic items?

[UngeheuerLich]

Easy:

+1: uncommon
+2: rare
+3: near legendary
+4/+5 usually only in certain circumstances. (like ADnD flametongue/holy avernger)

it should just not be assumed in the math. If you get you hands on a +1 sword, you should be dancing.

 

[Guest 85555]

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]

But i dont think the issue is magic weapon bonuses (those ave been around since well before the 3E. The problem is the math got out of control in 3e in general. Stacking rules helped a bit with this, but there probably should have been more hard caps built into the system.

 

[GM Dave]

But i dont think the issue is magic weapon bonuses (those ave been around since well before the 3E. The problem is the math got out of control in 3e in general. Stacking rules helped a bit with this, but there probably should have been more hard caps built into the system.

It was a mixture of things in 3e and stacking had existed previously too.

There was stacking, increasing attributes, faster advancement of to hit without a cap (things used to be on a table with fighters going up +1 usually every 2 levels where 3e had every level).

The problems were in the system before but it was inflated in 3e along with making custom items and later addition of spells that focused on the buff effects and worked the different bonuses.

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

1st ed DnD Dragonlance had Strum Brightblade walking around with a +3 Two-handed sword that was a family heirloom at level 3.

Tannis usually picks up a great weapon in the second adventure in the series.

Goldmoon starts off with a staff of healing/resurrection.

I'm just pointing out that level limits are not the way to 'solve' things though advice should be provided on an item's impact.

 

[Li Shenron]

I want the low-magic option in the game, but I want it like "less items, but powerful", and I want no theoretical cap or limit.

 

[Votan]

1st ed DnD Dragonlance had Strum Brightblade walking around with a +3 Two-handed sword that was a family heirloom at level 3.

I think that is fine to have a really cool weapon in the game (including as an heirloom). What is less cool is if everyone has to have that cool weapon in order to be effective.

 

[Starfox]

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 problem with this, of course, is that the bonus very easily becomes mandatory.

I prefer a few magic items that add new things a player can do - and let the non-magical PCs get some magical effects so that they can keep up with the casters in terms of utility.

 

[Kzach]

So although there does seem to be a division between those who want and don't want a low cap on magical item plusses, one thing does seem pretty common amongst those who've posted in this thread and others, that being the sentiment that bonuses should NOT be assumed as part of system balance and thus necessary rather than as boons.

 

[Hassassin]

After further though I think I might be inclined to *only* use +2 swords. That makes having a great magical weapon equal in effect to a circumstance bonus, like flanking.

 

[tlantl]

I like having higher plussed weapons available, even necessary on occasion, but I like having other things too.

I don't like a mountain of junk designed to increase ability scores or puny one, two, or three times a day use items that don't have any real power.

I"d prefer that if we are to have spells and items that increase ability scores, that they only give +1 or +2 bonuses to ability modifiers. Those that do should be rare and wondrous discoveries, not petty and all but required for a player to get ahead in the world.

I'd like to be able to give out treasures not have to supply crutches.

 

[Sunseeker]

The problem with this, of course, is that the bonus very easily becomes mandatory.

I prefer a few magic items that add new things a player can do - and let the non-magical PCs get some magical effects so that they can keep up with the casters in terms of utility.

It becomes mandatory if you let it. But it does allow the math to take into account the extra variation.

As a long time player of warriors/fighters/brawlers and general non-magic-types in almost every game ever made, I would love to continue along 4e's lines of having an edition that didn't require the non-magic-types to require a truckload of stuff just to "keep up".

Initial design CAN bring down the power of casters and enhance the power of non-casters with little trouble. The expectation of magic items, be they +X's or utility, comes from game design in which the class simply fails to get off the ground without them.