Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coredump" data-source="post: 2668764" data-attributes="member: 6939">First step was to investigate weapons, and then maybe expand it. But, it may not get expanded. Magic items are a much art as science. By the 'rules' you can make a continuous ring of healing, but boy is that way broken. I have no problem with magic items that have trade-offs. Weapons (and armor) however, are unique in that all of their abilities are focused at the same thing, doing damage. Thus raising one ability, and lowering another, is inherrently offsetting. (at least to an extent.) Plus, they are unique in that all abilities have already been balanced against each other. We know flaming is balanced with vicious. But how is an amulet of blindness and invisibility balanced? We can hope, but not know for sure.Looking at the cursed items highlights this. They do not follow a 'rule', they are determined fairly ad hoc depending on how useful the item might be.Furthermore, even weapons have been limited (so far) that the only negatives are the -X variety, thus they negatives can *not* be avoided. (They can be compensated for, but that is different.) Now, a weapon of Holy (+2 modifier--damages evil 2d6) and reverseunholy(-2 modifier--heals good 2d6) would not be balancing, and should not be allowed.So, my answer thus far, is that weapons are already treated differently, and I have no problem continuing that. If there are ways to create give-take magic items for cheaper, I have no problem with that. But only if they help offset each other.Do you think that would be unbalancing? Then how do you feel about heavy armor??I do not agree that these items are 'min/maxed' To me, min/max is when you combine a disadvantage that does not hurt you, with an advantage that does benefit you. A fighter that takes a -4 Cha to get a +4 Str. Or an item that gives the mage +1 caster level, but a -2 BAB. These weapons have advantages and disadvantages, but they offset each other in use. Such as Rapid Shot giving an extra attack, but both attacks being at -2.The Holy, ReverseUnholy would be min/maxing.Maybe. Probably not +5, but perhaps +2 or so. There are still drawbacks to being blind, even with blindfighting.Again, the pos and neg would have to actually offset each other in use, not just on paper. Rapid Shot would not work if it gave an extra ranged attack, and a -2 on all melee attacks that round.For the most part, potions recreate spells. Some spells have pros and cons, so do the potions. Pros and cons balance a lot of things in the game. Also, potions are cheap for adventurer types, so they dont' want to deal with the negatives to save a couple of gp. But they are very expensive to normal folks, who can't afford them with or without the negative side effects.OTOH, think of this: For 21,000 gp I will sell you a wand that will turn you invisible for 7 rounds, and you can do whatever you want.Or I can 'offset' some of the cost by using the 'added negative' that if you attack you turn visible, but now it will only cost 4,500 gp.(Granted, the second wand will also last longer, but I think you see the point. These trade-offs are already part of the system.)Because it is easier to do. It is easier to paint a room if you have the 'offsetting negative' that you don't care if it is messy. It is easier to add flaming burst if you don't care if it is a bit harder to weild.It can. (Though I have not worked out all the details at this point...) But there is a difference from adding two 'offsetting' magics, and two different magics-even if one is good and one is bad.Plus, I still believe that they can be handled differently, since weapons are already kinda different.Hey, thanks a lot for your time and effort thinking about this.</blockquote>

Verification