NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5984957" data-attributes="member: 996">I think that advice was right in the 1e DMG, wasn't it?  For once, I agree with you.  I guess that portion of the indoctrination took.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />You wouldn't think so.  Yet, if weaker and less versatile class are 'balanced' by gaining exclusively-useable magic items, the DM has to make sure those sorts of items show up.  In 1e it was averaged into the random charts - giving you random treasure (a) that might not fit (b) nearly so well - which meant it would balance, if you played long enough for the 'law of large numbers' to kick in.   In 3e and 4e, magic items were pegged to costs and made fungible, which exacerbated and alleviated the problem at the same time (get a longsword when you need a behemian ear-spoon, sell it & buy what you need - or get your best friend the wizard to blow a few exp to make something better).  In 4e, it got particularly egregious since enhancement bonuses were so explicitly and obviously assumed just to 'tread water' - though inherent bonuses make that go away, of course.  The solution is obvious: don't make any classes magic-item-dependent.  At first it looked like 'bounded accuracy' was going to deliver, but, no, there are still going to be +X weapons...</blockquote>

Verification