Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kerrick" data-source="post: 4438558" data-attributes="member: 4722">Have you thought about simply reducing the number of iterative attacks altogether? It would reduce dice-rolling, for one thing, which would reduce time in combat. An idea I've been tossing around is that you get a second attack at BAB +10 (at the normal -5, so it'd be +10/+5), and a third at +20 (+20/+15/+10). And that's it - once you hit +20 BAB, you flip over to EAB and gain no more iteratives (I've institued another rule whereby you don't automatically flip over to EAB at L20, but BAB +20 - it actually works).Of course, that would play havoc with the mid-BAB classes, who wouldn't gain a second attack until L14, but fighters would regain their position as the kings of combat and TWF fighters (esp. rogues) would be nerfed. Mages don't really need iterative attacks, since they're primarily casting spells; Tenser's gives them BAB = level, which gives them iteratives if necessary.Hey, while I'm here, I might as well comment on some of this other stuff...That could work. Bracers follow a wonky pricing progression (compared to armor), and having clothing provide an armor bonus makes more sense; they can use the bracers slot for stuff like bracers of Dex or bracers of the blinding strike.On a side note, I've never understood why magic items had to be masterwork - the logic of it breaks down when you realize that there are no rules (or at least mechanical benefits) for making masterwork rings, gems, orbs, cloaks, or whatever. The prices for said items are subsumed into the cost of making the magic item (a crystal ball, e.g.), making it a moot point in any case.Why? You're giving no-armor classes like mages and monks something with one hand and taking something else away with the other. They need those rings of protection to keep up with fighters in armor. And, really, the fighters need them to keep up with the monster BABs. Course, if you want to use the level bonus to AC, I guess you wouldn't need this.Here's what I did: Death spells, on a failed save, reduce the victim to negative hit points based on the spell's level: -1d4 (6th), -1d6 (7th), -1d8 (8th), or -1d10 (9th), and he can't recover on his own - he must be healed by someone else. I don't like this. You're boosting the low save (which needs it) at the cost of nerfing the good save (which is good enough, IMO). I was thinking of going with (level * 0.4) instead of (level * 0.33), which gives a slight boost, and gets better overall starting at L13 (which is where it really needs it) - you end up with +8 at L20, and the gap between high/low saves is closer - only 6 points at L40, vs. 9 with the normal progression.</blockquote>

Verification