Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3923513" data-attributes="member: 22424">"It's magic!"?Seriously, though, if we're looking at a 'real' game world, then the Wizards of that world don't know anything about Saving Throws or Armour Class, so can't go researching items to improve these things. A "Ring of Protection" is still a sensible thing to research, but it's most likely to take the form of protection from energy types, or weapon damage, or falls, or something of that sort. Mechanically, that could mean many things, but doesn't necessarily have to be a flat +X bonus to AC.Alternatively, they could make it an Armour bonus, so it doesn't stack with regular armour, and thus all-but-eliminate the item from the equipment list of most characters. I do think I'd prefer it to simply be gone, though.By the same token, the Cloak of Resistance would probably be replaced by a "Cloak of Fire Protection", a "Cloak of Intemperate Climes", and a "Cloak of Arcane Dispersion", or something. Instead of giving a +X bonus to saves (which the in-world Wizards wouldn't know anything about), it would instead provide Fire Resistance, or grant the wearer immunity to weather effects, or grant whatever is going to succeed Spell Resistance.As for the stat boosting items... well, in the real world, we don't have any permanent items to make the user stronger, or more agile, or smarter. We have various vitamins, or exercise regimes, or whatever to do the same, but these require long-term investments of time and energy (much like the existing tomes to gain Inherent bonuses). We don't (yet) have the powered armour, or the cybernetic implants, or whatever to do these permanently. So, provided we're okay with ignoring precedent, we could eliminate these from the game, and argue that magic just can't do this on a permanent basis (yet).I'm also inclined to suggest that magic item powers should be more tightly bound to the items form even than they currently are. Magical boots should provide movement capabilities, cloaks protection from the elements, magical crowns powers of rulership, and so on. Amongst other things, this would probably remove the Defending property from weapons, and would eliminate the Slick, Shadowy and Silent properties from magic armour (armoure protects, it doesn't make one stealthy). I'm not sure how this would play out in all cases, but amongst other things it should cut down on any notion of moving items to less-used body slots to get the desired effects, which in turn should reduce the "Christmas Tree Effect" somewhat.Two options spring to mind.The first is that the "extra sharp sword that doesn't burst into flame" should actually be a +1 Keen Sword. And then, your +1 Flaming Sword is extra sharp... but not quite as extra sharp as the +1 Keen Sword (or else, it would be a +1 Keen Flaming Sword!). You can justify that through some handwave about "the minimum enhancement that will be stable in an item of this sort".As for the +1 Flaming Sword vs the +5 Flaming Sword... I would be inclined to argue that the +X and the associated powers should be required to step up together, or close to it. So, you wouldn't ever be able to find a +5 Flaming Sword, any more than you would find a +1 Holy Flaming Shock Bane Sword. This is best done, I think, by extending the "Flaming" and similar properties to cover the full "plus range", so that that +5 sword might be a +5 Apocalyptic Flame Sword. (Oh, and ideally, the "Flaming Burst" property, or equivalent +2 power, should be slightly better than taking both the "Flaming" and "Frost" +1 powers. Perhaps "Flaming" should give 1d4 extra damage, then "Improved Flaming" 2d6, "Greater Flaming" 3d8, and so on. Better names would be a bonus, of course.)</blockquote>

Verification