Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ptolemy18" data-source="post: 3935494" data-attributes="member: 24970">That's not necessarily true. I agree that pure stat boots (the Cloak of Charisma, Headband of Intellect, etc.) are kind of cheap and I wouldn't mind if 4e gets rid of these, but magic weapons and armor have a certain class and usefulness. I'm flying in the face of 3.5 rules changes here, but in all previous editions of D&amp;D, you had the effect wherein you need a +x weapon to defeat a certain type of creature. +1 to hurt a wight, +2 to hurt a specter, +3 to hurt some kind of major demon, etc.... this meant that if you wanted (and if you got rid of the &quot;Magic Weapon&quot; spell, I suppose <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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) you could build a whole campaign or adventure around the quest to get a powerful enough magic weapon (with enough pluses) to be able to defeat Bad Guy X! That's classic fantasy!! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> (For anyone who says it's lame to encounter a monster and half the party isn't able to harm it because it isn't harmed by nonmagical weapons, well, I disagree. It's challenging, it's not lame.)Also, the fact that &quot;+x armor, +x weapon&quot; doesn't have a lot of style is fine by me.&nbsp; I'd rather have the rules descriptions be fairly generic and allow me, the DM, to come up with the flavor surrounding it. I don't like Golden Wyvern Adept either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ptolemy18, post: 3935494, member: 24970"] That's not necessarily true. I agree that pure stat boots (the Cloak of Charisma, Headband of Intellect, etc.) are kind of cheap and I wouldn't mind if 4e gets rid of these, but magic weapons and armor have a certain class and usefulness. I'm flying in the face of 3.5 rules changes here, but in all previous editions of D&D, you had the effect wherein you need a +x weapon to defeat a certain type of creature. +1 to hurt a wight, +2 to hurt a specter, +3 to hurt some kind of major demon, etc.... this meant that if you wanted (and if you got rid of the "Magic Weapon" spell, I suppose ;) ) you could build a whole campaign or adventure around the quest to get a powerful enough magic weapon (with enough pluses) to be able to defeat Bad Guy X! That's classic fantasy!! :) (For anyone who says it's lame to encounter a monster and half the party isn't able to harm it because it isn't harmed by nonmagical weapons, well, I disagree. It's challenging, it's not lame.) Also, the fact that "+x armor, +x weapon" doesn't have a lot of style is fine by me. I'd rather have the rules descriptions be fairly generic and allow me, the DM, to come up with the flavor surrounding it. I don't like Golden Wyvern Adept either. [/QUOTE]

Verification