D&D 5E If an option is presented, it needs to be good enough to take.

[JamesonCourage]

I know everyone is chipping in, but add me to the "I'd so take flying armor over +1 armor" group. It's just so much more use to it in my group's typical sessions that +1 armor. Heck, even in a game where there might be three or four fights in a night, I'd take the flying armor. Just too useful to pass up. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

I know everyone is chipping in, but add me to the "I'd so take flying armor over +1 armor" group. It's just so much more use to it in my group's typical sessions that +1 armor. Heck, even in a game where there might be three or four fights in a night, I'd take the flying armor. Just too useful to pass up. As always, play what you like

I probably would too, simply because I HATE plused items. Like you said, the flying armor is a heck of a lot more interesting and useful.

But that's not my point. The plussed items are just flat out better than most other items. There's a reason that the Big 6 items are almost all plussed items. Those flat bonuses are just too good to pass up and they futz with game balance too much. To the point where 3e had to design everything based on the presumption that you would have these plusses.

 

[billd91]

I probably would too, simply because I HATE plused items. Like you said, the flying armor is a heck of a lot more interesting and useful.

But that's not my point. The plussed items are just flat out better than most other items. There's a reason that the Big 6 items are almost all plussed items. Those flat bonuses are just too good to pass up and they futz with game balance too much. To the point where 3e had to design everything based on the presumption that you would have these plusses.

The plus items were too good for their price in 3e (for what it's worth, ones in 1e were priced better compared to many other magic items). That AND the ability to actually pursue a strategy of obtaining them and keeping them at the highest affordable level (thanks to magic item creation feats and the presumption of a magic item economy) were what made them the Big 6. It wasn't because they were better than flying armor that you might have found in some hoard somewhere, it was that you could pursue them as a rational and affordable strategy that was the problem behind the Big 6.

And no, 3e is not designed under the presumption you had those pluses. It was designed under the assumption you had some of them. The statistical analysis behind (I think it was) Trailblazer indicated that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I probably would too, simply because I HATE plused items. Like you said, the flying armor is a heck of a lot more interesting and useful.

But that's not my point. The plussed items are just flat out better than most other items. There's a reason that the Big 6 items are almost all plussed items. Those flat bonuses are just too good to pass up and they futz with game balance too much. To the point where 3e had to design everything based on the presumption that you would have these plusses.

The +1 armor is better for combat in most combat situations. However, most situations in my game aren't combat. Your point is they're just straight better; my point is they aren't. In combat the +1 is better, but that's not as good, in general, as the versatility and utility of the flying armor.

I also tend to agree with bill91; there are far more factors for why there was the Big 6 than "+1's are too useful." The Big 6 shouldn't be repeated, for sure. And, 3.X did assume magic item use. Hopefully, by not assuming their use in the math / DR / etc., their presence won't be deemed "necessary" for PCs.

My point, though, was that the +1 is every bit as situational as flying armor is. That +1 requires being attacked to be useful; no doubt a common enough situation at the large majority of tables. I'd imagine, though, that the majority of tables would find plenty of situations present themselves where flying is exceedingly useful. Which is why I'd prefer it. As always, play what you like

 

[Lanefan]

The plus items were too good for their price in 3e (for what it's worth, ones in 1e were priced better compared to many other magic items).

Also, don't forget that in 1e magic items tend to break much more often than in the more recent editions (e.g. fail a save vs. fireball and all your items also have to save); so even if you had a decent + item there was no guarantee on how long you'd keep it...

That AND the ability to actually pursue a strategy of obtaining them and keeping them at the highest affordable level (thanks to magic item creation feats and the presumption of a magic item economy) were what made them the Big 6. It wasn't because they were better than flying armor that you might have found in some hoard somewhere, it was that you could pursue them as a rational and affordable strategy that was the problem behind the Big 6.

3e's magic item creation system was perhaps its single biggest mistake.

Lanefan

 

[Bluenose]

And no, 3e is not designed under the presumption you had those pluses. It was designed under the assumption you had some of them. The statistical analysis behind (I think it was) Trailblazer indicated that.

Try playing without them, with the sort of magic items a pre-generated character from AD&D modules has. See how the characters do, compared to their performance under AD&D rules. What they succeed at, what they fail at. If you keep track of the numbers rolled, you can then play out the same encounter in both editions, and see how similar the results are - or more likely aren't.

 

[Hussar]

JC- fair enough I suppose. But, I'm willing to bet that a PC is attacked far more often in the course of a campaign than he absolutely needs to fly somewhere. Overall, the plussed items are just too useful.

Put it another way. I mentioned before that a +1 weapon, +1 armor and +1 shield effectively raises the level of a fighter by one. More or less. He's hitting the same as one level higher (and doing more damage on average) and the AC and save bonuses from the magic armor effectively raise his HP to the next level as well. The only thing he's missing out on is a couple of skill points.

Would you say that at-will flight effectively raises that character by one level?

 

[Lanefan]

Put it another way. I mentioned before that a +1 weapon, +1 armor and +1 shield effectively raises the level of a fighter by one. More or less. He's hitting the same as one level higher (and doing more damage on average) and the AC and save bonuses from the magic armor effectively raise his HP to the next level as well. The only thing he's missing out on is a couple of skill points.

Everything you mention here is strictly combat related; except the skill points, which don't appear in every edition anyway. There's more to the game than just combat...or at least there should be.

Would you say that at-will flight effectively raises that character by one level?

Strictly in combat terms, no. In terms of overall usefulness to the party, absolutely.

Lanefan

 

[JamesonCourage]

JC- fair enough I suppose. But, I'm willing to bet that a PC is attacked far more often in the course of a campaign than he absolutely needs to fly somewhere. Overall, the plussed items are just too useful.

I'm guessing the times you need to fly are usually more useful than the time that the +1 turned a hit into a miss. But, again, campaign style comes into this. Lots of interior fights (especially caves compared to castles)? Lots of combat? Lots of traps? All these things (and more) will make the value of the +1 armor go up.

On the other hand, do you have lots of exterior fights? Not a lot of combat? Lots of exploration (flying to feel upper walls, check ledges, etc.)? Lots of sneaking around? All these things (and more) will make the value of the +1 armor go up.

Put it another way. I mentioned before that a +1 weapon, +1 armor and +1 shield effectively raises the level of a fighter by one. More or less. He's hitting the same as one level higher (and doing more damage on average) and the AC and save bonuses from the magic armor effectively raise his HP to the next level as well. The only thing he's missing out on is a couple of skill points.

Would you say that at-will flight effectively raises that character by one level?

It depends on what edition you're talking about. Saves come into play (I hear they're good for the Fighter pre-3e ), as do feats/skills in 3.5, powers in 4e, etc. And, since you don't get AC bonuses for level-ups in 3.5, the +1 armor/shield don't add there, I don't think.

But, regardless, I've seen people do far more with flying races than I've seen people do with +1 weapons, armor, and shields. Those things are nice, too, but again, I'd say that "you can fly" is a damn good class feature, and I wouldn't feel cheated at all by only getting that in a level. As always, play what you like

 

[SLOTHmaster]

In general an effect that alters your interaction with the world is more useful than something which alters your plusses. Plusses are only useful in combat situations, while with enough creativity things like flight can be used to a much greater effect. Which is part of why spellcasters have traditionally dominated over non-casters.

 

[Hussar]

Everything you mention here is strictly combat related; except the skill points, which don't appear in every edition anyway. There's more to the game than just combat...or at least there should be.
Strictly in combat terms, no. In terms of overall usefulness to the party, absolutely.

Lanefan

In a system without skills, what else does level measure if not combat related elements? Even in a system WITH skills, like 3e or 4e, what else does a level measure besides combat effectiveness?

Sure, there should be more to the game than just combat. But, let's be honest, combat is likely going to play a pretty big part in a lot of campaigns. There's a reason that virtually every single module has well over half its content tied into combat.

Meh, I agree, I'd rather have flight than plusses. But how about fire resistance? Or Swimming? We keep focusing on a really game changing ability like flight. But, there's an awful lot of other abilities out there that are a heck of a lot less useful (but a lot more flavourful) than a +1 or +2.

 

[slobo777]

Flying is an odd option, in that it is a great power relative to creatures that cannot fly. It also plays to world assumptions about what consitutes an obstacle - in worlds where flight is common, ravines are not obstacles, but storms might be.

In a campaign where almost everyone can fly, a suit of armour that grants flight, and enables your otherwise ground-hogging fighter to join the game is a necessity.

In a campaign where almost no-one can fly, the same suit gives you great options both in an out of combat. Its not necessary, but its a good choice of item.

There is probably a middle ground where at-will flight is "meh" compared to +1 defences, because you have enough capacity in the party to deal with flying threats and obstacles. The plusses win in that zone.

So IMO, flying is "better" than +1 when flight is either common or rare.

 

[Derren]

But, let's be honest, combat is likely going to play a pretty big part in a lot of campaigns. There's a reason that virtually every single module has well over half its content tied into combat.

Or rather, every module having so much combat content is the reason why combat plays a big part in campaigns.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure, there should be more to the game than just combat. But, let's be honest, combat is likely going to play a pretty big part in a lot of campaigns. There's a reason that virtually every single module has well over half its content tied into combat.

It's a grim reality that it's almost always possible to resort to violence. If you can't talk your way past the guards, you can try to kill them. If you can't sneak past them, you can try to kill them. Modules need to allow for the possibility that almost any encounter might turn violent. Add to that that combat is exciting and high-stakes and thus games devote some fairly detailed rules to it, and, no, you're not getting away from combat too easily. On top of that, heroic fantasy tends to be a pretty violent genre.

 

[pemerton]

in worlds where flight is common, ravines are not obstacles, but storms might be.

I just wanted to pick up on this one comment in an excellent post that I sadly can't XP.

The game gives us rules to adjudicate ravines - jumping rules, climbing rules, falling damage rules, rope use rules, etc. They may not be the best such rules that can be created, but they are there.

Where are the rules for storms, and adjudicating a storm as an obstacle? No version of D&D has them that I'm aware of (the Wilderness Survival Guide has half-baked rules for being struck by lightning while on the ground; a number of Dragon somewhere in the low-ish 100s had an article about clouds as an obstacle to flight; 4e has rules for winds causing forced movement at the start of a turn).

This tells me something about the game: namely, that it is not intended to support flight as a source of challenges or complications. Rather, flight is meant to be a solution to those challenges.

This makes it hard to compare flight to a +1 armour: the latter is about contributing to action resolution, whereas the former is ultimately about circumventing it.

Or rather, every module having so much combat content is the reason why combat plays a big part in campaigns.

If you want to play a non-combat game, why would you start with D&D? Especially those editions of D&D which have no mechanics for resolving social conflicts?

Of the fantasy RPGs I know, I'd choose Burning Wheel for such a game, but I'm sure there are others that could do the job too. But D&D isn't one of them.

It's a grim reality that it's almost always possible to resort to violence.

<snip>

On top of that, heroic fantasy tends to be a pretty violent genre.

I think the second quoted sentence helps explain the first. I mean, in the real world many people don't resort to violence even when the stakes are very high (like losing one's job, say, or being evicted from one's house). It is possible to set up situations in an RPG that similarly, in virtue of both their mechanical and their fictional framing, make non-violent approaches desirable and violent ones effectively non-viable.

But typically we don't do that, because that's not what the genre is about!

 

[Hussar]

If you want to play a non-combat game, why would you start with D&D? Especially those editions of D&D which have no mechanics for resolving social conflicts?

Of the fantasy RPGs I know, I'd choose Burning Wheel for such a game, but I'm sure there are others that could do the job too. But D&D isn't one of them.

Shhh, we're not supposed to notice that 90% of the rules for D&D focus on combat. D&D has never been about combat and "true" roleplayers all know that.

 

[pemerton]

Shhh, we're not supposed to notice that 90% of the rules for D&D focus on combat. D&D has never been about combat and "true" roleplayers all know that.

The weird thing for me is that I'm from the "D&D is not about combat" school - I think it's about a range of fantasy tropes/themes - but I would never deny that combat is its preeminent mode of conflict resolution!

It's like [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] said - violence is inherent to the genre.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You missed a golden opportunity for a Python quote, there, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. I am dissapoint.

 

[Derren]

Shhh, we're not supposed to notice that 90% of the rules for D&D focus on combat. D&D has never been about combat and "true" roleplayers all know that.

Yeah, its not that the edition with unified mechanics which allowed for, compared to other D&D editions, a lot of non combat play was widely successful and that the edition which focused completely on balanced tactical combat was a huge failure...

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah, its not that the edition with unified mechanics which allowed for, compared to other D&D editions, a lot of non combat play was widely successful and that the edition which focused completely on balanced tactical combat was a huge failure...

Two fallacies there.

1: 4e lasted longer than either 3.5 or 3.0. Are we going to call 3.0 a miserable failure then?

2: 4e offered more general non-combat support than any other edition. To the DM it offered a structure and pacing mechanic (Skill Challenges) unmatched by any other edition of D&D. To the PCs it mixed the broad general competence of AD&D characters who rolled attributes with a measure of detail in what they were skilled along the lines of 3.5 but without completely falling at things they weren't skilled at. And then it offered them specialisations in the form of utility powers that allow you to go above and beyond your normal skills.

2b: The part of non-combat 4e did not do was give wizards many easy ways to make non-combat situations irrelevant. As @pmerton pointed out, if flight was meant to do something other than resolve situations and bypass a range of non-combat challenges then there would be rules for storms adding problems to flight.

So yeah, if you want to call 4e a failure (I don't) then the lesson to take away is that the verson of D&D that is far and away the best set up for non-combat play and allows a lot of non-combat play even compared to 3.X is the one that failed. And the edition you are praising is the one that gives fighters 2+Int points per level and makes Climb, Jump, and Swim into three separate skills (in 4e these are all covered by Athletics) - making 3.X fighters the least competent out of combat characters of any edition.