If inherent bonuses and enchantment bonuses stack - what are the implications?

[C4]

I would hope that they wouldn't state this, as an optional rule, and would go so far as to say that the wouldn't. The predictable result would be taking a largely balanced system, and breaking it.

Inherent Bonuses need to be Enhancement Bonuses, so that they don't stack.

QFT. And this is exactly what I've done with my 4e clone; inherent bonuses are enhancement bonuses. But the inherent enhancements come several levels after PCs are likely to get item upgrades; so while nobody needs upgrades, there's still a 'Kewl new toy!' factor to upgrades.

Presumably, if one were to do this, it would be for a game with fewer magic items than the norm, otherwise it is, as you point out, pointless.

Usually, but not necessarily. I use inherent bonuses, and hand out just as many items as other DMs. Why? Because most of my players like getting new toys, but one couldn't care less about +Xs. With inherent bonuses, everyone gets what they want!

And for the record, WotC implementing this idea, even as an optional rule, would entail a whole lot of justified face-palming.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Just to be clear, I'm not really thinking about implementing this in my game (unless someone comes up with something awesome here, I guess), I'm just interested in what such guidelines would theoretically look like. Whenever someone has broached the subject, it has been in the context of 5e development and I'm more interested in how 4e can be stretched to conform to different ideals, even if it's a little clunky.

QFT. And this is exactly what I've done with my 4e clone; inherent bonuses are enhancement bonuses. But the inherent enhancements come several levels after PCs are likely to get item upgrades; so while nobody needs upgrades, there's still a 'Kewl new toy!' factor to upgrades.

That's an interesting perspective, and I like the attitude.

Usually, but not necessarily. I use inherent bonuses, and hand out just as many items as other DMs. Why? Because most of my players like getting new toys, but one couldn't care less about +Xs. With inherent bonuses, everyone gets what they want!

I didn't mean "use inherent bonuses = usually want fewer magic items" but "use inherent bonuses and make them stack with enchantment bonuses = usually want fewer magic items".

As they are? i'm not sure you can get there. But if it worked, the easiest way that I can see is:

1. Have inherent bonuses as written, and let them stack.
2. Remove all "math fix" feats.
3. Let items handle the math fixes.

Since the +1 to +6 items are going to give somewhat more than the eliminated math fix stuff, you'd have to decide if the increased capabilities were worth it dealing with via other means.

I hadn't considered how the math fix stuff would blend into this. That's two birds in one stone, though it doesn't give you a true zero baseline.

However, I think if you limited yourself with items of +1 per tier (roughly) but were judicious in how you let them be found, this could work well enough. You'd have to keep a sharp eye on party synergy.

The consensus seems to be, then, that you would have to reduce the enchantment bonuses for it to not become a total mess. So how do you think would be the best way to do that if you were just using items provided by WotC? Would you just stick to +1 to +3 items or would you reduce the enchantment bonuses of +1 to +6 items. Would you then say that each +2 = +1 (+1 would be +0, +5 would be +4 etc.) or would you just go by +1 per tier so +1 to +2 = +1, +3 to +4 = +2 and +5 to +6 = +3 ?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The consensus seems to be, then, that you would have to reduce the enchantment bonuses for it to not become a total mess. So how do you think would be the best way to do that if you were just using items provided by WotC? Would you just stick to +1 to +3 items or would you reduce the enchantment bonuses of +1 to +6 items. Would you then say that each +2 = +1 (+1 would be +0, +5 would be +4 etc.) or would you just go by +1 per tier so +1 to +2 = +1, +3 to +4 = +2 and +5 to +6 = +3 ?

For your original stated aims, I'd go with some variation on both of those options. I'd word it a bit different, but it would amount to the same thing. Basically, I'd place a surcharge on +2 and +3 items such that they ended up costing what the +3 and +5 items did, respectively. Then cap it at +3. This gets a bit confusing though, because you might still want to allow some of the special abilities that don't start until +4 items, and you'll need to allow crit effects from inherent bonuses to stack as well. It's easy on paper, not so easy in the CB.

Ideally, the system would let you specify the range of inherent bonus you want for the campaign, and the item bonuses, and whether or not they stack, and how they affect crits. Then you could set them however you wanted. Lots of inherent, little magic? +1 to +6 inherent, +1 to +2 magic, stack. Have lots of powerful magic swords? Flip that, still stacked. And so on.

BTW, another way to do this for a different feel would be to simply let inherent and item bonuses stack, then cut out the differences elsewhere. You could, for example, cut out the math fix feats, and then charge a huge premium in point buy for stats over, say, 14. Or cut out the automatic stat bumps by level.

Of course, what they really out to do in the CB is make the +1/2 level formula something that we could tweak ourselves, holistically or by categories. If they did that, then you woudn't need math fixes or inherent bonuses or anything else to make it work. Just set the formula to +3/5 level or whatever and go. The people that wanted this all on paper can do the same thing in one page on the character advancement chart, the way BAB works in 3.*.

 

[The Halfling]

For your original stated aims, I'd go with some variation on both of those options. I'd word it a bit different, but it would amount to the same thing. Basically, I'd place a surcharge on +2 and +3 items such that they ended up costing what the +3 and +5 items did, respectively. Then cap it at +3. This gets a bit confusing though, because you might still want to allow some of the special abilities that don't start until +4 items, and you'll need to allow crit effects from inherent bonuses to stack as well. It's easy on paper, not so easy in the CB.

Ideally, the system would let you specify the range of inherent bonus you want for the campaign, and the item bonuses, and whether or not they stack, and how they affect crits. Then you could set them however you wanted. Lots of inherent, little magic? +1 to +6 inherent, +1 to +2 magic, stack. Have lots of powerful magic swords? Flip that, still stacked. And so on.

I like this idea. If you limit it to a range of +1 to +3 item bonus then you now can make +2 items the default standard level of any magic item. In effect letting a magic item be a physical manifestation of the "DM's Friend". From there you can make lesser (+1) and greater (+3) versions of items, similar to those done in the MME. The cost would be based on the lesser version of the item in question, then price each increase in power by increasing the level by 10 each time.

Remove the math fix feats, and let the enhancement bonus granted by inherent stack with the magic item.

The question then needs to be asked "what happens on a critical?". Do you add the 2 bonuses together when determining critical dice, use a set range of dice of +1dx (lesser)/+3dx (std)/+5dx( greater), or use some other method entirely.

From a personal preference, to speed up combat, and from as a DM, I err on the side that PC's with magic items should feel bad ass. I would let the 2 bonuses stack.

 

[Gryph]

I do this in my campaign. Inherent bonuses are given at the points suggested in DMG2 and scale to +6 in upper epic tier. Enhancement bonuses cap at +4 and are spread relatively evenly across all 30 levels. Lastly, I banned the expertise feats.

I ran a spreadsheet of expected chance to hit against same level npc for these rules and the systems base assumptions and prefer my curve to the base systems. It is a touch smoother across all tiers and when it drifts from the norm (55% - 65% chance to hit) it does so by 5% in the players favor. The base line assumptions have some points where even with expertise the expected chance to hit drops to 50% (45% if you didn't have at least an 18 in primary stat.) Heaven help you if you don't bump your primary every opportunity.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The question then needs to be asked "what happens on a critical?". Do you add the 2 bonuses together when determining critical dice, use a set range of dice of +1dx (lesser)/+3dx (std)/+5dx( greater), or use some other method entirely.

I have in no way looked at the math, so this might be completely off base from that perspective. However, from the perspective of fun and ease of handling, I'd just set the inherent bonus crit to +1d6 per +1, flat. Then, if the weapons add to that, they can, as more d6s, or d10s, or whatever.

The only obvious place I see that getting really busted fast is interactions with things that change than enhance the crit activation to something better than only on a 20. So to be absolutely safe, I might limit the inherent crit activation to 20, period. Then if the weapon wants to give you +2d8 on a 19-20, so be it.

Actually, that kind of "staged" criticals might be kind of fun for some players. I think mine would like it. On a 19, get something nice and extra along with the base damage being maxed out. But the 20 is always when the real hurt gets applied.

I do like you thoughts about +2 weapons being the baseline.

 

[The Halfling]

I have in no way looked at the math, so this might be completely off base from that perspective. However, from the perspective of fun and ease of handling, I'd just set the inherent bonus crit to +1d6 per +1, flat. Then, if the weapons add to that, they can, as more d6s, or d10s, or whatever.

This would be best, from a KISS standpoint. Keep the amount of different kickers to a minimum, for ease and quickness of play if nothing else.

 

[Ryujin]

Or perhaps, if you still want to keep magic special, then you keep bonus critical dice as the purview of magic.

 

[DracoSuave]

If you want to make magic special, bonuses don't factor into the equation.

Focus on magic effects, and on things like artifacts. Stop trying to make people care about Iron Armands of Power outside of CharOp.


Also, turf CharOp.

 

[Gort]

I hope if they make a 5e, they get rid of enhancement bonuses altogether, and get away from the assumption that everyone has magic everything when they design monsters.

In order to give people that feeling of getting more powerful magic items, they should then make different levels of magic item - lesser, "normal" (IE, unlabelled) and greater, which you find in the heroic, paragon and epic tiers respectively. A "lesser flaming sword" would let you convert its damage to fire if you wanted, and maybe let you do a ranged firebolt attack once a day. A normal one might do an extra 5 fire damage when you convert it, and let you do a flamethrower blast 3 attack once a day in addition to the firebolt which can now be used each encounter. The greater version does 10 extra fire damage, and can cast firebolt at will, flamethrower once per encounter and a powerful fireball once a day.

I'd also suggest that a "lesser" flaming sword would upgrade to a normal one when the wielder hit level 11, and to a greater flaming sword when the wielder hit level 21. That way you can have Dad's flaming sword from level 1 all the way to 30 and it will always be competitive.