In Defense Of: +X items

[Wormwood]

Admittedly, I spend more time that I would like scouring the Compendium to make sure that every adventure has the items necessary to keep my PCs within their expected stat range (they tend to lag behind on their wish lists).

I *may* have had more fun back in 1e/2e rolling random treasure and letting things 'play as they lay'---and some of the strange resulting items ended up defining characters in wholly unexpected ways.

(like the one time a lone Babu-demon happened to be walking through the demonweb pits inexplicably carrying the Wand of Orcus---with a sex changing effect)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I've been having quite an easy time with 4E by banning all "math fix" feats from the game, and then handing out a bit better magic items to compensate. Granted, by the time we got to epic, it would break down, and having an extra character or two provides more leeway. However, once we hit 8th level, we slowed down leveling to a crawl anyway. We really just wanted to spend a lot of time in the middle levels

If it is that easy to kludge in heroic/paragon in 4E, I know it can be designed into a system from scratch.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'd like to see them reduced to a maximum of +3 as well.

As far as the math is concerned, I kind of like the idea of them being left out of the assumed math.

On the other hand, they were kind of assumed into the math of at least 3e as well, just not overtly. If you gave a party minimal (or suboptimal) treasure, you had to compensate by reducing CRs. If you gave them too much (or optimized) treasure, you had to raise CRs. To do otherwise would be to make encounters either night impossible or too easy. There was a "goldilocks zone" where CRs kind of worked, and it was largely because the math worked. When it didn't work, it was typically because the math didn't work.

Then again, they might do both. They could bake it into the math straight off. That way, if you want to use them without modifying encounters, you can. Add an inherent bonus system for those who don't want to use them at all, and top it off with guidelines for modifying encounters for those who want to use the inherent bonus rules together with (stacking) magic bonuses.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To me, +X items are not boring, and are quite magical. After all, they make you better at doing a task merely by using them. If I had a guitar that let me play as proficiently as Joe Satriani, I'd consider that extremely magical.

The problem isn't that they are not magical, but that they don't seem magical because the magical effect they have is easily described in raw game mechanical terms.

I say keep 'em.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

I don't like them. I hope if this is the default method that they have an alternate system for them out at release or soon after...

 

[FireLance]

Their presence or absence are both factors of "the math". ie, if your party has mostly +2 to +3 weapons, add +2 to your party's challenge level. Just an illustrative example, of course, any system to that effect could work.

This would be my favored approach, too. Balance the game math on the assumption that the PCs have no magic items, and adjust the PCs' effective level if they have particularly powerful items.

As a side note, while I have no objection to +x items myself, I can see why some might find them boring or unevocative. Perhaps the solution is to encourage the use of named items, and to decouple the attack bonus from the damage bonus. So, you can have a +1 sword if you want, but you could also have Razorfang, a dagger that gains +3 to attack rolls but no damage bonus, or Blooddrinker, a battleaxe with no attack bonus but a +6 bonus to damage.

 

[the Jester]

They have to be in the math or gone. There's no middle ground on this; if they're not in the math, they're horribly unbalancing.

I disagree; this is only true if the system's math is freakishly tight.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

+X items have to stay in D&D, good or bad, because +X items have always been part of D&D to a point where non-players recognize the term.

There are a couple of things that could make them more interesting, though.

First, if they aren't baked into the math, then +x really does feel more magical because it makes fights easier and lets you take on more difficult enemies. As such, I think the best approach is, as mentioned above, to have enemies have a particular level that assumes no +X magic items, and then some advice for building encounters for parties of different magical levels.

Second, there should be some descriptions of what +1 or +3 might actually mean in the world. Perhaps a +1 sword swings with more force, and a +3 sword disintegrates material where its edge slices. Something like that. There can easily be multiple descriptions available for use.

 

[Disparue]

Gary Gygax: Here, take my +1 mace.

1. They can't remove +X weapons and make this quote nonsense to new players.

2. (somewhat unrelated) I loved the random treasure tables from AD&D where you would get sometimes get truly insane treasures on an odd roll.

 

[drothgery]

I disagree; this is only true if the system's math is freakishly tight.

The thing is that in a d20-based system, a dumb +1 to hit, +1 to AC, +1 to non-AC defenses, or (in 3.x-speak) +1 to save DCs vs your spells is worth a lot.