billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Not true. You don't need to have constant success rates across levels, opponents, or even fellow characters to have a balanced game.
In Defense Of: +X items
- Thread starter MarkChevallier
- Start date
Not true. You don't need to have constant success rates across levels, opponents, or even fellow characters to have a balanced game.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I think this is one of those 80/20 rule things. In 4E, you can get rid of 80% of the problems with magic weapons and armor by simply limiting such weapons to the original D&D range of +1 to +3. (And if you want to make that roughly +1 per 4E tier in the treasure guidelines, fine.)
Sure, that breaks down at the margins. You can't give starting 4E characters +3 weapons without repercussions, and epic characters still stuck with +1 are hurting. However, 4E is fairly resilient to divergences from expected equipment even as is. Make the equipment cover a more narrow range, and it will only matter at the margins.
Plus, if you have a bit of a "math problem" at certain points in the system, but equipment with a low variance is at least semi-optional, it is real easy for each campaign to "fix the math" by simply handing out better or worse equipment.
I didn't come up with this idea out of whole cloth by the way. I'd like to take credit for it, but all I did was look at how Rule Cyclopedia magic items typically worked in the system. It had some balance issues elsewhere (some of which later edtions fixed), but +N weapons and armor wasn't one of them.
Edit for cross-post discussion: Note, I'm not saying that early D&D was perfect, or perfect because of weapons. Rather, the point is that such weapons work better with the other 4E balance mechanisms and structure than either system works by itself.
Sure, that breaks down at the margins. You can't give starting 4E characters +3 weapons without repercussions, and epic characters still stuck with +1 are hurting. However, 4E is fairly resilient to divergences from expected equipment even as is. Make the equipment cover a more narrow range, and it will only matter at the margins.
Plus, if you have a bit of a "math problem" at certain points in the system, but equipment with a low variance is at least semi-optional, it is real easy for each campaign to "fix the math" by simply handing out better or worse equipment.
I didn't come up with this idea out of whole cloth by the way. I'd like to take credit for it, but all I did was look at how Rule Cyclopedia magic items typically worked in the system. It had some balance issues elsewhere (some of which later edtions fixed), but +N weapons and armor wasn't one of them.
Edit for cross-post discussion: Note, I'm not saying that early D&D was perfect, or perfect because of weapons. Rather, the point is that such weapons work better with the other 4E balance mechanisms and structure than either system works by itself.
Last edited:
I don't mind items granting bonuses, except in a system like 4e where the bonus is not actually a bonus. Instead, the so-called bonus is just assumed as an integral part of scaling attack and defense to character level.
"Wow! I've got a +4 sword now and I've gained a level."
"How serendipitous. Now you still get to hit a level-equivalent soldier monster on a 12 or better instead of falling behind."
No more of that, please.
"Wow! I've got a +4 sword now and I've gained a level."
"How serendipitous. Now you still get to hit a level-equivalent soldier monster on a 12 or better instead of falling behind."
No more of that, please.
Last edited:
Sammael
Adventurer
The only way I could accept the +X items is if they bestow their bonus once per day or once per encounter. That way, they can still make a difference (a huge one, in case of the +5 ones), but they are no longer necessary for the math to work.
But they are still boring as hell and I wouldn't use them in my games.
But they are still boring as hell and I wouldn't use them in my games.
MarkChevallier
First Post
I think there is a middle ground - two middle grounds, in fact!
- "The math" goes. We return to eyeballing challenges, with loose guidelines perhaps to the level-appropriateness of monsters etc.
- 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.
The way I see it, you get to choose between the Christmas Tree and the Golf Bag.
If you use simple, (arguably) boring +X items, you get a character who is a Christmas Tree, lit up like a magical display, relying on all their shiny weapons on gear to survive. If you use flavorful, use-specific items, you end up characters who lug around a Golf bag, carrying around a myriad of items to be sure the always have the right gear for any encounter.
The only real solution is moderation; use a few power-limited general-purpose items, and a very limited supply of powerfully specific items. But this solution must always be done at the hands of the DM. Limiting items on the design side is antithetical to the concept of splatbooks.
If you use simple, (arguably) boring +X items, you get a character who is a Christmas Tree, lit up like a magical display, relying on all their shiny weapons on gear to survive. If you use flavorful, use-specific items, you end up characters who lug around a Golf bag, carrying around a myriad of items to be sure the always have the right gear for any encounter.
The only real solution is moderation; use a few power-limited general-purpose items, and a very limited supply of powerfully specific items. But this solution must always be done at the hands of the DM. Limiting items on the design side is antithetical to the concept of splatbooks.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
Personally, I like +x items, specifically +x armor and +x weapons.
In the older editions, the magical bonuses for rings of protection, +x armors, cloaks of protection, etc. didn't stack, and in the case of the rings and cloaks, applied to saving throws too.
3e broke them up, included stat boosting items, made you look out for armor to get one kind of AC bonus, a ring for another, an amulet for another (which incidentally took up the Constitution slot). It was just a complicated mess.
I think the easiest thing to do would be to keep them, but assume smaller bonuses, perhaps no higher than +3. It would work to help keep all of the numbers smaller, which I for one would enjoy.
A certain amount of "christmas tree" is inevitable. A longrunning character who has been through many adventures will have acquired a lot of magical items. I think the real problem with 3e and 4e was the expectations that you had to have certain specific items. So interesting, flavorful treasures, like for instance, a Cloak of Arachnidia, were sold off so the PC could wear a Cloak of Resistance +3 so his saving throws didn't fall behind the curve.
In the older editions, the magical bonuses for rings of protection, +x armors, cloaks of protection, etc. didn't stack, and in the case of the rings and cloaks, applied to saving throws too.
3e broke them up, included stat boosting items, made you look out for armor to get one kind of AC bonus, a ring for another, an amulet for another (which incidentally took up the Constitution slot). It was just a complicated mess.
I think the easiest thing to do would be to keep them, but assume smaller bonuses, perhaps no higher than +3. It would work to help keep all of the numbers smaller, which I for one would enjoy.
A certain amount of "christmas tree" is inevitable. A longrunning character who has been through many adventures will have acquired a lot of magical items. I think the real problem with 3e and 4e was the expectations that you had to have certain specific items. So interesting, flavorful treasures, like for instance, a Cloak of Arachnidia, were sold off so the PC could wear a Cloak of Resistance +3 so his saving throws didn't fall behind the curve.
Last edited:
malkav666
First Post
I don't really have a problem with +x items. I think the problem I have with magic in general is the assumption in both 3e and 4e that you have it, and the high availability of it in both systems.
It has not been a huge problem for my group as we don't play 4e (so there are no wish lists) and the 3.x/PF we do play tends to be more of a low magic sandbox world.I don't really let the players craft magic items with the exception of potions/scrolls/wands and I make them pay experience points to make even those items. And we use house rules for wands and scrolls that give the users a chance of suffering a mishap when using them.
I think the Christmas tree effect could be largely remedied by tidying up stack-able bonuses. there has to be ways to make encounters challenging with out inflating a monsters attack and defense out of the range of toons with no +x gear. I think that lumping all bonuses gained from magic items/magic buffs into a single category, lumping all bonuses gained from feats into a single category, and all bonuses from class features into a single category as well, and not letting bonuses from the same source stack would really cut down on bonus inflation.
But I don't know exactly how it will work out in the end. But I will reiterate that I like to be able to set the availability of magic in my games on a case by case basis, so a system that is so dependent on magic that it needs and inherent bonus system for low magic games gets a tick in the undesirable category for me. It's not a deal breaker for sure but there needs to be a dial on magic if we are gonna have the knobs and dials edition.
love,
malkav
It has not been a huge problem for my group as we don't play 4e (so there are no wish lists) and the 3.x/PF we do play tends to be more of a low magic sandbox world.I don't really let the players craft magic items with the exception of potions/scrolls/wands and I make them pay experience points to make even those items. And we use house rules for wands and scrolls that give the users a chance of suffering a mishap when using them.
I think the Christmas tree effect could be largely remedied by tidying up stack-able bonuses. there has to be ways to make encounters challenging with out inflating a monsters attack and defense out of the range of toons with no +x gear. I think that lumping all bonuses gained from magic items/magic buffs into a single category, lumping all bonuses gained from feats into a single category, and all bonuses from class features into a single category as well, and not letting bonuses from the same source stack would really cut down on bonus inflation.
But I don't know exactly how it will work out in the end. But I will reiterate that I like to be able to set the availability of magic in my games on a case by case basis, so a system that is so dependent on magic that it needs and inherent bonus system for low magic games gets a tick in the undesirable category for me. It's not a deal breaker for sure but there needs to be a dial on magic if we are gonna have the knobs and dials edition.
love,
malkav
Similar Threads
