Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GM Dave" data-source="post: 5782038" data-attributes="member: 6687992">A couple of points on +X things.1> The reason that a +1 sword was valuable in 2e and earlier was the same reason that a Silver sword was valuable in 2e and earlier.  The value was not in the modifier to hit a target (nice to have but not the real value).  The value was in some creatures needed a certain item to do any damage at all.  If you fought a Were creature and did not have a silver weapon or better then you were doing no damage to it.  If you fought a Wight or a Wraith then you better have a +X item or you need to be running the other way.  You either had the item or you did not as there was no damage reduction.2> The problem with +X is not with a magical item or any item.  Even a +5 from a single source is not hard to account for in design as that only changes the math by 25% from low +0 to peak +5.  The trouble is the multiple sources of bonuses (I mentioned this in more detail in the Making Magical Items Wondrous).  You have bonuses from attributes, feats, spells, magical items, class features, situational bonuses, and others in 3.5/PF and 4e.  It is less noticeable in the low game of level 1 to 5 but it becomes much more pronounced in the high game.  When you have four or five sources of bonus (or more in some cases) and all those bonuses are +3 to +5 then you can easily have a swing of +25 or more (in PF I could get a Paladin up to AC defense measured in the high 30s with hitting of +30 or more against foes I was smiting at a level in the late teens).  If the GM did not want my Paladin to hit on 2+ then the defense required many of the party rogues to need 18+ to hit.  If the monsters were to hit the Paladin on a roughly 50% or better chance than the GM needed 2+ to hit the rest of the party (Paladin was maxed for AC defense and carried a really good weapon with good buffs).  {Do not bother with discussing the example of the Paladin and how the GM 'should' have handled the situation. ~ In the end the GM made a singular Anti-paladin that killed the character and stole the body with much of the magic but that just created a new problem with next character that again maxed bonuses}3>  Just because something existed before is a lousy reason to 'include' the item or rules associated with it.  I would rather have monsters with a Damage Reduction of 15 or 20 against anything not silver or gold or dipped in the blood of a saint or a dozen other more characterful ideas that require the players to learn of the special defense and create a solution that solves the special defense.  Not every lock should have 'sledgehammer' as the solution (though lightsaber may be the universal lockpick).4>  Limiting bonus sources or only creating certain items in the core books does not work.  It did not work in 3e or 4e.  When the copy goes out the door then every new person looks at the creation and all they 'see' is an 'obvious' error of a 'missing' item/feat/buff/debuff that they will fix with their 'invention'.  The 'inventions' are published on websites, magazines, and splat books where others follow the 'pattern' of 'clevernous' and the result is back to multiple bonuses adding together.5>  What if the +X of weapons added to damage and +X armour added to defense.  Then you would quickly have people carrying weapons that hurt like the hulk was wielding them but never connecting because the defenses were too high.6>  What if the +X of weapons added to damage and the +X armour subtracted from damage.  The good of this is hit points generally have more range to 'absorb' modifiers but the trouble creates a new problem as 'helpful' designers step up to fill the 'perceived gap'.  They will create weapons with bigger dice rolls of damage and defenses will then have to increase to subtract greater amounts of punishment.  The wizard then steps into a fight between two fighters in God plate with God weapons and is killed with one sweep.  This is less a problem with one source of bonus but every other source of bonus multiplies the problem of the last bonus in the stack unless there is a clear rule that says no stacking and no making feats or character options or spells to get around the rule (because that has never happened in the past).</blockquote>

Verification