Inherent bonuses: winners & losers, pros & cons

[Tukka]

I'm considering using the rules for inherent bonuses in my campaign. One of my goals is to make things a bit simpler for my players, who are mostly 4e newbies and not really optimizers.

I'd like them to be able to focus on acquiring cool, useful and thematically appropriate items without having to worry about falling behind the curve because they haven't been acquiring pluses at the the rate the system assumes they will.

I am a little bit curious about the overall consequences of adopting the inherent bonus system. Are there any particular builds or character concepts that disproportionately benefit or suffer as a result of adopting these rules?

It seems to me that a player who wants magic weapons/armor/amulets, either for a still-higher enhancement bonus or because he wants a property that requires a minimum enhancement bonus that's equal to whatever inherent bonus he's receiving may enjoy little or no benefit from the inherent bonus system, while having less resources to work due to scaled back treasure parcels.

Is this something to be really concerned about wih the IB system, or is it not that big a deal?

Also, does the system have a lot of merit on the basis of being purely a math fix/simplification, or is mainly only of interest if you want to run a setting where magic items are rarer?

 

[fba827]

I'm considering using the rules for inherent bonuses in my campaign. One of my goals is to make things a bit simpler for my players, who are mostly 4e newbies and not really optimizers.

I'd like them to be able to focus on acquiring cool, useful and thematically appropriate items without having to worry about falling behind the curve because they haven't been acquiring pluses at the the rate the system assumes they will.

Sounds like your overall goal will be met by implementing the system. I say go for it.

It seems to me that a player who wants magic weapons/armor/amulets, either for a still-higher enhancement bonus or because he wants a property that requires a minimum enhancement bonus that's equal to whatever inherent bonus he's receiving may enjoy little or no benefit from the inherent bonus system, while having less resources to work due to scaled back treasure parcels.

While that may be true... that is a trade off that the player in question can make. Just be sure to explain it before hand so that he/she doesn't feel tricked.

Having said that, I think you'll find that people are happy with the properties (they picked it for a reason) even if they don't get much out of the inherent number bonus since it doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus of the chosen item.

Is this something to be really concerned about wih the IB system, or is it not that big a deal?

Not really a big deal.

Also, does the system have a lot of merit on the basis of being purely a math fix/simplification, or is mainly only of interest if you want to run a setting where magic items are rarer?

It can be run in either case and (in my opinion) is just fine in that it is simple and quick to implement.

I think it will be fine for what you are trying to do.

 

[S'mon]

If you look at the costs/levels 4e magic items, the ones with number bonuses + benefit tend to cost no more than the ones without a number bonus, ie the '+' is already given away free. So you can implement Inherent bonuses and the '+' items are mostly still well worth getting.

I find the game works much better with Inherent bonuses. The Treasure Parcel system only works if you dole out 4 wish-list items every PC level; if you use random items or treasure by encounter IME the PCs never get enough. I use Inherents plus 'standard' parcel treasure plus gifted items and the PCS still barely have 'enough'. One reason for that is that PCs never fight 10 battles per level; in practice it's more like 4-5.

 

[S'mon]

One thing Inherents do is make unarmed attacks more effective at high level, a good thing IMO.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Honestly? Using inherents is a straight win as far as I'm concerned. The builds that benefit very slightly disproportionately are those with multiple weapons and/or implements such as two weapon fighting builds or e.g. bards with a sword and a wand as you don't have to worry so much about keeping your weapons up to date.

 

[Blue]

I've been in two campaigns using inherent bonuses. I like them a lot, I don't love them.

First, it does exactly as you were asking - you don't need to worry to keep up with the game math.

Some big winners in it are: those who are unfairly penalized by needing/wanting multiple weapons or weapon and implement. Since this just brings them on par with everyone else, that's a good thing. Non-weapon/implement powers (like dragon's breath) get a boost as well.

All in all, you can do things like make the sword/bow/wand bard, or two weapons and implement, or many hybrids, which would have been too expensive to keep up magic items for all the variations without inherent.

Losers depend a bit on what you do with items. For instance, some classes can benefit more for some choice items then others, and some things are just hard to pull off without an item or two for support.

Another minor loser is your progression is set. Doesn't matter if you're a defender, you get a "magic" weapon before you get "magic" armor.

Personally, if I was starting a campaign soon I would most likely use it. I think it reduced magic item dependance and enables some character concepts that would be really expensive otherwise.

 

[Tukka]

I appreciate the feedback, everyone. I'll put it to my group and if there aren't any major objections I'll go ahead with inherent bonuses.

 

[Arlough]

Another minor loser is your progression is set. Doesn't matter if you're a defender, you get a "magic" weapon before you get "magic" armor.

In my experience, this isn't really a problem. If you want that defensive bonus early, you can still buy +2 armor at level 6 (for example) and it just obsoletes at level 9 (IIRC) unless it has a cool power that makes it worth keeping.

Inherent bonuses are really just a fix for the, IMO, flawed idea of tying gear to effectiveness per demi-tier.

At this point, I would be unlikely to ever run a 4e game again without inherent bonuses.

Sent from my Nexus S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ferghis]

After being a fan of inherent bonuses for a very long time, I'vecome around to just preferring giving the party lots of residuum and letting them sort it out.

 

[Tukka]

One point that might be relevant is that the campaign is Zeitgeist, where the players receive much of their wealth in the form of a salary/stipend paid in gold and have access to a quasi magic mart that they can sell unwanted to items to for 100% value (at least, for the early part of the campaign).

That should remove a lot of the usual problems with players not submitting wishlists, randomness, etc.

But I still like the idea of inherent bonuses as a bit of a safety net, and for some of the the other reasons that have been mentioned.