Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 5697919" data-attributes="member: 54710">I think there is a lot of room for improvement over the inherent bonuses system.  As written, it's even less of a big deal for characters to find a minor magic item because it is almost immediately obsoleted by the PC's growing inherent bonus.  Personally, I'd like "artifact" to not be my only option when handing out loot in a low-loot campaign.Also, it's been my experience that the large number of daily item powers held by my PCs have a significant impact on their performance in one-time, high-danger encounters.  It would be very nice if the rules provided some useful guidelines about how a party's expected power level changes if you give out different numbers of magic items.Stepping back for a moment, I think 4e made massive advances over the 3e CR system in making it easier for GMs to predict the difficulty of encounters and maintain a balanced game.  However, in order to do that, 4e also made a number of prescriptive guidelines about "how much magic is right" and "what types of encounters are appropriate".  Monte's article (and the Mearls article before) strongly implies that WotC thinks they can make a significant advance beyond encounter level to predict how different groups of PCs will perform based on how many magic items they have and which optional rules they are using.I think this would be another, potentially tremendous, advance because it would allow GMs to have the predictability of 4e, but with a greater flexibility to customize campaigns.-KS</blockquote>

Verification