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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mokona" data-source="post: 5840468" data-attributes="member: 24891">Taking the last first, you see around these forums that people don't want one PC to be always overshadowed by another PC. Put a ranger side-by-side with warlock; you'll see the ranger out-striker her fellow striker obviously. Since their jobs are "do damage" and the gap between them is highly noticeable the one player will feel kind of left out. He didn't go into picking a warlock with the play-against-type goal of being worse than his striker peers. He assumed that the "math worked". Further, once he found some magic items that let him catch up with his peer that was nice...until the carpet was yanked out from under him. There were also a lot of feat taxes that a warlock paid just (to try) to keep up with damage from a rather vanilla ranger.Inherent bonuses turned out to be a failed patch. If I recall you get +1 to hit at 2/6/11/16/21/16 and +1 defenses at 4/9/14/19/24/29? That doesn't make sense. Look at treasure parcels: PCs receive their first +2 item at 2nd level. By 6th level, when the party gets +2 to one aspect, the party should already have ten (10) +2 items. That's enough for every party member to have already had a +2 weapon for over a full level and on top of that each should have +2 to either armor or non-AC defenses. Official inherent bonuses are so far behind the magic item curve it doesn't make sense to say that one is designed as an alternative to the other. I'm not even counting cash which could be used to buy additional +2 items at the start of 6th level and liquidating useless +1 items once you've replaced them with +2 items.Wizards R&D wanted magic items to feel special. They tried to accomplish this by making DM magic item rewards above the PC level. This meant that getting your items from the DM in treasure was vastly superior to spending treasure to get what you wanted. The 1/5 resale value also played strongly into this. The outcome of this hamfisted approach was worse than the original problem. "Wish Lists" were a direct outgrowth of the fact that you could not buy the items that fit your build and could not effectively convert treasure into the items that fit your build.Possible solutions?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Make characters builds independent of magic items (which the vast majority in this poll support)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Let characters easily turn treasure into the items that they want</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Remove magic items from the game</li> </ul>Which is best? Assume no items (in the "math") and provide fast guidelines to "scale up"? Or assume +X items and provide guidelines to "scale down"? 1) Addition is easier for humans than subtraction, therefore scaling up is better than scaling down. 2) Fighting weaker opponents feels less heroic. 3) Make those monty-haul games filled with magic items feel like they're overpowered by sending them up against overpowered opponents (it's logical <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> ).</blockquote>

Verification