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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bishmon" data-source="post: 4011291" data-attributes="member: 56176">It's typically a bad idea to come at someone when you don't understand what they're saying. Politely asking for clarification would have been a good idea, and it would have made you look so much better.To clarify, I think there's a huge gap between 'current D&D' and what I think of as 'low-magic D&D'. I want to be somewhere in the middle. I want magic to be a real, known, utilized aspect of the world, but I don't want it so common that every hero is weighed down with 10 magic items.As I've already mentioned, it creates encounter balance problems. If encounters are balanced with characters wearing a half-dozen secondary items, a character that only has one secondary item is going to be behind the curve. Maybe not in terms of attack/damage/AC/saves (or maybe he will, if he's missing out on a temporary buffing item), but he could certainly be missing out on movement modes, attack options, defensive options, etc., situational things that could make all the difference depending on the specifics of the encounter. I've already mentioned the obvious power differences between a fighter with a carpet of flying and a fighter without a carpet of flying depending on the specific encounter.And furthermore it only solves my problem if I give out so few secondary items that they're nearly non-existent because otherwise characters will still fill all their slots eventually. I don't want to run a game where a 20th level character is relieved to find slippers of spider climbing. But I don't want to have that 20th level character wearing 10 magic items, either. I imagine there's gotta be a functional middle ground in there somewhere. Seriously, why are you coming at me with this tone? It's absurdly disrespectful and completely unwarranted.And yes, there is something Wizards could have done. It's something I thought they were going to do based on their comments about 4E. As I've already mentioned, I would have liked to have seen them limit the number of secondary accessory slots. Maybe three accessory slots. Characters would have the expected magic implement/armor/neck stuff that factors into the attack/damage/AC/saves math, and they'd be able to equip up to three other accessories that could do any of the wide range of secondary things 4E accessories look like they're going to do. That's the middle ground I was hoping for, and the middle ground I was expecting with their 'Christmas shrub' comments.</blockquote>

Verification