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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 4016709" data-attributes="member: 94">You do realize that you've essentially stated that no DM in his right mind would play 3e. Because this is the most significant flaw with 3e when it comes to magic items: Item Creation and the ability to trade in magic items.And this is the problem with the Big Six. Not that they ever existed in 3e, simply that the designers did not anticipate (for whatever reason) that players would zero in on those six items as the best possible place to focus their resources. It was not anticipated that players would all have the Big Six constantly enchanted to a bonus appropriate for their level. The Big Six in brutally efficient combination broke the 3e math, and it was Item Creation and the trade in magic items that got them there.I remain highly skeptical that the math is "fixed," despite only having three "+" items. The example we saw showed some +2 items in the hands of 9th level character, and everyone says, "Oh, sure, that makes sense. I could live without a +2 bonus. A character with no items can hang with a character with items."What of the +5 items? It doesn't much matter what you do with the math, a +5 bonus on a 1d20 is not irrelevant to the outcome. If one fighter has a +5 sword and +5 armor and the other does not, the math is not fixed.It seems to me that the game is "fixed" only in the sense that the DM could have a campaign with magic items or without, and it's equally balanced-- but that's mostly true of 3e already. "Everyone sucks!" is certainly balanced-- the math works just fine. It certainly doesn't appear to be the case that within a given 4e campaign, two different characters could have a different baseline of gear and the "math still works."</blockquote>

Verification