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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4017629" data-attributes="member: 42582">Wulf, first I should not that, as with some other posters, I think you have misread Mearls a little bit.He is saying (i) that the Big Three are assumed, but there mathematical contribution is simple enough that you can take them out and add the numbers back in as inherent level bonuses. This doesn't make room for variable item ownership across a party, but (together with Wizard implements, Holy Symbols etc) it does mean that Fighters and spell-users are no different in terms of item dependence.He is also saying (ii) that having secondary items does increase power, but it does so by increasing the power suite for a character, rather than making the numbers of their existing powers bigger. So such items don't affect the game to the same extent as the Big Three.Now turning to the issue of buying and sellilng: assuming that (i) and (ii) above are true, players will do their best to get access to the best of the Big Three that they can get. Their hunger for secondaries might be less, if the sorts of abilities one gets from buying mundane equipment can also enhance the power suite (eg does having a castle and steward, or blowing money by living the high life, give rerolls in some categories of social challenge?).So how to control Big Three access? My prediction is not that they will necessarily abolish magic item creation and trade, but that in some fashion access to items will be level-capped (the new rule for Rings is evidence of a general trend in this direction). Such a cap could be imposed by the Ritual rules, by putting magic item shops on other planes (a version of the Paragon-level capital city idea of a post above), etc.In this case there would be no need for wealth-by-level guidelines either.</blockquote>

Verification