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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KesselZero" data-source="post: 5859263" data-attributes="member: 6689976">I find this idea quite intriguing, and I think that if done correctly it may be the best solution to all this. It makes sense to me flavor-wise that a Sharpness enchantment and an Explodeytimes enchantment would be two different spells, so not all Explodey swords are Sharp. Plus I do think it would be interesting to have to choose between accuracy/damage and other powers. Finally, I like that there may be a distinction between +1 damage and +1 attack. What might this look like? Well, if we keep the idea of magic items having levels, we might say... Level 1 -- The Big Guy, +1 damageLevel 2 -- The Really Big Guy, +2 damageLevel 3 -- Li'l Hottie, +1d4 fire damageLevel 3 -- Mister Pointy, +1 attackLevel 4 -- Big Pointy, +1 attack/+1 damageLevel 5 -- Big Hottie, 1d6 fire damageLevel 6-- Hot 'n' Pointy, +1 attack/1d6 fire damage And so on. No guarantees that these numbers are balanced, since I'm not a game designer, though I am plainly super great at naming things. But my point is that you'd have a meaningful choice between a small edge on accuracy versus a larger edge on damage with the added bonus of it being typed, which sometimes helps (cf. 4e where flaming weapons are higher level than some other elemental enhancements of the same damage, since fire hurts more things). I get that a flat bonus, especially to accuracy, could be considered objectively superior to other options. But that's why it could be balanced by level, so a DM would have guidance that a +1 sword isn't necessarily the first thing a PC should get. This all having been said, I'd also be all in favor of a system that supported keeping the same magic item for as long as possible, and giving it a cool name so it's not just "flaming longsword" or "+1 bow" but "Dragonsbreath" or "Sharpeye" or "Argulon's Woe" or something. EDIT: It did just occur to me that in a system that doesn't include +n weapons in the attack/defense math, a +1 weapon would be just as good at level 20 as at level 1. Presumably this would be balanced by the availability, at higher levels, of weapons that do +10d6 damage or something like that (numbers not balanced, use at your own risk). These bonuses would presumably have to be balanced with the average non-magic damage at that level, so if a +1 weapon lets you hit and therefore do basic damage 5% more often, a +x damage weapon of the same level would have x equal to 5% of your average basic damage. Or something like that.</blockquote>

Verification