Top end of +N weapons and armor?

[Grazzt]

I voted for +3 max, though I'm good with special weapons (like the holy avenger; very few, too many "special weapons" and they aren't special anymore) hitting +5 max.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Are you asking for the maximum I would use or what the cap in the DMG should be?

For the former probably +1 or +2 if I use them. For the latter there should be no cap.

Max that you would use if you went all the way to max level--assuming 20 for that in this poll. Naturally, if you tend to stop well shy of maximum level, you'll probably avoid the upper end of the scale. Though assuming a more or less equal distribution, this has implications for every level.

 

[Hassassin]

Max that you would use if you went all the way to max level--assuming 20 for that in this poll. Naturally, if you tend to stop well shy of maximum level, you'll probably avoid the upper end of the scale. Though assuming a more or less equal distribution, this has implications for every level.

Where I stop depends on how the game scales.

+1 or +2 if up to 10th, +2 or maybe +3 if up to 20th. Not everyone would have such equipment, of course.

 

[TheSleepyKing]

I went with +3, but if magic items once again become the purview of the DM (which they should be), it doesn't really matter what the rule books say.

 

[Iosue]

I voted +3, but with a caveat. I want general bonuses (to-hit and damage, anytime; AC, any kind of damage) to max out at +1. +2 and +3 I'd limit their sphere of effect. +1, +3 vs dragons sword. +1, +3 vs cold damage armor. At least in the core rules. Later, you can add a high-level module that let's you recreate 4e Epic Tier awesome-crazy sauce, with higher defenses and thus higher bonuses for magic items. Although even then I think +5 is plenty high. In any case, keep the dice relevant, and not just tacked-on numbers to an astronomical to-hit and damage bonuses.

 

[BobTheNob]

I voted +3, because I see that as a compromise between old direction and new direction. If I reflect on my experience with 4e in particular a +3 to anything was battle altering, and if a weapon can give a +3 to every attack roll you make during the battle, the effect is profound.

+3 for legendary items sits well for me.

That said, I still want items to scale in terms of breadth of capability instead of power, so items are feasible for breadth as much as they are for plumb numbers.

 

[kitsune9]

I think if (and I say if) the design goals is to have a flatter math curve, then really all other things should be considered to be flatter as well. Getting of +X items is one approach toward this altogether or putting a more restrictive limit on them.

I personally don't mind +X items, but I think that it should be considered in order to flatten the math curve.

 

[Lanefan]

Cannot vote as my answer is considerably different for weapons as opposed to armour, and the poll applies to both.

For weapons, I'd have the DMG go to +5 but have most weapons +3 or less; with a side note to DMs explaining that if they want to go higher they can but here's the knock-on effect possibilities.

For armour I'd really like to see a very low cap - +2 maybe - such that as parties advance their give-it-out ability progresses faster than their damage absorption capability. If nothing else this keeps high-level combats shorter, and maybe causes players to look at other options besides in-the-face melee to defeat foes.

Lanefan

 

[S'mon]

I would tend to go with +5 as per BECMI and 1e AD&D-DMG, and 3e. 1e-Unearthed Arcana brought in +6 weapons, 4e also has +6 weapons. They don't really bother me but I tend to prefer +5 as the mortal cap.

 

[pemerton]

I voted +1. 4e has persuaded me that the maths can't work properly with bigger bonuses.