Top end of +N weapons and armor?

[Szatany]

+0 for normal magic items, give them abilities instead. Each magic weapon has a +X to attack and damage once per encounter though.
Artifacts and only artifacts have permanent +X and their encounter bonus is that much more potent.

I don't know what to vote...

 

[drothgery]

I can't remember the last time I placed an item with a +4 or +5.

Unless you do a lot of high-level gaming in pre-4e or mid-paragon or higher level gaming in 4e, that's hardly surprising. A +4 item is a 16th level item in 4e (so not in normal treasure before 13th level, and not something a by-the-book newly created character will have below 15th level). In 3e, assuming by the book wealth and spending no more than 25% on one item, it's unlikely you'd have +4 armor before 11th level or a +4 weapon before 14th.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I want my +1 through +5 weapons.

 

[Sunseeker]

Realistically, weapons should be able to have as much or as little +X value as you want in your game. If you only want to have +2 maximum, make a maximum of only +2 items available. If you want your weapons to have no +X and instead do "special things" then make weapons that do special things but have no +X value. The DM is always in control of the loot they want available to their players, if you choose to relinquish that control that's your choice and not the fault of the system. Be up-front, honest, and clear with your players from the get-go if you are concerned they will complain that the book says they should get X, Y and Z when you only want to give them A or B.

If your DM-player communication is clear, misunderstandings will be minimized, complaints will be few, and people will be happy with what they get. If you have a seriously disgruntled player with a huge sense of entitlement and no amount of talking can appease them, then that is likely a PLAYER issue and not a system issue.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If your DM-player communication is clear, misunderstandings will be minimized, complaints will be few, and people will be happy with what they get. If you have a seriously disgruntled player with a huge sense of entitlement and no amount of talking can appease them, then that is likely a PLAYER issue and not a system issue.

I disagree. The issue here is the attack bonus of such weapons. There is no way that you can have a system that is balanced for, say, +2 weapons at 15th level, and without changing anything, have it also be balanced for +4 weapons at the same level. Can't be done. You can mitigate it somehow with other changes, but you'll need those other changes to maintain balance. Or you can choose to deal with the resulting imbalance, of course.

Now, there is some leeway. There is something to be said for, "I'll probably use up to +3. I'd like it balanced around that. But you know if they put some +4 and +5 weapons in the game, I can deal." It's not as if there aren't options elsewhere that can be tweaked for a given campaign. If items run up to +10 at 20th level? No, we are outside "tweak" into "clean up the designers' mess."

This issue has nothing to do with player entitlement whatsoever. It is what math the system is balanced around. How you choose to change or cope with that balance may lead to separate player entitlement issues, but that's another subject.

 

[Sunseeker]

I disagree. The issue here is the attack bonus of such weapons. There is no way that you can have a system that is balanced for, say, +2 weapons at 15th level, and without changing anything, have it also be balanced for +4 weapons at the same level. Can't be done. You can mitigate it somehow with other changes, but you'll need those other changes to maintain balance. Or you can choose to deal with the resulting imbalance, of course.

Well now you're talking about including weapon bonuses in the calculations. Honestly there's already a +/-20 on the basis of you having to roll a d20 to hit. So really, when you're dealing with a +/-20, dealing with a +2 or a +4 really isn't going to make a serious difference here. Especially if your attack bonus is already something like 19. Being 23 or 21 really isn't going to make a significant impact on your roll.

Sure, if your bonus @ 14th level is like +2, then yeah an additional +2 is a big deal, a +4 is an even bigger deal. But frankly if your bonus is +2 @ lvl 14, you're doing something wrong or your math is WAY too tight.

Now, there is some leeway. There is something to be said for, "I'll probably use up to +3. I'd like it balanced around that. But you know if they put some +4 and +5 weapons in the game, I can deal." It's not as if there aren't options elsewhere that can be tweaked for a given campaign. If items run up to +10 at 20th level? No, we are outside "tweak" into "clean up the designers' mess."

Assuming, as you do, that the math is built for it, yeah, we've got problems, but honestly the math should only take into account the average, which in the +1 to +5 case would be somewhere between 2.5 and 3. And honestly, assuming a +2-3 bonus by 14th level that you may or may not have isn't that big of a deal.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Emphasis added:

Assuming we have things like +1 swords and 20 character levels, where would you cap the equipment, in regards to chance to hit for weapons, and AC for armor?

Well now you're talking about including weapon bonuses in the calculations...

It's not now. It's all about such bonuses, and was from the start.

I think some of you guys are thinking about this in reverse, almost. The assumption is that the default math has to be balanced around some bonus to hit from equipment (even if +0, all the time). I don't think anyone in this forum has credibly argued against that assumption, at least not without bringing in some other mitigating system factors that then become part of the equation, or declaring balance irrelevant. Whatever people do in their home campaigns, the designers can't think that way. The game may be balanced well, balanced poorly, or balanced haphazardly, unevenly and/or at whim, but a certain balance will be achieved, even so.

An alternate way to ask the original question in the poll is, "When the designers go to set that default balance, what range of weapons do you want them to accommodate?" The poll only asks about the upper bound, because the lower bound is the same for most people (+0). I suppose some odd bird will want all weapons to go from +3 to +6 now that I've said that, and some wag will bring up cursed weapons.

If you pick "+4 to +5", you are explicitly saying that there is somewhere between levels 1 and 20 where +1 weapons are the default, ditto for +2, and probably +3 and +4, depending upon whether you want a smooth spread or not. +5 might fit in smoothly, or might be an abberation.

If in that preferred system, the DM hands out +3 weapons at the +2 spot, or delays that first +1 weapon until +3 should show up, or makes up a +7 weapon--all of that is deliberately moving off the default, and is the groups' prerogative ... and responsiblity to deal with.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

It's not now. It's all about such bonuses, and was from the start.

I think some of you guys are thinking about this in reverse, almost. The assumption is that the default math has to be balanced around some bonus to hit from equipment (even if +0, all the time). I don't think anyone in this forum has credibly argued against that assumption, at least not without bringing in some other mitigating system factors that then become part of the equation, or declaring balance irrelevant. Whatever people do in their home campaigns, the designers can't think that way. The game may be balanced well, balanced poorly, or balanced haphazardly, unevenly and/or at whim, but a certain balance will be achieved, even so.

An alternate way to ask the original question in the poll is, "When the designers go to set that default balance, what range of weapons do you want them to accommodate?" The poll only asks about the upper bound, because the lower bound is the same for most people (+0). I suppose some odd bird will want all weapons to go from +3 to +6 now that I've said that, and some wag will bring up cursed weapons.

If you pick "+4 to +5", you are explicitly saying that there is somewhere between levels 1 and 20 where +1 weapons are the default, ditto for +2, and probably +3 and +4, depending upon whether you want a smooth spread or not. +5 might fit in smoothly, or might be an abberation.

If in that preferred system, the DM hands out +3 weapons at the +2 spot, or delays that first +1 weapon until +3 should show up, or makes up a +7 weapon--all of that is deliberately moving off the default, and is the groups' prerogative ... and responsiblity to deal with.

Jerome, you worded the question poorly, because the way it is currently written it is easy to parse the question as to be asking: "What is the highest bonus you want to see magical Weapons and Armor having in D&DNext?"

No where in your original post do you imply the question or the answers to be about the default expected magical weapon bonus growth rate.

If you are taking from someone who votes for "+4 or +5: Holy Avengers got to be +5" as they want an assumed magical item bonus growth rate along the lines of +1 per 4 or 5 levels and they do not want a assumed growth rate but an assumed max bonus of +4 or +5, then the fault lies with you for asking the wrong question.

That said, I'm for a default assumed magic item bonus growth rate of +0 over X levels (i.e. no default growth rate) and a max magical item bonus of +5 for weapons and armor.

 

[was]

+4 to +5 max

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Jerome, you worded the question poorly, because the way it is currently written it is easy to parse the question as to be asking: "What is the highest bonus you want to see magical Weapons and Armor having in D&DNext?"

That is the question--except only as it applies to hit chances and defense. Damage and other qualities can be all over the place. It implies several possibilities about growth rate of the bonus, which is what I explained in that previous post.

I'm not asking for preferences about rate. It could be a smooth rate, or a jagged one, or totally up to the people at the table.