Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tequila Sunrise" data-source="post: 5558252" data-attributes="member: 40398">Honestly, I don't like wish type spells or inherent bonuses. Wishing should be a plot device, and inherent bonuses work differently than all other game bonuses -- which is a big annoyance. I don't think inherent bonuses are really necessary either, but I decided to err on the side of generosity.I suppose I could ban wish type spells and cap stat enhancements at +5. (To make it fit neatly into my chart. I'm a bit compulsive that way. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses&nbsp; &nbsp; B-)" data-shortname="B-)" />) Well, you've given me something to think about.I think that using item slots and the DMG overprice rules as a measuring stick for balance is a tenuous proposition at best. Balance may have been, back in the early days of 3e, the rationale for putting several useful items in the same slot. For example, the Charisma booster may have been put in the same slot as the saves booster to help balance spontaneous casters and prep casters. Or maybe they ended up in the same slot just because somebody thought it sounded cool. (As I understand it, that's how a great many D&amp;D traditions started -- Dave or Gary thought it sounded cool, and gamers who came after treated it as gospel.)In any case, we all know how that turned out. Spontaneous casting turned out to be not nearly as game-breaking as prep casting, and many other assumptions about game balance were changed. So much so that the MIC came out and said &quot;Screw the overprice rules. Combine different bonuses in one item at-cost, and have at it!&quot; And that's why I'm generous with bonuses to different stats, even if some characters would have to overpay for their bonuses or go without them in a core game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tequila Sunrise, post: 5558252, member: 40398"] Honestly, I don't like [I]wish[/I] type spells or inherent bonuses. Wishing should be a plot device, and inherent bonuses work differently than all other game bonuses -- which is a big annoyance. I don't think inherent bonuses are really necessary either, but I decided to err on the side of generosity. I suppose I could ban [I]wish[/I] type spells [I]and[/I] cap stat enhancements at +5. (To make it fit neatly into my chart. I'm a bit compulsive that way. B-)) Well, you've given me something to think about. I think that using item slots and the DMG overprice rules as a measuring stick for balance is a tenuous proposition at best. Balance [I]may[/I] have been, back in the early days of 3e, the rationale for putting several useful items in the same slot. For example, the Charisma booster may have been put in the same slot as the saves booster to help balance spontaneous casters and prep casters. Or maybe they ended up in the same slot just because somebody thought it sounded cool. (As I understand it, that's how a great many D&D traditions started -- Dave or Gary thought it sounded cool, and gamers who came after treated it as gospel.) In any case, we all know how [I]that[/I] turned out. Spontaneous casting turned out to be not nearly as game-breaking as prep casting, and many other assumptions about game balance were changed. So much so that the MIC came out and said "Screw the overprice rules. Combine different bonuses in one item at-cost, and have at it!" And that's why I'm generous with bonuses to different stats, even if some characters would have to overpay for their bonuses or go without them in a core game. [/QUOTE]

Verification