Wait isn't the default campaign setting Forgotten Realms? There's hella magic in that setting, isn't there?
That is correct.
Now consider the assumptions about magic items and similar that 5E is inherently based on, which is where someone points out a completely logical "Hold on, a +3 shield and +3 armor combination is ridiculously fucking broken" and Wizards response is "The DM doesn't have to let you get that in the first place if it's a problem".
If it doesn't leave you scratching your head, I don't know what would.
by default, you actually cannot make magical items. As an optional rule in the DM, you can add formulas. It's up to you on how those exists (it says so in the DMG) and then on top of that you follow the crafting guidelines. something like a suite of +3 armor takes, iirc, 110 years to make of downtime.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
by default, you actually cannot make magical items. As an optional rule in the DM, you can add formulas. It's up to you on how those exists (it says so in the DMG) and then on top of that you follow the crafting guidelines. something like a suite of +3 armor takes, iirc, 110 years to make of downtime.
Well it might not start out as a full elf party. And it might not even end that way. But well, if you can't live the 110 years of downtime between session 3 and 4 you might want to consider making another character.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
This has seriously given me the most utterly hilarious adventure idea.
a +3 weapon is supposed be a thing of legend, a weapon of tremendous power - you shouldn't be able to just make one according to a set of rules in the DMG. Having it be the result of over 100 years of work by e.g. a line of gifted hermetic cleric-smiths that was founded just to make this weapon in order to serve its storied purpose, or an ancient dwarven runesmith who's made it his life's work to forge it, whatever - that makes sense to me.
some items should just be completely beyond normal PC abilities to create. that's completely fine. if they want one, they need to go on a quest to find it, or wrest it from its wrongful owner, or steal it from a dragon's lair with an elaborate plan and an unlikely burglar, etc.
that being said, there should absolutely be rules to evaluate a given PC's level of power based on their level + their magical items. if there is no consistent system for how PCs should receive items (and there shouldn't be, the orgy of predetermined magical items in character development in 4e was absolutely the worst!), then there should be rules for managing the consequences of adding those items by fiat.
The problem, Mr Rex, is that such solutions break the game. Because if a +3 item is so rare that they don't exist then having one unbalances the math against the enemies you're fighting. Or everyone in your party has to have an equivalent 'super totally rare item' or the raw power from that epic item is going to bust things.
And the shield/armor issue doesn't just crop up at +3. Its big at +2 and +1 as well. Just not quite as big.
This is why, as i said, its totally OK to have that system. But you can't have magic items that are +3 exist and have that system
5e DMG came out, and I'm flipping through a copy now. So far, the most amusing ridiculous thing I've come across is that cackle fever triggers when you take damage, and if you fail the save, you take damage.
Wash, rinse, expire.
Also, while I'm not surprised, the return of fixed DCs for a given poison is a bit of terrible design that has reared its ugly head again.
Going back to this. Because players and monsters have, more or less, fixed saves for most of the game, fixed DC's aren't particularly an issue. With, of course, the exception of DC's for which players have proficiency and good stats against. But the fact that your fighter can shrug off wyvern poison and it kills your mage is more a factor of the really dumb proficiency rules that keep adding bonuses when they should not.
@Goumindong To be fair, +3 items are Legendary (17+) and require an attunement (of your total of 3).
It's competing with Armor of Invulnerability (resistance to non-magical damage and 10min of immunity per day), Belt of Storm Giant Strength (29STR), Cloak of Invisibility (permanent invisibility), Crystal Ball (crazy shit), and some other pretty nice shit. Hell, the Defender Sword lets you trade +3 to hit and damage for +3 AC, and you can make that a 2h or 1h sword.
It think it's pretty obvious that Legendary items are supposed to be... legendary. Hell, there's a fucking lobster mecha you can get as a Legendary.
Even if you get to 30AC, there are monsters that hit at +15, multiple times a round. Having a 25% chance to hit isn't that great for a CR21 Angel, but it's still manageable. Especially against a character that's completely focused on maxing AC. I think if you have multiple players at level 20 with multiple legendary items, all of which chosen by the players for the purpose of optimization, then you're going into Pitlord/Ancient Dragon+friends territory for combat encounters.
I don't think there's anything wrong with shields giving a bunch of AC. If we're level 20, my Paladin in +3 full plate with a +3 shield is going to have 26 AC. My party's fighter is going to have a 19 AC with a +3 breastplate. Against the big dogs, we're both still going to get hit a lot. Against enemies that don't have an obscene + to hit, I'll be harder to hit, but that's how it should be. He's going to be doing a boatload of attacks per round with his 2d6 greatsword, and i'll be hard to hit.
I already have 20 AC at level 4 from full plate and wearing a shield, and I still get hit regularly.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Base rolled damage on that 2d6 greatsword doesn't make a huge impact and the monsters that will hit him are going to rend him to pieces.
Tiamat for example and that shield makes your paladin doubly survivable with the right feat. Smite letting you keep pace in damage and pack self healing and so on.
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
So update: the Oathbreaker I was worried about killing my PCs? Multiclass Fighter/Rogue beat him on initiative, Action surge'd, and hit him 4 times in a row (when dual wielding) against his 18 AC (plate). Knocked half his health off in a round. The Paladin got one hit off, rolled poorly, then died. So they got to fight a Wight riding a Nightmare, which did a bit better. The only awful part was all the Zombies kept making their saves to go to 1 HP instead of die, and the PCs ended up just ignoring them and killing the Nightmare before it wrecked them, and I got tired of making saves after the boss went down for the Zombies.
Base rolled damage on that 2d6 greatsword doesn't make a huge impact and the monsters that will hit him are going to rend him to pieces.
Tiamat for example and that shield makes your paladin doubly survivable with the right feat. Smite letting you keep pace in damage and pack self healing and so on.
And so forth.
Critting on 18-20 and rerolling 1s and 2s on that 2d6 greatsword on a bunch of attacks per round is good damage. And i'm not saying my damage won't be good. I'm dueling fighting style, and the +2 damage from that is worth just as much as the rerolling 1s and 2s from great weapon fighting. I'd have even more AC if I took the protection style, it just doesn't fit my guy.
Smite adds nice damage for me sure if I can afford to spend my spell slots on it, but it's not like Fighter doesn't have ways to throw down insane amounts of damage too. At high level with action surge he's going to be attacking something like 8 times in one round with that greatsword.
0
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Rerolling 1s and 2s is + (max damage of die -2)/(max damage of the die), if anyone was wondering. So for a d6 it adds 4/6 a point of damage.
Of course this is all ignoring the fact that a smart enemy will either 1) ignore the high AC character since there's not really a downside to letting it live, or 2) just use a save spell instead of an attack roll.
by default, you actually cannot make magical items. As an optional rule in the DM, you can add formulas. It's up to you on how those exists (it says so in the DMG) and then on top of that you follow the crafting guidelines. something like a suite of +3 armor takes, iirc, 110 years to make of downtime.
Yes, which amounts to "It's DM fiat".
But 110 years is genuinely hilarious.
Weren't you saying when the PHB came out that you genuinely hoped the DMG did not allow creation of magical items because it broke stuff all the way in half? I know several people were of that opinion, and I thought you were one of them, though I could be wrong.
In either case, whoever made that request clearly got their wish.
Rerolling 1s and 2s is + (max damage of die -2)/(max damage of the die), if anyone was wondering. So for a d6 it adds 4/6 a point of damage.
Generally Brutal X reduces the effective die size by X and adds +X to the new smaller die's average. So 1d6 Brutal 2 is effectively a 1d4+2.
This is one of those areas where I know people think it's "fun" to reroll low numbers but damn it, it's mathematically equivalent to a much faster single die roll!
by default, you actually cannot make magical items. As an optional rule in the DM, you can add formulas. It's up to you on how those exists (it says so in the DMG) and then on top of that you follow the crafting guidelines. something like a suite of +3 armor takes, iirc, 110 years to make of downtime.
Yes, which amounts to "It's DM fiat".
But 110 years is genuinely hilarious.
Weren't you saying when the PHB came out that you genuinely hoped the DMG did not allow creation of magical items because it broke stuff all the way in half? I know several people were of that opinion, and I thought you were one of them, though I could be wrong.
In either case, whoever made that request clearly got their wish.
Oh I can assure you I have zero interest in ever letting PCs make their own items, it's just how completely ridiculous the system they actually chose to put in works out. It's almost spiteful to throw in a magic item creation system and basically have it be utterly worthless for the way most games are run, outside of a few succession types.
In effect, they might as well have dumped all that text and just said "No, unless the DM says so". Those five words take up infinitely less space and convey exactly the same meaning. It's just how silly and overwrought they are, like the incredibly time consuming and baffling waste of space magic item table, when they can get the same meaning just by straight up saying "If items can be made is entirely up to the DM". The only thing I would want is suggestions for interesting materials and a list of costs for these items (game badly needs gold sinks).
@Goumindong To be fair, +3 items are Legendary (17+) and require an attunement (of your total of 3).
It's competing with Armor of Invulnerability (resistance to non-magical damage and 10min of immunity per day), Belt of Storm Giant Strength (29STR), Cloak of Invisibility (permanent invisibility), Crystal Ball (crazy shit), and some other pretty nice shit. Hell, the Defender Sword lets you trade +3 to hit and damage for +3 AC, and you can make that a 2h or 1h sword.
It think it's pretty obvious that Legendary items are supposed to be... legendary. Hell, there's a fucking lobster mecha you can get as a Legendary.
Even if you get to 30AC, there are monsters that hit at +15, multiple times a round. Having a 25% chance to hit isn't that great for a CR21 Angel, but it's still manageable. Especially against a character that's completely focused on maxing AC. I think if you have multiple players at level 20 with multiple legendary items, all of which chosen by the players for the purpose of optimization, then you're going into Pitlord/Ancient Dragon+friends territory for combat encounters.
The issue isn't what its competing with (though the 29 str belt is better than a +3 sword). The issue is that legendary items are expected when you've got epic characters. And, additionally that if they are to exist in any campaign and not be problems, then everyone has to have them
The issue above, was specifically with regards to shields. What happens is that the total defensive delta between characters becomes too high.
This all goes back to the fundamental problem of D20, that at around a difference of about 10 between your characters the system breaks down. In order to threaten a fighter who has 10 more AC than the wizard a monster would have to 100% paste the wizard no matter the circumstance. Because a fighter has something like twice(or more) HP than the monster and if he is hit 50% of the time by the monster then the wizard is hit 100% of the time.
Shields, at +2, slightly exacerbate this issue because the normal defensive discrepancy between the no shield fighter and wizard is extended by +2. Shields at +5 means everyone has to have a shield, or the total defensive discrepancy between your characters means shit breaks.
This isn't about listed monsters in the MM and their attack value. I can always tweak monsters in order to be stronger or weaker to deal with my party. But I cannot tweak monsters to have lower attack against wizards than they do against fighters, at least not without making my party do a double take.
The only solution i can do there is fix the fundamental flaw in math, which has the AC of a fighter be 21, the AC of a Wizard be 13(well, call it 16 with barkskin or mage armor), and the AC of a defensive Shield Fighter be 27
I don't think there's anything wrong with shields giving a bunch of AC. If we're level 20, my Paladin in +3 full plate with a +3 shield is going to have 26 AC. My party's fighter is going to have a 19 AC with a +3 breastplate.
If you're against an enemy with a 50% chance to hit your fighter(+8 attack) that same enemy has a 15% chance to hit the paladin. That Paladin is roughly three times more survivable than you. That same enemy which can barely tickle your paladin will truck your 16 AC Wizard like he isn't even there. Similarly we can envision an enemy with a 50% chance to hit your paladin (+15 attack) He hits you 85% of the time; you might as well not be wearing armor.
This is basically the problem that is being created. The range of reasonable to-hit values that can be created for monsters is diminished as players AC's diverge, until they get so far apart that no reasonable to-hit value can be created for monsters. Ideally the biggest divergence that should be possible at all, is like 6-8, highest to lowest AC in a party. +3 shields existing mean that you've already got +5 of that 6-8 gone.
Goumindong on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2014
And the shield as I mentioned makes you very resistant to breath weapons and other AoEs, which would be one of the ways that a very high AC character would be threatened. So the fighter gets mauled by timats 3-4 breath weapons per turn while the paladin is more able to both survive her (impressive) melee attacks and survive the equally impressive breath weapons (assuming you have gone shield master).
The difference in survivability is massive, where at least wizards, rogues and others have a deep toolbox of stuff to get them out of trouble. For one front line melee to another front line melee role, shields make a huge impact on how much you can be hurt. Of course, I bring up Tiamat because in general I can't honestly think of a lot of epic threats that do more than cat scratch a PC. Part of their problem, ironically, is that a lot of damage relies on multiple attacks and hitting more often with them than not. This is actually not a good assumption on dealing damage, unless you are hitting reliably more than 50% of the time.
hahahaha, wow, shields are straight-up AC bonuses again and stack with armour?
a +3 shield is a ridiculously strong piece of equipment then. my question is whether the shield's bonus also applies to the shield master bonus for Dex saving throws? i hope so, because that would be hilarious. you could take zero damage from breath weapons on reaction, with absolutely monstrous save bonuses (someone with a shield+3, proficiency, and Dex 18 would be saving at... +11 at level 1, +16 at max proficiency)
Shield Master can make you really obscenely difficult to kill or even hurt that much with big AoEs like breath weapons. To be fair, this is really only when talking about the likes of Tiamat, whose absolutely ridiculous on every level (and so she should be, as she's only the second level 30 creature published). Minding, in my experience many monsters could only really hurt pcs above 10th level with things like AoE attacks and breath weapons in particular.
Edit: Of course, this is equally susceptible to DM fiat as well.
Shield master only works if you're the only one targeted, so no AoE for the most part. (though it does allow you to save for no damage)
Ah, in that case it's probably going to be the main way you take damage in that fight (she is actually a really interesting battle - much better effort than any of 4es efforts at an epic threat). Dragons and things with big AoE like breath weapons are by far the most relevant threats at higher levels.
12. Roll initiative each round and add modifiers based on your weapon? ie speed factor from 2e
Wow. That was my "Incredibly Stupid Shit They Might Do" example number one for explaining why "iconic" was not gonna be an improvement. I'm mighty amused that actually made it into the book. Do....do all weapons have speed factors listed? Do spells? I'm just gonna guess the second is no because they clearly need to be quick...
Still not quite the full horror that was 2e's initiative but it's close.
You subtract the spell level to your initiative. Weapons range from +2(light, finesse) to -2/-5 for a ranged heavies and loading weapon. +5 to -8 from tiny to Gargantuan creature size also.
by default, you actually cannot make magical items. As an optional rule in the DM, you can add formulas. It's up to you on how those exists (it says so in the DMG) and then on top of that you follow the crafting guidelines. something like a suite of +3 armor takes, iirc, 110 years to make of downtime.
One day for one person is 25gp. Rare is 50 000 and Legendary 500 000 gp. 55 years for a +3 weapon/armor if only one person is crafting it.
So it is a time and gold sink.
There are no guidelines for handing out treasure except the challenge value of the treasure tables.
Note that there are rules on how to sell magic items so they can't be that rare? It's a downtime activity that last a random number of days depending on item rarity and d100 roll table for how much the seller will screw you or overpay.
Also can't find how much gold a character lvl 2+ should start with.
Also can't find how much gold a character lvl 2+ should start with.
That's because gold for higher level characters in 3.x and 4 was so you could buy magical items. Now most 2nd level characters will be sporting mostly mundane stuff, so give them level 1 starting wealth.
Also can't find how much gold a character lvl 2+ should start with.
That's because gold for higher level characters in 3.x and 4 was so you could buy magical items. Now most 2nd level characters will be sporting mostly mundane stuff, so give them level 1 starting wealth.
But shouldn't a level 4 character be able to afford full plate?
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Also can't find how much gold a character lvl 2+ should start with.
That's because gold for higher level characters in 3.x and 4 was so you could buy magical items. Now most 2nd level characters will be sporting mostly mundane stuff, so give them level 1 starting wealth.
But shouldn't a level 4 character be able to afford full plate?
This confused me endlessly as well, but I allowed players about 1750 gold to start with when I ran at level 4.
However, I have no idea where this number came from or where it was derived from, I only took it from one of the other DMs at the Vault of the Dracolich thing I helped run. I suspect that it honestly doesn't matter whatsoever and that there is no such thing as expected treasure. Hence why I am trying to make the ship in my piracy game an interesting side mechanic that the players can invest gold into in various ways. Improving crew, improving the ships functions (elemental etc) and so on.
oxybeEntei is appaled and disappointed in youRegistered Userregular
My main problem with the weapon +'s is that they are boring as all fuck. A +3 weapon isn't any more interesting then a +1 weapons, it's just a statistically better weapon.
"Sir Brandon's Brillant Blade of Beholder Beheading was an ancient artifact lost to the ages due to stupid alliteration. Wars were fought for this sword, so stupid it's name, that heroes were made on that alone!"
"A blade that stupidly named, but still so highly valued must be the thing that changes the course of history! What boons does it bestow on it's wielder?"
"Indeed it is: It hits slightly more often and a wee bit harder then your own mass-produced sword!"
"What?"
"Yes! It is truly a thing of legend!"
"Seriously?"
"It's balance is so slightly better it sends shivers down my spine!"
"O_o"
"It's destructive power is a thing to see, dealing a wee bit more damage!"
"Screw this fantasy kitchen sink, I'm going to spaceworld and partaking of anti-gravity boots."
The sacred cow that is the +X weapon should've died a long time ago, about the time we realised 4th ed inherent bonuses started being a thing. But no: We need the +X sword for some reason.
Sigh. You'd think (Occasional) Fish Commanding would be reason enough carry the thing around.
you can read my collected ravings at oxybesothertumbr.tumblr.com
-Weather Badge
+2
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Sadly the Staff of Politely Asking the Kraken not to Eat Your Ship was lost to the ages, with the original Mage who created it and his ship.
Rerolling 1s and 2s is + (max damage of die -2)/(max damage of the die), if anyone was wondering. So for a d6 it adds 4/6 a point of damage.
Rerolling 1s and 2s adds +1 damage. When you reroll a number, it removes it from the PDF and re-balances the remaining numbers equally. So, if you reroll a 1, you redistribute the PDF across 2 through X (where X is the max), resulting in an average roll of (2+X)/2. Rerolling 1s and 2s is PDF from 3 to X, or an average of (3+X)/2.
d6 => 3.5 average (normal), 4.0 average (reroll 1s), 4.5 average (reroll 1s, 2s)
d8 => 4.5 average (normal), 5.0 average (reroll 1s), 5.5 average (reroll 1s, 2s)
etc.
Now, this assumes infinite rerolls. If it's only "reroll once," then the statistic is entirely different because after the first reroll you can still end up with a 1 or 2 on the die.
Rerolling 1s and 2s is + (max damage of die -2)/(max damage of the die), if anyone was wondering. So for a d6 it adds 4/6 a point of damage.
Generally Brutal X reduces the effective die size by X and adds +X to the new smaller die's average. So 1d6 Brutal 2 is effectively a 1d4+2.
This is one of those areas where I know people think it's "fun" to reroll low numbers but damn it, it's mathematically equivalent to a much faster single die roll!
This is correct if you step the die size by the exact number and not what we normally consider die size.
I.e. d6 => d5 + 1 (reroll 1) => d4 + 2 (reroll 1 and 2)
Changing the actual size based on what we normally consider size would result in the same average value:
@Goumindong To be fair, +3 items are Legendary (17+) and require an attunement (of your total of 3).
It's competing with Armor of Invulnerability (resistance to non-magical damage and 10min of immunity per day), Belt of Storm Giant Strength (29STR), Cloak of Invisibility (permanent invisibility), Crystal Ball (crazy shit), and some other pretty nice shit. Hell, the Defender Sword lets you trade +3 to hit and damage for +3 AC, and you can make that a 2h or 1h sword.
It think it's pretty obvious that Legendary items are supposed to be... legendary. Hell, there's a fucking lobster mecha you can get as a Legendary.
Even if you get to 30AC, there are monsters that hit at +15, multiple times a round. Having a 25% chance to hit isn't that great for a CR21 Angel, but it's still manageable. Especially against a character that's completely focused on maxing AC. I think if you have multiple players at level 20 with multiple legendary items, all of which chosen by the players for the purpose of optimization, then you're going into Pitlord/Ancient Dragon+friends territory for combat encounters.
The issue isn't what its competing with (though the 29 str belt is better than a +3 sword). The issue is that legendary items are expected when you've got epic characters. And, additionally that if they are to exist in any campaign and not be problems, then everyone has to have them
The issue above, was specifically with regards to shields. What happens is that the total defensive delta between characters becomes too high.
This all goes back to the fundamental problem of D20, that at around a difference of about 10 between your characters the system breaks down. In order to threaten a fighter who has 10 more AC than the wizard a monster would have to 100% paste the wizard no matter the circumstance. Because a fighter has something like twice(or more) HP than the monster and if he is hit 50% of the time by the monster then the wizard is hit 100% of the time.
Shields, at +2, slightly exacerbate this issue because the normal defensive discrepancy between the no shield fighter and wizard is extended by +2. Shields at +5 means everyone has to have a shield, or the total defensive discrepancy between your characters means shit breaks.
This isn't about listed monsters in the MM and their attack value. I can always tweak monsters in order to be stronger or weaker to deal with my party. But I cannot tweak monsters to have lower attack against wizards than they do against fighters, at least not without making my party do a double take.
The only solution i can do there is fix the fundamental flaw in math, which has the AC of a fighter be 21, the AC of a Wizard be 13(well, call it 16 with barkskin or mage armor), and the AC of a defensive Shield Fighter be 27
I don't think there's anything wrong with shields giving a bunch of AC. If we're level 20, my Paladin in +3 full plate with a +3 shield is going to have 26 AC. My party's fighter is going to have a 19 AC with a +3 breastplate.
If you're against an enemy with a 50% chance to hit your fighter(+8 attack) that same enemy has a 15% chance to hit the paladin. That Paladin is roughly three times more survivable than you. That same enemy which can barely tickle your paladin will truck your 16 AC Wizard like he isn't even there. Similarly we can envision an enemy with a 50% chance to hit your paladin (+15 attack) He hits you 85% of the time; you might as well not be wearing armor.
This is basically the problem that is being created. The range of reasonable to-hit values that can be created for monsters is diminished as players AC's diverge, until they get so far apart that no reasonable to-hit value can be created for monsters. Ideally the biggest divergence that should be possible at all, is like 6-8, highest to lowest AC in a party. +3 shields existing mean that you've already got +5 of that 6-8 gone.
I haven't really looked through the high level spell list, but I imagine like previous editions the wizard probably has some pretty good tricks that keep himself from getting destroyed quite so easily when he's got 9th level spell slots.
As for me being more survivable than the fighter, that's what he chose. He could also put on a shield if he wants, and if he wanted, he could've worn full plate like me. He chose to go with medium armor so he could benefit from a DEX mod, which makes him more survivable than me when making DEX saves, which my Paladin is abysmal at making.
There are choices to be made all around. And high level D&D is pretty much always broken, and I definitely don't disagree that's it'll be broken this time too. I just don't think it's because I'm going to have 26 AC.
I have 20 AC at level 4, and it'll probably stay there until who knows when, because I've no idea when I might even get my armor/shield to +1.
A shield that gives +5 to AC that nobody will get until the epic levels of a campaign does not break the game. You're talking about a tier of gameplay where people have a belt that sets their strength to 29 too. For my character, that would instantly give me a +6 to hit and damage. Also not broken.
The enemies at that level all have like +15 to hit or better. My dude is going to have a 26 AC if he's wearing +3 full plate and a +3 shield. So i'm still not going to be that hard to hit, and it's also not like enemies at that level are only using physical attacks anyway, so saves are just as important. And from a player's perspective, the people throwing around 9th level spells are probably going to be the ones doing all the heavy lifting in those encounters anyway, because it's high level D&D and it's pretty much guaranteed to be that way.
I'm not sure if you don't realize, but 5e only has up to +3 magic items. So a +3 magic item is equivalent to a +5 in a previous edition. You're not expected to see +3 items until at least level 17. I think in most campaigns +3 items will be the results of legendary quests and such, at least I know any games I'm in are going to be that way.
This is just one example of an Epic tier magic sword from 13th Age. It has personality, both literally and metaphorically. There's nothing Epic about +3 to hit and damage. Or +3 to AC.
Sword of Ruin (+3 greatsword): Until recently, the Orc Lord’s personal executioner carried the sword of ruin, but she and the blade vanished mysteriously, and the dread weapon’s current whereabouts are unknown – which means no Icon or ruler in the land can sleep soundly. The sword of ruin is the bane of kings and the unraveller of empires. If it’s used to kill someone with authority over or ownership of a domain of any kind, it curses that domain. Armies lose their courage; castle walls lose their strength; places of magic lose their power; people lose their faith and even the land loses its vitality and becomes desolate and barren.
For example, if the sword of ruin killed the Imperial Governor of a seaport, then that town’s walls might crumble. Its defenders might lose heart, its ships might sink or its fishing fleets might find the seas unaccountably empty. The precise manifestation of the sword’s curse varies, but it always brings ruin and destruction. Any domain, no matter how large or small, is vulnerable to ruin. If it killed a peasant, it blight only that peasant’s field and leave the rest of the farmland nearby untouched. If it killed the Emperor... well that would be one way to end the campaign.
The Sword of Ruin only works if it kills with a critical hit or coup de grace. Quirk: Hates to be given orders.
Again, you're not expected to see +3 magic items until ~level 17. I think in most games levels 10-12 is the earliest you'd be seeing +2s. I can't imagine anybody is getting a bunch of +2s at level 5.
Posts
That is correct.
Now consider the assumptions about magic items and similar that 5E is inherently based on, which is where someone points out a completely logical "Hold on, a +3 shield and +3 armor combination is ridiculously fucking broken" and Wizards response is "The DM doesn't have to let you get that in the first place if it's a problem".
If it doesn't leave you scratching your head, I don't know what would.
Yes, which amounts to "It's DM fiat".
But 110 years is genuinely hilarious.
some items should just be completely beyond normal PC abilities to create. that's completely fine. if they want one, they need to go on a quest to find it, or wrest it from its wrongful owner, or steal it from a dragon's lair with an elaborate plan and an unlikely burglar, etc.
that being said, there should absolutely be rules to evaluate a given PC's level of power based on their level + their magical items. if there is no consistent system for how PCs should receive items (and there shouldn't be, the orgy of predetermined magical items in character development in 4e was absolutely the worst!), then there should be rules for managing the consequences of adding those items by fiat.
And the shield/armor issue doesn't just crop up at +3. Its big at +2 and +1 as well. Just not quite as big.
This is why, as i said, its totally OK to have that system. But you can't have magic items that are +3 exist and have that system
Going back to this. Because players and monsters have, more or less, fixed saves for most of the game, fixed DC's aren't particularly an issue. With, of course, the exception of DC's for which players have proficiency and good stats against. But the fact that your fighter can shrug off wyvern poison and it kills your mage is more a factor of the really dumb proficiency rules that keep adding bonuses when they should not.
It's competing with Armor of Invulnerability (resistance to non-magical damage and 10min of immunity per day), Belt of Storm Giant Strength (29STR), Cloak of Invisibility (permanent invisibility), Crystal Ball (crazy shit), and some other pretty nice shit. Hell, the Defender Sword lets you trade +3 to hit and damage for +3 AC, and you can make that a 2h or 1h sword.
It think it's pretty obvious that Legendary items are supposed to be... legendary. Hell, there's a fucking lobster mecha you can get as a Legendary.
Even if you get to 30AC, there are monsters that hit at +15, multiple times a round. Having a 25% chance to hit isn't that great for a CR21 Angel, but it's still manageable. Especially against a character that's completely focused on maxing AC. I think if you have multiple players at level 20 with multiple legendary items, all of which chosen by the players for the purpose of optimization, then you're going into Pitlord/Ancient Dragon+friends territory for combat encounters.
I already have 20 AC at level 4 from full plate and wearing a shield, and I still get hit regularly.
Tiamat for example and that shield makes your paladin doubly survivable with the right feat. Smite letting you keep pace in damage and pack self healing and so on.
And so forth.
Critting on 18-20 and rerolling 1s and 2s on that 2d6 greatsword on a bunch of attacks per round is good damage. And i'm not saying my damage won't be good. I'm dueling fighting style, and the +2 damage from that is worth just as much as the rerolling 1s and 2s from great weapon fighting. I'd have even more AC if I took the protection style, it just doesn't fit my guy.
Smite adds nice damage for me sure if I can afford to spend my spell slots on it, but it's not like Fighter doesn't have ways to throw down insane amounts of damage too. At high level with action surge he's going to be attacking something like 8 times in one round with that greatsword.
Weren't you saying when the PHB came out that you genuinely hoped the DMG did not allow creation of magical items because it broke stuff all the way in half? I know several people were of that opinion, and I thought you were one of them, though I could be wrong.
In either case, whoever made that request clearly got their wish.
Generally Brutal X reduces the effective die size by X and adds +X to the new smaller die's average. So 1d6 Brutal 2 is effectively a 1d4+2.
This is one of those areas where I know people think it's "fun" to reroll low numbers but damn it, it's mathematically equivalent to a much faster single die roll!
Oh I can assure you I have zero interest in ever letting PCs make their own items, it's just how completely ridiculous the system they actually chose to put in works out. It's almost spiteful to throw in a magic item creation system and basically have it be utterly worthless for the way most games are run, outside of a few succession types.
In effect, they might as well have dumped all that text and just said "No, unless the DM says so". Those five words take up infinitely less space and convey exactly the same meaning. It's just how silly and overwrought they are, like the incredibly time consuming and baffling waste of space magic item table, when they can get the same meaning just by straight up saying "If items can be made is entirely up to the DM". The only thing I would want is suggestions for interesting materials and a list of costs for these items (game badly needs gold sinks).
The issue isn't what its competing with (though the 29 str belt is better than a +3 sword). The issue is that legendary items are expected when you've got epic characters. And, additionally that if they are to exist in any campaign and not be problems, then everyone has to have them
The issue above, was specifically with regards to shields. What happens is that the total defensive delta between characters becomes too high.
This all goes back to the fundamental problem of D20, that at around a difference of about 10 between your characters the system breaks down. In order to threaten a fighter who has 10 more AC than the wizard a monster would have to 100% paste the wizard no matter the circumstance. Because a fighter has something like twice(or more) HP than the monster and if he is hit 50% of the time by the monster then the wizard is hit 100% of the time.
Shields, at +2, slightly exacerbate this issue because the normal defensive discrepancy between the no shield fighter and wizard is extended by +2. Shields at +5 means everyone has to have a shield, or the total defensive discrepancy between your characters means shit breaks.
This isn't about listed monsters in the MM and their attack value. I can always tweak monsters in order to be stronger or weaker to deal with my party. But I cannot tweak monsters to have lower attack against wizards than they do against fighters, at least not without making my party do a double take.
The only solution i can do there is fix the fundamental flaw in math, which has the AC of a fighter be 21, the AC of a Wizard be 13(well, call it 16 with barkskin or mage armor), and the AC of a defensive Shield Fighter be 27
To give an example
If you're against an enemy with a 50% chance to hit your fighter(+8 attack) that same enemy has a 15% chance to hit the paladin. That Paladin is roughly three times more survivable than you. That same enemy which can barely tickle your paladin will truck your 16 AC Wizard like he isn't even there. Similarly we can envision an enemy with a 50% chance to hit your paladin (+15 attack) He hits you 85% of the time; you might as well not be wearing armor.
This is basically the problem that is being created. The range of reasonable to-hit values that can be created for monsters is diminished as players AC's diverge, until they get so far apart that no reasonable to-hit value can be created for monsters. Ideally the biggest divergence that should be possible at all, is like 6-8, highest to lowest AC in a party. +3 shields existing mean that you've already got +5 of that 6-8 gone.
The difference in survivability is massive, where at least wizards, rogues and others have a deep toolbox of stuff to get them out of trouble. For one front line melee to another front line melee role, shields make a huge impact on how much you can be hurt. Of course, I bring up Tiamat because in general I can't honestly think of a lot of epic threats that do more than cat scratch a PC. Part of their problem, ironically, is that a lot of damage relies on multiple attacks and hitting more often with them than not. This is actually not a good assumption on dealing damage, unless you are hitting reliably more than 50% of the time.
Shield Master can make you really obscenely difficult to kill or even hurt that much with big AoEs like breath weapons. To be fair, this is really only when talking about the likes of Tiamat, whose absolutely ridiculous on every level (and so she should be, as she's only the second level 30 creature published). Minding, in my experience many monsters could only really hurt pcs above 10th level with things like AoE attacks and breath weapons in particular.
Edit: Of course, this is equally susceptible to DM fiat as well.
Ah, in that case it's probably going to be the main way you take damage in that fight (she is actually a really interesting battle - much better effort than any of 4es efforts at an epic threat). Dragons and things with big AoE like breath weapons are by far the most relevant threats at higher levels.
You subtract the spell level to your initiative. Weapons range from +2(light, finesse) to -2/-5 for a ranged heavies and loading weapon. +5 to -8 from tiny to Gargantuan creature size also.
One day for one person is 25gp. Rare is 50 000 and Legendary 500 000 gp. 55 years for a +3 weapon/armor if only one person is crafting it.
So it is a time and gold sink.
There are no guidelines for handing out treasure except the challenge value of the treasure tables.
Note that there are rules on how to sell magic items so they can't be that rare? It's a downtime activity that last a random number of days depending on item rarity and d100 roll table for how much the seller will screw you or overpay.
Also can't find how much gold a character lvl 2+ should start with.
That's because gold for higher level characters in 3.x and 4 was so you could buy magical items. Now most 2nd level characters will be sporting mostly mundane stuff, so give them level 1 starting wealth.
But shouldn't a level 4 character be able to afford full plate?
This confused me endlessly as well, but I allowed players about 1750 gold to start with when I ran at level 4.
However, I have no idea where this number came from or where it was derived from, I only took it from one of the other DMs at the Vault of the Dracolich thing I helped run. I suspect that it honestly doesn't matter whatsoever and that there is no such thing as expected treasure. Hence why I am trying to make the ship in my piracy game an interesting side mechanic that the players can invest gold into in various ways. Improving crew, improving the ships functions (elemental etc) and so on.
"Sir Brandon's Brillant Blade of Beholder Beheading was an ancient artifact lost to the ages due to stupid alliteration. Wars were fought for this sword, so stupid it's name, that heroes were made on that alone!"
"A blade that stupidly named, but still so highly valued must be the thing that changes the course of history! What boons does it bestow on it's wielder?"
"Indeed it is: It hits slightly more often and a wee bit harder then your own mass-produced sword!"
"What?"
"Yes! It is truly a thing of legend!"
"Seriously?"
"It's balance is so slightly better it sends shivers down my spine!"
"O_o"
"It's destructive power is a thing to see, dealing a wee bit more damage!"
"Screw this fantasy kitchen sink, I'm going to spaceworld and partaking of anti-gravity boots."
The sacred cow that is the +X weapon should've died a long time ago, about the time we realised 4th ed inherent bonuses started being a thing. But no: We need the +X sword for some reason.
Sigh. You'd think (Occasional) Fish Commanding would be reason enough carry the thing around.
Rerolling 1s and 2s adds +1 damage. When you reroll a number, it removes it from the PDF and re-balances the remaining numbers equally. So, if you reroll a 1, you redistribute the PDF across 2 through X (where X is the max), resulting in an average roll of (2+X)/2. Rerolling 1s and 2s is PDF from 3 to X, or an average of (3+X)/2.
d6 => 3.5 average (normal), 4.0 average (reroll 1s), 4.5 average (reroll 1s, 2s)
d8 => 4.5 average (normal), 5.0 average (reroll 1s), 5.5 average (reroll 1s, 2s)
etc.
Now, this assumes infinite rerolls. If it's only "reroll once," then the statistic is entirely different because after the first reroll you can still end up with a 1 or 2 on the die.
This is correct if you step the die size by the exact number and not what we normally consider die size.
I.e. d6 => d5 + 1 (reroll 1) => d4 + 2 (reroll 1 and 2)
Changing the actual size based on what we normally consider size would result in the same average value:
d8 (4.5 average) => d6 + 1 (4.5 average) => d4 + 2 (4.5 average)
I haven't really looked through the high level spell list, but I imagine like previous editions the wizard probably has some pretty good tricks that keep himself from getting destroyed quite so easily when he's got 9th level spell slots.
As for me being more survivable than the fighter, that's what he chose. He could also put on a shield if he wants, and if he wanted, he could've worn full plate like me. He chose to go with medium armor so he could benefit from a DEX mod, which makes him more survivable than me when making DEX saves, which my Paladin is abysmal at making.
There are choices to be made all around. And high level D&D is pretty much always broken, and I definitely don't disagree that's it'll be broken this time too. I just don't think it's because I'm going to have 26 AC.
I have 20 AC at level 4, and it'll probably stay there until who knows when, because I've no idea when I might even get my armor/shield to +1.
The enemies at that level all have like +15 to hit or better. My dude is going to have a 26 AC if he's wearing +3 full plate and a +3 shield. So i'm still not going to be that hard to hit, and it's also not like enemies at that level are only using physical attacks anyway, so saves are just as important. And from a player's perspective, the people throwing around 9th level spells are probably going to be the ones doing all the heavy lifting in those encounters anyway, because it's high level D&D and it's pretty much guaranteed to be that way.
For example, if the sword of ruin killed the Imperial Governor of a seaport, then that town’s walls might crumble. Its defenders might lose heart, its ships might sink or its fishing fleets might find the seas unaccountably empty. The precise manifestation of the sword’s curse varies, but it always brings ruin and destruction. Any domain, no matter how large or small, is vulnerable to ruin. If it killed a peasant, it blight only that peasant’s field and leave the rest of the farmland nearby untouched. If it killed the Emperor... well that would be one way to end the campaign.
The Sword of Ruin only works if it kills with a critical hit or coup de grace. Quirk: Hates to be given orders.