If +1 swords do not exist in your game world, Monsters will still use their GPs to buy magic weapons with sharpness or flaming. If you allow guns, then the Orc chief will have a shield with protection from missiles on it. It's expensive, so the rest of the Orcs will have little or no treasure.
Yes, if you're thinking rationally and you play your NPCs with all the opportunities that PCs get.
I am much lazier than that.
When the statblock in the AP says "+2 composite longbow", I take that to mean "this person is about the level where they get a +2 enhancement bonus from the auto-bonus rule." I use the attack stats as presented, even if they should only get +1, or if they have a +3 coming. I do not give the NPC anything to replace the value of the magic bow.
When the players loot that NPC, they find a composite longbow, nothing more.
The assumption here is that the AP material is a balanced challenge that I don't want to mess with. It's a strange set of priorities that would lead a GM to mess about with challenges in order to keep GP accounting in order; it should be the other way around.
This is going to rub a certain kind of GM the wrong way. If absolute fairness in statblocks and GP awards is a goal of yours, you may not like this kind of fuzziness. I salute your enthusiasm for the rules, but myself, I focus on getting the game run. Close enough is good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Been using this system in my Kingmaker AP with one slight alteration: +1 to ability mod ever even level, with an additional +1 every four levels that can't be put in the same ability. Thus, at 4th level, both points can't be put into Wisdom, for example.
We're still early (about 2k XP from 7th level), but the system is working well for us thus far. Players are enjoying it.
dot
Dotted and wondering if you have a link to a your house rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This mostly looks very good, but there are a few things.
Mainly, it feels "clumped together". Generally, the classes have been designed so that gaining levels should feel like pretty smooth increases in power; while not linear, the increase shouldn't "jump" at certain points.
I feel with this system it kinda does. This would be the advancedment chart, including all bonuses everyone gets:
2
3 +2 to physical score, +2 to mental score
4 +1 attacks, damage, F/R/W saves, armor bonus, shield bonus, +1 to any ability score
5
6 +2 to physical score, +2 to mental score
7
8 +1 attacks, damage, F/R/W saves, armor bonus, shield bonus, +1 to any ability score
9 +2 to physical score, +2 to mental score
10
11
12 +1 attacks, damage, F/R/W saves, armor bonus, shield bonus, +1 to any ability score, +2 to physical score, +2 to mental score
13
14
15 +2 to physical score, +2 to mental score
16 +1 attacks, damage, F/R/W saves, armor bonus, shield bonus, +1 to any ability score
17
18 +2 to physical score, +2 to mental score
19
20 +1 attacks, damage, F/R/W saves, armor bonus, shield bonus, +1 to any ability score
It feels like a very bumpy ride. Additonally, the ability score bonuses feel weird.
I'd rather do this:
Type................................Automatic Bonus
Attacks and Damage .........+1 enhancement bonus at levels 3/7/11/15/19
Saving Throws...................+1 enhancement bonus at levels 4/8/12/16/20
Armor...............................if equipped, +1 enhancement bonus at levels 2/6/10/14/18 (max +5)
Shield...............................if equipped, +1 enhancement bonus at levels 3/7/11/15/19
I feel this is a sensible order for them to gain bonuses, armor enchantments being cheaper than weapon so coming before, armor and shield enchantments matching in levels to let S&B/TWF/THF gain bonuses at the same time and saves being as you noted them. The bonuses will be slightly higher than you mentioned at any given point, but only slightly (at most +1 attack/damage and +1 armor/shield).
The new table for them would be:
1
2 +1 to armor bonus
3 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
4 +1 to F/R/W saves
5
6 +1 to armor bonus
7 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
8 +1 to F/R/W saves
9
10 +1 to armor bonus
11 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
12 +1 to F/R/W saves
13
14 +1 to armor bonus
15 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
16 +1 to F/R/W saves
17
18 +1 to armor bonus
19 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
20 +1 to F/R/W saves
Also, if you're using the CR system for NPC classed combatants, consider giving them lower bonus or no bonus at all to compensate for their lower wealth. Half bonus should roughly match their gold.
The ability score bonuses are harder to determine, and I'm thinking it might be better to incorporate those with the usual increases in some manner, though I'm unsure of exactly how. So, I don't think the ability score bonuses are really fine as they are (or well, it's not a bad system, but I think it can be improved a lot), but I don't really know what could be done about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, good morning!
That feedback is good, especially the bits about it being too lumpy at levels/4. I haven't found it to be too weird in my games, but my two campaigns are kind of weird cases.
I'd be really excited to see someone use Ilja's system and report results back here. I can't really change it up mid-game on my players (though I might ask).
I really like Ilja's table. Here it is pulled out from the spoiler tag, in plain view where it belongs:
1
2 +1 to armor bonus
3 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
4 +1 to F/R/W saves
5
6 +1 to armor bonus
7 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
8 +1 to F/R/W saves
9
10 +1 to armor bonus
11 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
12 +1 to F/R/W saves
13
14 +1 to armor bonus
15 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
16 +1 to F/R/W saves
17
18 +1 to armor bonus
19 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
20 +1 to F/R/W saves
Great work, guys. Love this forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dotted and wondering if you have a link to a your house rules?
Here are my house rules , which are codenamed "Tyrant". This is because many of them have been fashioned to address my friend Tyler's rants about D20. :)
Been using this system in my Kingmaker AP with one slight alteration: +1 to ability mod ever even level, with an additional +1 every four levels that can't be put in the same ability. Thus, at 4th level, both points can't be put into Wisdom, for example.
We're still early (about 2k XP from 7th level), but the system is working well for us thus far. Players are enjoying it.
Is that in addition to the RAW +1 / 4 levels? So
2nd - +1 to any ability
4th - +1 to any two different abilities
6th - +1 to any ability
8th - +1 to any two different abilities
etc?
I created a general feedback thread for my houserules, so we can keep this thread dedicated to automatic enhancement bonus talk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That feedback is good, especially the bits about it being too lumpy at levels/4. I haven't found it to be too weird in my games, but my two campaigns are kind of weird cases.
Thanks. I just realized a possible solution for ability scores too; since one of the issues is that they make the normal increases less meaningful and makes them seem "off", what if we combine them? By moving the save bonuses one level up, the standard ability score bonus level is made free. Now this is going a bit away from your system and probably isn't something you can incorporate, but I'll bold the issue I think you really should consider fixing in yours too.
Your bonus system adds up to +12 phys +12 mental +5 any (including the normal increase). This means for say a wizard +17 to Intelligence and +6/+6 to dex/con, and for say a fighter probably around +14 str +7 other phyiscal +12 wisdom or something like that.
If it's changed to be gained at level 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20, and increased to a +3 to a mental and +3 to a physical, the wizard will probably get +15 to Int, +9 dex, +6 con (or vice versa) so for the wizard it's not a big downgrade while the fighter will get +9 str, +3/+3 dex/con (starting out uneven) and +15 wisdom. For the fighter it's a big downgrade.
However, there is no real balance reason for the split between physical/mental; rather, the classes that are often seen as strongest at high levels (where it matters the most) have only one primary attribute and all other attributes are in the other group. They're not generally MAD and so do not suffer from being restricted in that way, while a class like Fighter and Monk suffers quite heavily from the restriction.
In addition, the +2/+2 system you use removes the cheaper lesser bonuses to more stats (a +6 belt costs 36k, a +2/+2/+2 belt costs 16k, but in your system they're treated as equally valuable, requiring 3 upgrades).
So, if we remove the primary/secondary split, we have "give +3 each to two different stats" and if we to that add this option: "or give +2 each to four different stats", then we aid the MAD characters a fair bit on the way without dumping on the SAD characters.
So when they reach 4th level, they can choose between getting +3 to one stat and +3 to another, and getting +2 each to four different chosen stats. No difference is made between physical and mental stats.
This is how the table would look:
1
2 +1 to armor bonus
3 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
4 +3 each to two stats or +2 each to four stats.
5 +1 to F/R/W saves
6 +1 to armor bonus
7 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
8 +3 each to two stats or +2 each to four stats.
9 +1 to F/R/W saves
10 +1 to armor bonus
11 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
12 +3 each to two stats or +2 each to four stats.
13 +1 to F/R/W saves
14 +1 to armor bonus
15 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
16 +3 each to two stats or +2 each to four stats.
17 +1 to F/R/W saves
18 +1 to armor bonus
19 +1 attacks, damage, shield bonus
20 +3 each to two stats or +2 each to four stats.
Also, of course, one would have to remove other kinds of enhancement bonuses to ability scores like Bull's Strength.
I'm blown away, that's a great suggestion.
As for Bull's Strength, I've been treating these all as enhancement bonuses that do not stack with spells. There's no need to eliminate them, because they serve the same role here as before — if someone hasn't invested in a +4 or more enhancement bonus to strength, they can benefit from the spell.
Is this progression roughly analogous to what characters actually get from stat-boosting items? Or is it too generous? I guess it depends on the kind of game you're running, but ideally it should track to what most people have at those levels.
Honestly, if I really wanted to do this I would make it a Downtime Activity and fluff it as "combat conditioning." I would make the cost equal to an item of its type and take 1 day per 1,000 gp required to train. I could even see that number halved to reflect how much it would cost a player to craft said item instead.
That said, I'm not a huge fan of giving out amazing benefits at no cost, which is why that would be my solution.
Been using this system in my Kingmaker AP with one slight alteration: +1 to ability mod ever even level, with an additional +1 every four levels that can't be put in the same ability. Thus, at 4th level, both points can't be put into Wisdom, for example.
We're still early (about 2k XP from 7th level), but the system is working well for us thus far. Players are enjoying it.
Is that in addition to the RAW +1 / 4 levels? So
2nd - +1 to any ability
4th - +1 to any two different abilities
6th - +1 to any ability
8th - +1 to any two different abilities
etc?
Yeah, that's how we're doing it. =)
Honestly, if I really wanted to do this I would make it a Downtime Activity and fluff it as "combat conditioning." I would make the cost equal to an item of its type and take 1 day per 1,000 gp required to train. I could even see that number halved to reflect how much it would cost a player to craft said item instead.
That said, I'm not a huge fan of giving out amazing benefits at no cost, which is why that would be my solution.
That's a fine idea for a stand-alone solution.
The trouble with a downtime system is that my two campaigns run on such vastly different time scales. And the power levels of the two campaigns are flipped from what I would need: the party with the most downtime (and control over time) is the party that should be less powerful. The campaign that's over-the-top super heroes is a race against time where the downtime rules couldn't help.
I somewhat arbitrarily decided to downgrade the amount of ability score enhancement.
I'm going with every 4 levels, +2 to two or +1 to four abilities.
Dotting so I can read it later.
I both like, and dislike this system. (Forgive me if these have been addressed before)
I like rewarding players with stuff. People go into dungeons to reap rewards. Some characters are into adventuring and dungeon crawling simply because of the money, or the gains so having a natural system has issues here. I like the idea of finding a weapon and seeing that they have some special properties. It's like opening a pack of magic cards and seeing what treasures are within. There is something cathartic about it...
But yes, I do like this system over what is currently in place.
My system operates completely on masterwork items. You have to make the item first, so a +5 weapon may only be 10,000 gold depending on the material you make it out of... but it also may be only 1,000 gold. For each +1 masterwork on the weapon, you get to add an enchantment to it. Some of the enchantments require +2 (as normal). The magic may cost, but once you find a weapon you really like that is mastercrafted to what you think suits you... you can enchant/disenchant that, or upgrade it without breaking the bank, which as you clearly know... changes the whole economy of the game. Plus it doesnt rely on wizards to be able to create magic items only.
My system still has the liquidation problem that you have made a complaint about, but it still does vastaly reduce the economy and the necessary money needed to deal with these items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I both like, and dislike this system. (Forgive me if these have been addressed before)
I like rewarding players with stuff. People go into dungeons to reap rewards. Some characters are into adventuring and dungeon crawling simply because of the money, or the gains so having a natural system has issues here. I like the idea of finding a weapon and seeing that they have some special properties. It's like opening a pack of magic cards and seeing what treasures are within. There is something cathartic about it...
Your system sounds interesting, theJayde, but to answer the point quoted above: I love giving out stuff too. I just want to give out cooler stuff, and not see it sold off to buy "must have" gear at the soonest opportunity.
Lament that the rules more or less encourage players to trade off quirky-but-circumstantial items for bland, utilitarian bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an excellent system I think I'll adopt this in my next game, as I've always been bothered by the "equipment making the man" issue.
I both like, and dislike this system. (Forgive me if these have been addressed before)
I like rewarding players with stuff. People go into dungeons to reap rewards. Some characters are into adventuring and dungeon crawling simply because of the money, or the gains so having a natural system has issues here. I like the idea of finding a weapon and seeing that they have some special properties. It's like opening a pack of magic cards and seeing what treasures are within. There is something cathartic about it...
Your system sounds interesting, theJayde, but to answer the point quoted above: I love giving out stuff too. I just want to give out cooler stuff, and not see it sold off to buy "must have" gear at the soonest opportunity.
Lament that the rules more or less encourage players to trade off quirky-but-circumstantial items for bland, utilitarian bonuses.
If you'd like, I can send you the full system. Its the rough draft and I need to do more work on it as a whole, but the system is actually designed for quirky awesome differences. It's really hard to explain without looking at the system... but yeah you build each weapon from the floor up, adding certain customizations to help make each weapon unique, and thats before weapon enchants.
That's a fine idea for a stand-alone solution.
The trouble with a downtime system is that my two campaigns run on such vastly different time scales. And the power levels of the two campaigns are flipped from what I would need: the party with the most downtime (and control over time) is the party that should be less powerful. The campaign that's over-the-top super heroes is a race against time where the downtime rules couldn't help.
That makes sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A dagger of venom that creates holy water or Feathered Serpent venom would be a keeper in my book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been wanting to try something like this out but I'm also worried about WBL.
So I threw this together:
(Sorry for the formatting, the forums really didn't care about my table)
Level
2 Armor acumen 1
3 Saving grace 1
4 Prowess 1
5 +2 to primary ability
6 Armor acumen 2
7 Saving grace 2
8 Deflect attacks 1
9 +2 to two secondary abilities (one mental, one physical), Armor acumen 3
10 Saving grace 3
11 Prowess 2
12 +2 to any ability, Deflect attacks 2
13 +2 to any other ability or +1 to four abilities (2 stages), Armor acumen 4
14 Saving grace 4, Prowess 3
15 +2 to any ability or +1 to all abilities (3 stages), Deflect attacks 3, Armor acumen 5
16 +2 to any other ability, Armor acumen 6
17 +2 to a third ability, Prowess 4
18 Saving grace 5, Deflect attacks 4 Armor acumen 8
19 +2 to any ability or +1 to all abilities (2 stages),Prowess 5
20 +2 to two other abilities, Deflect attacks 5 Armor acumen 10
Check out the image for a clearer view of the tables
Screen
Armor Acumen (Ex): You get a +1 Armor bonus to Armor class (max +5), it stacks with regular armor but not Mages armor and similar magic. Even if you aren’t wearing any armor, you still get this bonus. If you are wielding a shield you get half this bonus (rounded down) to your shield bonus as well.
Saving Grace (Ex): You gain a +1 bonus to all your saves at each of these levels.
Prowess (Ex): At each stage, choose either Martial or Magical Prowess. Each step of Martial Prowess gives you a +1 on attacks and damage made with all weapons (including unarmed damage), however, these attacks aren’t considered magical unless you use a Masterwork weapon or a weapon with a magical effect on them.
Magical Prowess gives you access to metamagical feats a certain number of times per day. Each step is equal in value to a magical weapon of the same bonus (2’000/8’000/18’000/32’000/50’000), next look at metamagic rods and divide their price with the number of uses per day and “buy” your daily uses.
Example: A Lesser rod of extend costs 3000 gp and can be used three times per day giving each “charge” a price of 1’000 gp. So at Magical Prowess 1 you could “buy” two uses of extend (max spell level 3) per day. At each new level of Magical Prowess you can recalculate all investments.
Ability bonuses (Ex): At indicated levels you get a +2 bonus to Abilities of your choice as indicated in the table. You can’t stack bonuses on the same ability unless it says ANY ability. At some levels you can instead gain +1 to several abilities, and sometimes they are divided in stages. This means that you gain half of them at one level and the other half at the next level.
Deflect attacks (Ex): You gain a +1 Deflection bonus at indicated levels.
All of these bonuses are Extraordinary effects which means they can’t be dispelled, they represent experience and hard training rather than magic.
It breaks down like this:
Again sorry for the formatting (also included in the image).
Level - Item Equivalent - Cost of items - Total WBL (RAW)
2 - Armor +1 (or Bracers of armor +1) - 1,000 - 1,000 - 1,000 gp
3 - Cloak of Resistance +1 - 1,000 - 2,000 - 3,000 gp
4 - Weapon +1 - 2,000 - 4,000 - 6,000 gp
5 - Belt of Dex +2 4,000 - 8,000 - 10,500 gp
6 - Armor +2, Shield +1 - +3,000+1,000 - 12,000 - 16,000 gp
7 - CoR +2 - +3,000 - 15,000 - 23,500 gp
8 - Ring of Protection +1 - 2,000- 17,000 - 33,000 gp
9 - Belt of Physical Might +2 (sell prev belt), Headb of cha +2, Armor +3 - (-4,000)10,000+4,000+5,000 - 32,000 - 46,000 gp
10 - CoR +3 - +5,000 - 37,000 - 62,000 gp
11 - Weapon +2 - +6,000 - 43,000 - 82,000 gp
12 - Belt of dex+4, Ioun stone of Str+2 (sell Prev belt), RoP +2 - (-10,000)+12,000+8,000+6,000 - 59,000 - 108,000 gp
13 - Headband of Cha +4, Armor +4, Shield +2 - 12,000+7,000+3,000 - 81,000 - 140,000 gp
14 - CoR +4, Weapon +3 - +7,000+10,000 - 98,000 - 185,000 gp
15 - Belt of Dex +6, Armor +5 - +20,000+9,000 - 127,000 - 240,000 gp
16 - Headband of Cha +6, Shield +3 - +20,000+5,000 - 152,000 - 315,000 gp
17 - Ioun stone of Str +4, Weapon +4 - +24,000+14,000 - 190,000 - 410,000 gp
18 - CoR +5, RoP +4, Shield +4 - +9,000+14,000+7,000 - 220,000 - 530,000 gp
19 - Book of Dex +2, Weapon +5 - 55,000+18,000 293,000 - 685,000 gp
20 - Book of cha +2, Belt of PM +6 (sell prev Ioun stone &belt). - (-36,000-36,000)55,000+50,000 - 326,000 - 880,000 gp
As you can see, it's not nearly as neat or symetrical as previous systems. But it never goes over reccomended WBL and even has room for consumable and other magic items.
I've used the most expensive option boosting the same ability whenever possible giving a +8 bonus, a +6 bonus to the same group (physical/mental) and +6 to the other group.
There could possibly be room at later levels to give out more ability boost since the further along, the further behind this gets behind WBL.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have incorporated Mathius' idea into my version of this variant. I swapped the levels for save bonus and ability scores, and lowered the amount of bonuses to ability scores
.
.
.
.
The resulting algorithm is actually fairly memorable:
Armor: +1 at 2nd level and every 4 levels beyond 2nd.
Weapon: +1 at 3rd level and every 4 levels beyond 3rd.
Shield (if worn): +1 at 3rd level and every 4 levels beyond 3rd.
Saves: +1 at 4th level and every 4 levels beyond 4th.
Abilities: Pick either two or four abilities to enhance.
Two Abilities: At 5th level, and every five levels thereafter, the enhancement bonus increases by +2 to a maxiumum of +6 at 15th level.
Four Abilities: At 5th level and every four levels thereafter, the enhancement bonus increases by +1 to a maximum of +4 at 17th level.
I have created a googledoc specifically to display this information:
There are a few different tables there that all display the same information. Which is best?
Also, this is starting to feel finished to me, so if there aren't any more suggestions in the next day or two I might start a new thread that's a little more friendly for newcomers.
I think we have the ability bonuses at the right levels now, but I still think the actual bonuses need work.
Right now they're not very easy to remember, and they're not very accurate. I would prefer if they were both.
Algorithmic Method, but then I was an engineer by schooling / trade so that works for me.
-- david
Algorithmic Method, but then I was an engineer by schooling / trade so that works for me.
-- david
Takes less room, easier to memorize.
But for some reason it seems more official done up as a table.
I just discovered something that will help me with this rule a lot.
If you include a line in the statblock called "Enhancements" and you list the enhancements in the order that they reach +1, you'll never have to look up the table. It will always be obvious which one is due for an upgrade.
For example, let's say I have a character at 6th level. She has:
At 7th:Str 10, Dex 18, Con 13, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 16; BAB +4
Feats spellsong, harmonic spell, agile maneuvers, medium armor proficiency; Bonus Feats Dervish Dance
Enhancement +2 armor, +1 weapon, +1 saves, +1 dex, +1 con, +1 wis, +1 cha
Skills Acrobatics +10, etc...
Enhancement +2 armor, +2 weapon, +1 saves, +1 dex, +1 con, +1 wis, +1 chaAt 8th:
Enhancement +2 armor, +2 weapon, +2 saves, +1 dex, +1 con, +1 wis, +1 chaAt 9th:
Enhancement +2 armor, +2 weapon, +2 saves, +2 dex, +2 con, +2 wis, +2 chaAt 10th:
Enhancement +3 armor, +2 weapon, +2 saves, +2 dex, +2 con, +2 wis, +2 cha
See the pattern?
This means that as long as you can remember the order (armor, weapon, saves, four ability scores) you never have to look up the bonuses!
|
I wonder how these rules would apply to the forthcoming Mythic Adventures. I have a Wrath of the Righteous game coming up and really want to incorporate something like this. I dislike the Christmas Tree effect and enjoy the idea of more magical magic items. I couldn't think of a good way to houserule the effect away but this seems to do it nicely.
My other game is a Rise of the Runelords/Shattered Star mashup that is a little ways from getting underway. This game, like Wrath of the Righteous will go all the way to level 20, though will not include mythic tiers, so I am curious if these rules remain solid through all levels of play.
I wonder how these rules would apply to the forthcoming Mythic Adventures. I have a Wrath of the Righteous game coming up and really want to incorporate something like this. I dislike the Christmas Tree effect and enjoy the idea of more magical magic items. I couldn't think of a good way to houserule the effect away but this seems to do it nicely.
My other game is a Rise of the Runelords/Shattered Star mashup that is a little ways from getting underway. This game, like Wrath of the Righteous will go all the way to level 20, though will not include mythic tiers, so I am curious if these rules remain solid through all levels of play.
My Legacy of Fire campaign will be dipping a toe into mythic at some point, and that's the only campaign where I'm testing Enhancement by Level. So I'll definitely let you know if something (good or bad) comes up.
At the outset, it seems like it should be fine. Right now I have statblocks that say things like:
"Melee frost scimitar +x (1d6+x, 18–20/x2)"
instead of
"Melee +2 frost scimitar +x (1d6+x, 18–20/x2)" .
I added mythic to that statblock and nothing really controversial happened.
If the rule is working as intended, it should be basically the same as the RAW, just with no enhancement bonuses coming from gear. They're all a factor of the character's level.
I think a way to blend these ideas with another change is to:
Grant a +1 stat mod every even-numbered level, which meshes well with the feats every odd level. Feat, stat, feat, stat feat, etc.
Alternatively, you could grant feats *every* level and make a stat mod feat that can be taken only at even levels. That way people COULD focus on upping their stats, but people who want to load up on actual feats could do that instead.
I did this for my Age of Worms game, and it worked pretty well.
I'm working on a ritual where you sacrifice an item that only gives a bonus. The bonus would then apply to the recipient or any weapon they use. A monk could sacrifice a +1 longsword and give their hands and feet +1 to hit and damage.
Evil Lincoln, how would you adjust the WBL for someone using your system for a homemade adventure? I assume that with an AP you just throw out
the Big Six treasures, let them have the rest and assume it works out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil Lincoln, how would you adjust the WBL for someone using your system for a homemade adventure? I assume that with an AP you just throw out
the Big Six treasures, let them have the rest and assume it works out.
There are two obvious approaches:
#Blorch) Add up the value of the enhancement bonuses for that level, and subtract that from the total WBL. This is very precise and will appeal to many number-crunchers. It is also (IMO) silly and a lot of work for little gain. I would, however, still welcome the effort of anyone who made a new WBL table for use with my variant.
#Sweem) Use the WBL as is. The logic here is that without any items tipping the offensive/defensive balance of the game, and with the ability boosters locked away, there's not really a lot you can do with the extra gold that's going to matter to encounter balance/CR.
Personally, I aim to be over WBL anyway. It's a guideline, and I have found it is better to be over than under. So for me the choice is obvious: #sweem. But if #blorch is your cup of tea, more power to you. I'd love to see the revised WBL table. It would certainly make it *feel* like this rule was very carefully balanced and researched. :)
I'm currently using these rules for my Kingmaker AP (I noted this above, I believe). There are a couple things I've recognized while going through this that one must be aware of.
First, there are some magic properties that require an enhancement bonus for them to work. An example of this would be the property defending. Without the enhancement bonus, there simply isn't any way to determine its capability. My initial reaction to this was to allot such a property a bonus equal to the enhancement necessary to put it into effect. In this case, defending would have a +1 bonus for allotment because that's the requirement for the property. I would then allow for the player to pay to increase that enhancement if desired for the weapon. This seemed the most logical way to tackle this problem, other than simply not allowing such properties to be taken, which I thought kind of a sad thing.
Second, with the introduction of Ultimate Equipment, there are now a ton of magic items out there that do small ability enhancement coinciding with other powers inherent in the item (I'm sure many of these already existed in other sources that I just never had access to). Something like the belt Anaconda's Coils, which offer bonuses to grappling and offer a constrict ability when grappling, but also grant a +2 bonus to Strength. I'm still a little uncertain as to the best way to handle this, as granting that additional +2 Strength bonus flies in the face of the natural ability enhancement through progression, yet the item is not really about that bonus. Should I just eliminate the ability enhancement from said items at a specific cost reduction and let all else go? Curious at what others might think about this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Second, with the introduction of Ultimate Equipment, there are now a ton of magic items out there that do small ability enhancement coinciding with other powers inherent in the item (I'm sure many of these already existed in other sources that I just never had access to). Something like the belt Anaconda's Coils, which offer bonuses to grappling and offer a constrict ability when grappling, but also grant a +2 bonus to Strength. I'm still a little uncertain as to the best way to handle this, as granting that additional +2 Strength bonus flies in the face of the natural ability enhancement through progression, yet the item is not really about that bonus. Should I just eliminate the ability enhancement from said items at a specific cost reduction and let all else go? Curious at what others might think about this.
I'm using a system similar to this and we just treat the inherent enhancements as just that - enhancement bonuses, and thus they don't stack with bonuses of the same type given from items such as this. So a character that has an inherent +2 STR and then equips this belt simply gains no benefit from that portion of the belt's enhancements, because the effects don't stack.
It's worked well for us so far.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm using a system similar to this and we just treat the inherent enhancements as just that - enhancement bonuses, and thus they don't stack with bonuses of the same type given from items such as this. So a character that has an inherent +2 STR and then equips this belt simply gains no benefit from that portion of the belt's enhancements, because the effects don't stack.
It's worked well for us so far.
I've thought about this also... I like the implications that a +3 sword makes you strike like a person with a +3 enhancement bonus.
I'm not sure I would use it, but there's something neat there for sure.
The important thing is getting the actual bonuses right, then individual GMs can vary from there. How are people feeling about the most recent table?
First, there are some magic properties that require an enhancement bonus for them to work. An example of this would be the property defending. Without the enhancement bonus, there simply isn't any way to determine its capability. My initial reaction to this was to allot such a property a bonus equal to the enhancement necessary to put it into effect. In this case, defending would have a +1 bonus for allotment because that's the requirement for the property. I would then allow for the player to pay to increase that enhancement if desired for the weapon. This seemed the most logical way to tackle this problem, other than simply not allowing such properties to be taken, which I thought kind of a sad thing.
How about defining an "equivalent enhancement" equal to, say, one-fourth the wielder's level rounded up? This would set the effects of defending and its kin, but would not actually do anything itself.
That is, a level 6 character wielding a defending sword would get no bonuses on attack or damage rolls but would get a +2 bonus to his AC.
I thought the item was treated as having the enhancement bonus of it's owner. Thus your defending weapon would become more powerful as the owner gained levels. Your snake belt could grant a +5 to escape artist as the wearer could slither out of someone's clutches. :)
I thought the item was treated as having the enhancement bonus of it's owner. Thus your defending weapon would become more powerful as the owner gained levels. Your snake belt could grant a +5 to escape artist as the wearer could slither out of someone's clutches. :)
That would be my first impulse.