I tend to have my Ring of Protection function as my Ring of Sustenance as well.
I tend to have my Ring of Protection function as my Ring of Sustenance as well.
I do stuff like that too. I like combined items, even if they are more expensive.
I am going to end up with them both at some point. For 3750 I can add the Ring Of Sustenance Effect to my Ring of Protection. Then just scale it up from there.
& since my group always tend to get plenty of Downtime & has access to a crafting caster... So yeah we usually get things cheaply.
Really they aren't that necessary... Well unless you absolutely want to tank.
you may find generic +X weapons boring, but that doesnt mean that they are
why was excalibur special? (aside from the sheath which is a completely different magic item discussion all together) it was just more powerful than other swords, it didnt light things on fire, it wasnt exceptionally powerful against one type of foe, it was just better than regular swords were and that made it special
having a +5 sword means you gain an extra +5 to hit, and that means an extra 25% on the d20 that you jump up, and an extra +5 damage to every hit
EVERY hit, thats not nothing boys, it adds up, and quick.
saying that its 'math filler' is asinine and you are taking away the specialness of the magic weapons because you think that weapons need to be ubermagical and have godly world warping abilities
just forget that the most useful magic items in fantasy lore were just special swords and armor that were just better than regular weapons and armor
look at Andúril from LOTR, what did it do besides kick ass?
in fact, you're probly power gaming so much that you forget how much of a difference a +5 sword can make, if it really is so inconsequential to have that bump, then give it to a lvl 1 character and see the difference. Power gaming without actually experiencing or play testing the game mechanics is more than likely exactly what spawned all of these 'anti magic item' threads in the first place
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always feel in the minority on these forums because I actually like the numerical bonuses on magic items and don't really want to see them gone.
|
you may find generic +X weapons boring, but that doesnt mean that they are
why was excalibur special? (aside from the sheath which is a completely different magic item discussion all together) it was just more powerful than other swords, it didnt light things on fire, it wasnt exceptionally powerful against one type of foe, it was just better than regular swords were and that made it special
having a +5 sword means you gain an extra +5 to hit, and that means an extra 25% on the d20 that you jump up, and an extra +5 damage to every hit
EVERY hit, thats not nothing boys, it adds up, and quick.saying that its 'math filler' is asinine and you are taking away the specialness of the magic weapons because you think that weapons need to be ubermagical and have godly world warping abilities
just forget that the most useful magic items in fantasy lore were just special swords and armor that were just better than regular weapons and armor
look at Andúril from LOTR, what did it do besides kick ass?in fact, you're probly power gaming so much that you forget how much of a difference a +5 sword can make, if it really is so inconsequential to have that bump, then give it to a lvl 1 character and see the difference. Power gaming without actually experiencing or play testing the game mechanics is more than likely exactly what spawned all of these 'anti magic item' threads in the first place
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.
Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.
Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
Use that silence ability around the party spellcasters a few times. Then you will get a lot of rolling eyes and "really man, again? You know we all hate that crap, stop it."
you may find generic +X weapons boring, but that doesnt mean that they are
why was excalibur special? (aside from the sheath which is a completely different magic item discussion all together) it was just more powerful than other swords, it didnt light things on fire, it wasnt exceptionally powerful against one type of foe, it was just better than regular swords were and that made it special
having a +5 sword means you gain an extra +5 to hit, and that means an extra 25% on the d20 that you jump up, and an extra +5 damage to every hit
EVERY hit, thats not nothing boys, it adds up, and quick.saying that its 'math filler' is asinine and you are taking away the specialness of the magic weapons because you think that weapons need to be ubermagical and have godly world warping abilities
just forget that the most useful magic items in fantasy lore were just special swords and armor that were just better than regular weapons and armor
look at Andúril from LOTR, what did it do besides kick ass?in fact, you're probly power gaming so much that you forget how much of a difference a +5 sword can make, if it really is so inconsequential to have that bump, then give it to a lvl 1 character and see the difference. Power gaming without actually experiencing or play testing the game mechanics is more than likely exactly what spawned all of these 'anti magic item' threads in the first place
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.
Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
Some of us don't find +5 swords boring though and would like Pathfinder to keep that. It's why I like that Pathfinder has these options, so for those that like it can use it and for those that don't, they can remove it. It's always easier to remove than create.
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
These are orthogonal concepts shallowsoul, as 4e demonstrates. 4e bakes the numerical bonus into their magic items and then virtually every magic item has the "dispel magic" type of ability overlaid on top of the numerical bonus so you get both.
4e also does away with the numerical bonuses using a "low magic" option where you just bake the numerical bonus into the level progression, which achieves the same thing but does away with having to keep upgrading your sword all the time.
I sort of like the 4e way actually, I think it's an improvment on the 3.5/PF magic item system, but the problem with 4e is that the magic item system was grafted onto a system that already existed and it breaks the system due to synergies they did not expect. Plus it means keeping track of ten or a hundred times as many individual "approved" magic items. The magic item section alone in the character builder will keep you busy for an entire evening of character construction.
But it does what you suggest and does it well.
Anduril's glow supposedly caused it heat up or cool down (IIRC: The Fire of the Sun and The Fire of the Moon respectively).
So it would be something like a +5 Flaming Frost Bastard Sword. The Flaming and Frost would be determined by the time of day.
And what they are saying is more of Anti Magic Shop. Not Anti Magic Item. They are saying that Magic Items that are considered standard in the main assumptions should instead be built into the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you may find generic +X weapons boring, but that doesnt mean that they are
why was excalibur special? (aside from the sheath which is a completely different magic item discussion all together) it was just more powerful than other swords, it didnt light things on fire, it wasnt exceptionally powerful against one type of foe, it was just better than regular swords were and that made it special
having a +5 sword means you gain an extra +5 to hit, and that means an extra 25% on the d20 that you jump up, and an extra +5 damage to every hit
EVERY hit, thats not nothing boys, it adds up, and quick.saying that its 'math filler' is asinine and you are taking away the specialness of the magic weapons because you think that weapons need to be ubermagical and have godly world warping abilities
just forget that the most useful magic items in fantasy lore were just special swords and armor that were just better than regular weapons and armor
look at Andúril from LOTR, what did it do besides kick ass?in fact, you're probly power gaming so much that you forget how much of a difference a +5 sword can make, if it really is so inconsequential to have that bump, then give it to a lvl 1 character and see the difference. Power gaming without actually experiencing or play testing the game mechanics is more than likely exactly what spawned all of these 'anti magic item' threads in the first place
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.
Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
you are unpleasable
anything you do is going to be more mathmageslayer sword is just a +2 sword against mages
its still math filler
you, by saying that you dont like being all about math, and that you dont like certain things, take a liking to things that are just as bad but in a different way
you want your magical items to be game breaking, overly useful, and 'special'
you complain about WBL being too high and players getting too many nice things
then you say that nothing they get is special and its all math filler
if its all just math filler and higher numbers, then why pray tell, does letting them have it bother you so much?
it seems like you just want to take away the number bonuses from all magic items in the game, lower everyones HP and AC, and then just include magical abilities
if thats your flavor, then fine, but i like having a safe window where i can guarantee that im gonna hit my opponent with a sword, take this to homebrew or play something else, the core game doesnt need to be changed to accommodate what you want. All you seem to want is a developer to tell you 'you're right, here's a new book with variant rules' go make your own dude
Anduril's glow supposedly caused it heat up or cool down (IIRC: The Fire of the Sun and The Fire of the Moon respectively).
So it would be something like a +5 Flaming Frost Bastard Sword. The Flaming and Frost would be determined by the time of day.
And what they are saying is more of Anti Magic Shop. Not Anti Magic Item. They are saying that Magic Items that are considered standard in the main assumptions should instead be built into the game.
I don't know, I feel that it really wouldn't make sense to not have an item that makes you stronger or smarter, since that's a fairly standard trope in fantasy. Then again, I personally don't have an issue with magic shops since myself and my players prefer crafting items. That and I don't limit magic items to shops. Maybe there's a collector of esoteric items that has the item you need, or a curator with old relics and such.
I think they mean something that messes with Spellcasting. Like the 3.5 Silencing Enchantment.
It made it to where the Caster couldn't cast Verbal Components. Another made it to where you had to pass a high Concentration Check for any spell.
For me it is more of the annoyingly Asinine assumption of because it is in the Book it should be easily obtainable for a PC.
** spoiler omitted **Anduril's glow supposedly caused it heat up or cool down (IIRC: The Fire of the Sun and The Fire of the Moon respectively).
So it would be something like a +5 Flaming Frost Bastard Sword. The Flaming and Frost would be determined by the time of day.
In one of the Unfinished Story (IIARC) it refers to the blade Glowing Red, radiating heat, and burning those whom it cuts down during the Day and it glowing Blue, radiating cold, and freezing those whom it cuts down during the night. Though it is suspected that this was do to it being wielded by Aragorn's Grandson/Great Grandson and that the powers change slightly depending on the Wielder.
And master_marshmallow the original thread that was made for this wasn't even by SS and was about how Players always seemed to assume that just because it was in the book it should be readily available to them via a shop or something.
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.
Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
That sword is too Metagamy for me. What defines a "mage?" The ability to cast Arcane spells? That includes Bards, Summoners, Witches, and Magus. How about a Rogue with the Minor and Major Magic Rogue Tricks, do they count? Or is a "Mage" any one that can cast spells, which adds Rangers, Paladins, Clerics, etc.
|
|
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
These are orthogonal concepts shallowsoul, as 4e demonstrates. 4e bakes the numerical bonus into their magic items and then virtually every magic item has the "dispel magic" type of ability overlaid on top of the numerical bonus so you get both.
4e also does away with the numerical bonuses using a "low magic" option where you just bake the numerical bonus into the level progression, which achieves the same thing but does away with having to keep upgrading your sword all the time.
I sort of like the 4e way actually, I think it's an improvment on the 3.5/PF magic item system, but the problem with 4e is that the magic item system was grafted onto a system that already existed and it breaks the system due to synergies they did not expect. Plus it means keeping track of ten or a hundred times as many individual "approved" magic items. The magic item section alone in the character builder will keep you busy for an entire evening of character construction.
But it does what you suggest and does it well.
Actually that was more 2nd edition. 4th editions's magic items essentially gave you a once per day or once per encounter power to go with the rest of the many similar powers you already had.
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.
Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
That sword is too Metagamy for me. What defines a "mage?" The ability to cast Arcane spells? That includes Bards, Summoners, Witches, and Magus. How about a Rogue with the Minor and Major Magic Rogue Tricks, do they count? Or is a "Mage" any one that can cast spells, which adds Rangers, Paladins, Clerics, etc.
No more metagamey than bane.
|
|
Use that silence ability around the party spellcasters a few times. Then you will get a lot of rolling eyes and "really man, again? You know we all hate that crap, stop it."Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.
Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
Few things.
1: Be a smart player.
2: Spellcasters keep away from the fighter when he engages specific enemies.
3: Enact some teamwork and actually work with the fighter by taking Silent Spell or something to work along side him while fighting spellcasters.
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.
Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
That sword is too Metagamy for me. What defines a "mage?" The ability to cast Arcane spells? That includes Bards, Summoners, Witches, and Magus. How about a Rogue with the Minor and Major Magic Rogue Tricks, do they count? Or is a "Mage" any one that can cast spells, which adds Rangers, Paladins, Clerics, etc.
Yes, any arcane caster (not Divine) is a mage.
Complete Arcane defined it in 3.5 with their Magebane propery (+1 bonus): Against creature with prepared or spell slots available to cast arcane spells without preparation, or creatures with Arcane spell-like abilities, Enhancement bonus is +2 higher and extra +2d6 damage.So any arcane no divine. Pit Fiends have Fireball? They are affected.
|
|
Actually that was more 2nd edition. 4th editions's magic items essentially gave you a once per day or once per encounter power to go with the rest of the many similar powers you already had.
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
These are orthogonal concepts shallowsoul, as 4e demonstrates. 4e bakes the numerical bonus into their magic items and then virtually every magic item has the "dispel magic" type of ability overlaid on top of the numerical bonus so you get both.
4e also does away with the numerical bonuses using a "low magic" option where you just bake the numerical bonus into the level progression, which achieves the same thing but does away with having to keep upgrading your sword all the time.
I sort of like the 4e way actually, I think it's an improvment on the 3.5/PF magic item system, but the problem with 4e is that the magic item system was grafted onto a system that already existed and it breaks the system due to synergies they did not expect. Plus it means keeping track of ten or a hundred times as many individual "approved" magic items. The magic item section alone in the character builder will keep you busy for an entire evening of character construction.
But it does what you suggest and does it well.
I'm not sure what you mean. 2E was full of just +x items. There were also special items with plusses and more powers and there wasn't really a system where each ability was equal to so many plusses, special abilities only came as predefined special weapons. At least in Core. I didn't follow all the splat books.
4E's magic item system specifically tried to address the question of boring Big Six...
2nd edition was more the beginning of + X along with all sorts of other abilities that were usually usable 1 to 3/day. Flip through the various Magic Item Compendiums from 2nd edition.
Ok what exactly are the Big Six? just the Attribute increasing Items or an actually list of different effects with Stat boosts being one of them?
Ok what exactly are the Big Six? just the Attribute increasing Items or an actually list of different effects with Stat boosts being one of them?
Belts of +X
Headbands of +XCloak of Resistance +X
Amulet of Natural Armor +X
Ring of Protection +X
...and I always forget the last one...
Also for martials, Weapons and Armor of +X
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.
Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
That sword is too Metagamy for me. What defines a "mage?" The ability to cast Arcane spells? That includes Bards, Summoners, Witches, and Magus. How about a Rogue with the Minor and Major Magic Rogue Tricks, do they count? Or is a "Mage" any one that can cast spells, which adds Rangers, Paladins, Clerics, etc.
Yes, any arcane caster (not Divine) is a mage.
Complete Arcane defined it in 3.5 with their Magebane propery (+1 bonus): Against creature with prepared or spell slots available to cast arcane spells without preparation, or creatures with Arcane spell-like abilities, Enhancement bonus is +2 higher and extra +2d6 damage.So any arcane no divine. Pit Fiends have Fireball? They are affected.
How about my Fire Domain Cleric, he can cast Fireball? A Rogue has the Minor and Major Magic Rogue Trick, is he a mage?
|
why was excalibur special? (aside from the sheath which is a completely different magic item discussion all together) it was just more powerful than other swords, it didnt light things on fire, it wasnt exceptionally powerful against one type of foe, it was just better than regular swords were and that made it special
I guess that's a great point, but it is also the reason some of us view +x weapons boring.
Magic items don't need to be exceptional to be special. Excalibur has a name and a legend attached to it and, as you put it, was just better than regular swords were. In other words, it was a unique weapon, even if, in game terms, it may not have been more than a masterwork weapon.
Now the +X weapon of today's D&D/PF is neither unique nor has it a legend or at least a name attached to it. In this respect, it doesn't really feel more special, than say, said masterwork weapon. I don't say that it is a fault per se, especially in a generic rule system where the designers cannot make any assumptions about your game world. But when I think back at the old Bazaar of the Bizarre entries (especially those written by Ed Grenwood) I don't remember the powers of the suggested items. What I do remember is their names and the stories delivered with them. And that's something I really miss in more modern products (including PF).
Which is why I try to add such stories to the items the PCs can find in a magic item shop even if it's just a lousy +1 dagger. Because even if there are a thousand daggers +1, there may only be one Chopper's Carving Knife.
i always felt that the stories of my characters are the legends behind the weapons being used in game
those weapons had to come from somewhere, and they have to get a story some time
high magic worlds can have a lot of magic weapons all with stories behind them
perhaps the crafting of the weapons is a little less epic than you want i.e. magic shop
but the mechanics of the game dont force you to have that, and creating an entire thread dedicated to taking apart a game where you are just assuming that something will happen, rather than showing us examples from play testing is the main reason why theres so much heat in the thread, at least from me
and if you feel a +X sword isnt special, thats on you
if you dont like the numbers game, well, im not gonna ask why you are playing dnd or pathfinder, but i am gonna say that flavor is how you perceive it, and i can see mighty +5 swords being very flavorful with the right amount of story going on
its very obvious (to me at least) that OP is a power gamer, and that he presumes everyone else is too, and tbh im not really sure what his thesis is for this thread, i would really like to hear what his actual desires are, this is his thread after all, what does he even want?
|
|
Actually that was more 2nd edition. 4th editions's magic items essentially gave you a once per day or once per encounter power to go with the rest of the many similar powers you already had.
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
These are orthogonal concepts shallowsoul, as 4e demonstrates. 4e bakes the numerical bonus into their magic items and then virtually every magic item has the "dispel magic" type of ability overlaid on top of the numerical bonus so you get both.
4e also does away with the numerical bonuses using a "low magic" option where you just bake the numerical bonus into the level progression, which achieves the same thing but does away with having to keep upgrading your sword all the time.
I sort of like the 4e way actually, I think it's an improvment on the 3.5/PF magic item system, but the problem with 4e is that the magic item system was grafted onto a system that already existed and it breaks the system due to synergies they did not expect. Plus it means keeping track of ten or a hundred times as many individual "approved" magic items. The magic item section alone in the character builder will keep you busy for an entire evening of character construction.
But it does what you suggest and does it well.
Your counter about 2nd edition to AD is actually...well completely incorrect...just for the folks at home trying to make sense of your counter to AD's statement. It is entertaining though to watch though!
AD is correct. Items typically give bonuses &/or Powers, but they also have an option for having the numerical bonuses added in to the Level Progression.
|
|
Your counter about 2nd edition to AD is actually...well completely incorrect...just for the folks at home trying to make sense of your counter to AD's statement. It is entertaining though to watch though!Actually that was more 2nd edition. 4th editions's magic items essentially gave you a once per day or once per encounter power to go with the rest of the many similar powers you already had.
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
These are orthogonal concepts shallowsoul, as 4e demonstrates. 4e bakes the numerical bonus into their magic items and then virtually every magic item has the "dispel magic" type of ability overlaid on top of the numerical bonus so you get both.
4e also does away with the numerical bonuses using a "low magic" option where you just bake the numerical bonus into the level progression, which achieves the same thing but does away with having to keep upgrading your sword all the time.
I sort of like the 4e way actually, I think it's an improvment on the 3.5/PF magic item system, but the problem with 4e is that the magic item system was grafted onto a system that already existed and it breaks the system due to synergies they did not expect. Plus it means keeping track of ten or a hundred times as many individual "approved" magic items. The magic item section alone in the character builder will keep you busy for an entire evening of character construction.
But it does what you suggest and does it well.
Actually it's not incorrect.
Go read up on 2nd edition and get back with us.
Example of a 4th edition item.
Curseforged Armor Level 3+
In ancient days, the tieflings poured their bitterness into their
forges as a lesson to those who would betray them.
Lvl 3 +1 680 gp Lvl 18 +4 85,000 gp
Lvl 8 +2 3,400 gp Lvl 23 +5 425,000 gp
Lvl 13 +3 17,000 gp Lvl 28 +6 2,125,000 gp
Armor: Chain, Scale
Enhancement: AC
Power (Daily): Immediate Reaction. You can use this power
when an enemy hits you with an attack. That enemy takes
a –2 penalty to attack rolls (save ends). When the enemy
saves against the penalty, the enemy takes a –1 penalty to
attack rolls (save ends).
Level 13 or 18: –3 penalty.
Level 23 or 28: –4 penalty.
|
|
Your counter about 2nd edition to AD is actually...well completely incorrect...just for the folks at home trying to make sense of your counter to AD's statement. It is entertaining though to watch though!Actually that was more 2nd edition. 4th editions's magic items essentially gave you a once per day or once per encounter power to go with the rest of the many similar powers you already had.
Because some people find hitting better a bit boring, especially when you are beating the AC by 8 or more points, some only a nat 1 will cause you to miss.Some players aren't all about the math.
Some player's would rather have a +1 mageslayer blade that casts dispel magic on a natural 20 and can cast Silence 3/day.
These are orthogonal concepts shallowsoul, as 4e demonstrates. 4e bakes the numerical bonus into their magic items and then virtually every magic item has the "dispel magic" type of ability overlaid on top of the numerical bonus so you get both.
4e also does away with the numerical bonuses using a "low magic" option where you just bake the numerical bonus into the level progression, which achieves the same thing but does away with having to keep upgrading your sword all the time.
I sort of like the 4e way actually, I think it's an improvment on the 3.5/PF magic item system, but the problem with 4e is that the magic item system was grafted onto a system that already existed and it breaks the system due to synergies they did not expect. Plus it means keeping track of ten or a hundred times as many individual "approved" magic items. The magic item section alone in the character builder will keep you busy for an entire evening of character construction.
But it does what you suggest and does it well.
Actually it's not incorrect.
Go read up on 2nd edition and get back with us.
Yeah...nah...still wrong. Sorry but I played it for over twenty years and converted to PF three years ago. But it's fun for you to try. Also not really relevant to a 'Magic Items Shoppe' discussion with what you are...well whatever it is that you are trying to convey here.
EDIT: Curseforged Armor? LOL. That wasn't part of any DMG 2nd Ed or Tome of Magic or any other core book! Looks fun. Armor was still armor though from +1 to +5 with some funky specials.
Actually it's not incorrect.Go read up on 2nd edition and get back with us.
One of the most frustrating things on the internet is when someone is clearly, demonstrably, provably wrong, but still acts as if they are right.
SS, I played that game. I worked my way up the progression from +1 to +4 swords, armor and other items. I still have my character sheets where you can see the erased "3" replaced by the "4".
It may be true that AD&D had not formalized the "big six" the way it is in PF and was in 3.5 but the basic concept was in place and the fundamental mechanic was well established.
I still remember having to decide between replacing my +2 RoP with a +3 RoP or getting a tome that boosted my wizard's int by +2. Eventually I went with the tome but ended up replacing the ring a short time later anyway.
|
|
Actually it's not incorrect.Go read up on 2nd edition and get back with us.
One of the most frustrating things on the internet is when someone is clearly, demonstrably, provably wrong, but still acts as if they are right.
SS, I played that game. I worked my way up the progression from +1 to +4 swords, armor and other items. I still have my character sheets where you can see the erased "3" replaced by the "4".
It may be true that AD&D had not formalized the "big six" the way it is in PF and was in 3.5 but the basic concept was in place and the fundamental mechanic was well established.
I still remember having to decide between replacing my +2 RoP with a +3 RoP or getting a tome that boosted my wizard's int by +2. Eventually I went with the tome but ended up replacing the ring a short time later anyway.
Just because you say it is right or wrong doesn't make it so.
Second edition D&D is where you started seeing abilities being added to magical weapons. All you have to do is flip through all four of the Magic Item Compendiums to see that.
Yes tomes could increase your mental stats but it wasn't built into the math, it was actually a bonus.
3rd edition came along and wrote it as part of the game but you didn't have to follow it because we got CR which allowed you adjust the encounters by sending in monsters that was an appropriate challenge.
Pathfinder is the exact same way but some people continue to ignore that fact.
I still have all my books and my white and green character sheets.