| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have finished my research and have now come up with what I feel is a good way to remove the "Big Six" by integrating them into level progression.
Here is a quick play document. It is the necessary chart replacements needed to allow the system to work.
Here is the FAQ on how to use the IB6 System.
Here is the full document explaining how I did it.
Thanks to all of you who have been helping this past week and to everyone who has tried this before, you have been the star that guides my ship.
|
Very interesting. I'll chew on this over several re-readings. It's nice to see that you've gone into such detail over the WBL % conversion.
First question that occurs to me: why would you want to use the slow Deflection/fast Natural AC progression, instead of the fast Deflection/slow NAC one? Deflection AC is much better than NAC, since it also applies to touch attacks.
Second... some of your tables are so wide that to fit them on the page you've had to make the font really tiny. It's pretty hard to read them even when magnified 150%. It might be a problem if you want to print and use them.
Third: you're patching a lot of rules in the FAQ. Consider moving those into the main text instead.
I can't open the documents from this computer, but I'm interested in this sort of thing. I've tried it myself but wasn't thrilled with my own results, but I'd love to get a look at someone else's work. Dotting for future reference.
|
|
I think it's an interesting choice that you require MW gear to "hang" the bonuses from. That's not the way I'd do it if I were the one making this, but the thought does intrigue me.
I do think you should be consistent. If I'm using a MW weapon to receive an enhancement bonus, radiate magic, and I don't get that bonus in an antimagic field, then that should make the weapon magical and therefore penetrate DR. Alternatively, I don't radiate magic, don't lose anything in AMF, and don't penetrate magic DR.
In some cases, requiring equipment makes more sense than in others. Enhancing armor only works if you wear armor - fair enough. But in the case of Natural Armor, that doesn't make sense to me.
I'm also not really wild about everyone getting the Armor bonus equally; a S&B fighter would lag behind the normal progression, because he's normally getting a discount from advancing a shield enhancement and an armor enhancement separately. It's cheaper to get a +1 shield and a +1 armor than a +2 armor.
Also, I suspect that your altered WBL table screws over fighters who invest in full plate as soon as possible, instead of going for magic items immediately. (In the beginning, a full plate is far more efficient in GP/AC than magic enhancement.)
First question that occurs to me: why would you want to use the slow Deflection/fast Natural AC progression, instead of the fast Deflection/slow NAC one? Deflection AC is much better than NAC, since it also applies to touch attacks.
You probably wouldn't, but it is there for an option. When I saw the numbers, how the Ring of Deflection and Amulet of Natural Armor increase in value at the same rate, I thought they can be switched if the player wants so why not. More options for player choice are awesome right?
Second... some of your tables are so wide that to fit them on the page you've had to make the font really tiny. It's pretty hard to read them even when magnified 150%. It might be a problem if you want to print and use them.
True, I may go back and make some of those charts sit landscape. You guys want that?
Third: you're patching a lot of rules in the FAQ. Consider moving those into the main text instead.
I have a copy in the full document. I made the FAQ so you could just print it out alongside the Quick Play if that was all you wanted. Is that what you mean or should it go somewhere else in the document?
REALLY hate how many of these bonuses are tied to equipment.
I did that by design. I wanted to preserve the "lost gear" adventure. Current bonus are tied to gear, so when a player loses it, there is struggle to regain the item. I didn't want to lose that. I also tied it to master worked gear by design. I didn't want a player to just be able to pick up a rock and gain the bonuses to attack and damage.
A +1 warrior is going to be a +1 warrior whether he's using a masterwork sword of awesome and armor of doom or a pair of ordinary chopsticks/his fist and is buck naked.
I also tied it to master worked gear by design. I didn't want a player to just be able to pick up a rock and gain the bonuses to attack and damage.
Same goes for natural armor or deflection. If this is inherent it should be inherent to the character and thus have no gear requirements.
I am looking but I think I called them inherent. I called it integrated because the bonuses are worked into the level progression but tied to gear. It is the combination of PC and gear that creates the effect.
Lastly for the love of all that is holy, please include a clause somewhere that these bonuses function in an antimagic field and can not be dispelled.
I think it's an interesting choice that you require MW gear to "hang" the bonuses from. That's not the way I'd do it if I were the one making this, but the thought does intrigue me.
Once again, by design. A +1 sword or Ring of Protection doesn't work in an anti-magic field, I did not want this to either.
I do think you should be consistent. If I'm using a MW weapon to receive an enhancement bonus, radiate magic, and I don't get that bonus in an antimagic field, then that should make the weapon magical and therefore penetrate DR. Alternatively, I don't radiate magic, don't lose anything in AMF, and don't penetrate magic DR.
This was a judgement call on my part. You may ignore it and allow the bonus to count for penetrating DR. I felt that since everyone could potentially have a +1 weapon, everyone would be able to penetrate DR. DR loses its luster in this scenario. Since a "melee" character is likely to go ahead and have a weapon with a special ability I tied DR/Magic penetration to that.
In some cases, requiring equipment makes more sense than in others. Enhancing armor only works if you wear armor - fair enough. But in the case of Natural Armor, that doesn't make sense to me.
When I built this I didn't want to have a "focus" everywhere that linked to each of the standard slots for the bonuses. Since they all fall under defensive items I tied all the bonuses to armor.
I'm also not really wild about everyone getting the Armor bonus equally; a S&B fighter would lag behind the normal progression, because he's normally getting a discount from advancing a shield enhancement and an armor enhancement separately. It's cheaper to get a +1 shield and a +1 armor than a +2 armor.
We may need to go into this a bit more. But the shield will gain a +1 bonus at the same rate as the armor. I cover it in the FAQ. Let me know if I am missing something.
If you are talking about more of his WBL being used up, your right. I however waved the excess gold loss off. I did this with off-hand weapons too (with the proper feats). A Shield bashing, two-weapon fighting, Wizard, Sorcerer really gets a free ride in the system gaining all the bonuses for weapon and armor. Added together they blow wealth by level away. But I am betting that if you play such a beast you may need the help.
Also, I suspect that your altered WBL table screws over fighters who invest in full plate as soon as possible, instead of going for magic items immediately. (In the beginning, a full plate is far more efficient in GP/AC than magic enhancement.)
Looking at WBL, it looks like a PC would be able to afford full plate at level 3. In IB6, they can get it at level 4. Not to bad.
All of the above said, you can drop the FAQ and just use the progression and adjusted wealth by level and treasure chart and you will retain the progression. The FAQ was more or less me looking for problems ahead of time and making judgement calls.
Thank you all for the feedback and questions. Keep them coming, I will answer as I can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've only looked at the quick play document, so perhaps the other explains it, but ...
I'm a bit confused, characters only get a bonus to one ability score?
Requiring a caster level for the pearl seems a bit rough on certain classes, it's often a strategy of monk and fighter type characters to buy a pearl of power and give it to the party wizard or druid so they can hit them with a Mage Armor or Greater Magic Weapon in the morning.
Yup, totally lost all interest in this fix.
No problem, thanks for looking.
I'm a bit confused, characters only get a bonus to one ability score?
Built in yes. But they are free to buy a second booster with normal wealth. Since the IB6 grants the same bonus they will not stack on the same stat. You can't choose an IB6 bonus to intelligence and stack a headband of intelligence on it. But you could choose intelligence and wear a head band of charisma.
The system dose not replace the items. They still exist. It just provides the a base "big 6" built in.
Requiring a caster level for the pearl seems a bit rough on certain classes, it's often a strategy of monk and fighter type characters to buy a pearl of power and give it to the party wizard or druid so they can hit them with a Mage Armor or Greater Magic Weapon in the morning.
The caster level is for the built in IB6 bonus. Feel free to let the fighter buy a pearl with his wealth and give it to the wizard.
I'm liking this so far. I would definitely set the long chart landscape on its own page. And as for the bonuses hanging on gear, it makes sense and I like what you've done with it so far. I would probably put the natural and deflection bonuses on an amulet and a ring, respectively. Give them a base cost as well, and allow them to be further enchanted at 1.5 cost. You can still have two ring slots. The main reason I'd argue for this is that it spread the burden out. If you have magic armor and a ring of deflection with the current rules, the armor can be sundered or the ring can be stolen. By putting all armor bonuses on armor you make sunder significantly more powerful. This also makes the monk equally vulnerable to losing their natural and deflection bonuses, but they keep a higher ac than the fighter without any gear (just like the current system).
Also, I completely agree with the idea that the integrated bonus should not overcome DR. It becomes much more feasible for a melee character to get exotic items that still deal decent damage, and they won't need to enchant each one separately. This also reinforces the notion that the party needs to be prepared and gather intelligence on their enemies.
*Edit: You can also put the stat boosting items on the belt and head slots. Perhaps the belts, amulets, etc. should only cost 50 or 100. You can further enchant them at the same increased cost as weapon enchants. Sure you are still gear dependent, but the cost is nominal, and it prevents sunder-happy barbarians from trashing all your bonuses in one swing.
I'm liking this so far.
Thank you.
I would definitely set the long chart landscape on its own page.
OK, will work on it and get it out there.
And as for the bonuses hanging on gear, it makes sense and I like what you've done with it so far.I would probably put the natural and deflection bonuses on an amulet and a ring, respectively. Give them a base cost as well, and allow them to be further enchanted at 1.5 cost. You can still have two ring slots. The main reason I'd argue for this is that it spread the burden out. If you have magic armor and a ring of deflection with the current rules, the armor can be sundered or the ring can be stolen. By putting all armor bonuses on armor you make sunder significantly more powerful.
You make a good point. Placing all the benefits on armor does make it a rich target for sunder. I was wanting to avoid having a "focus" for each bonus. On the same token a Cloak "focus" would be needed.
I think I am more inclined to let the barbarian sunder the armor multiple times. "Cutting away" bonuses until the armor stops working completely.
This also makes the monk equally vulnerable to losing their natural and deflection bonuses, but they keep a higher ac than the fighter without any gear (just like the current system).
You know, I am inclined let the Monk get away with not being able to lose the bonuses. He should shine in a situation where the party is lacking gear. It's a nice shine moment for them.
Also, I completely agree with the idea that the integrated bonus should not overcome DR. It becomes much more feasible for a melee character to get exotic items that still deal decent damage, and they won't need to enchant each one separately. This also reinforces the notion that the party needs to be prepared and gather intelligence on their enemies.
Cool. That is exactly what I was going for.
*Edit: You can also put the stat boosting items on the belt and head slots. Perhaps the belts, amulets, etc. should only cost 50 or 100. You can further enchant them at the same increased cost as weapon enchants. Sure you are still gear dependent, but the cost is nominal, and it prevents sunder-happy barbarians from trashing all your bonuses in one swing.
Ultimately, all that is needed is the quick play charts that give you the progression and the changes to WBL and Treasure per Encounter. Feel free to add the focuses to each slot if you like. The FAQ is just my take on how I think it should work. Change it up as you like.
|
I appreciate the revised WBL charts, but the fix itself is really convoluted. It isn't so much as a real patch as it is a more complicated way of achieving the same result as in the core game.
It's sort of a strange porridge of a lack of gear dependency (but actually just as gear-dependent) and wealth-saving for cooler stuff (but not really, because you're getting less WBL to spend on said stuff.)
Easier for me just to let my players get the big six for free at the appropriate levels without strings attached, and maybe swap slots around where necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honest Feelings
Thank you The Red Mage for looking over the IB6. For my players and myself we are really hoping this system works for us. It wasn't meant to remove gear or save wealth, just standardize certain treasure so a PC doesn't feel like a they are not equipped for a challenge.
It sounds like you have a fix that works for you group and you guys are good with it.Thank you again for looking it over.
|
I know this isn't what you are looking for but I would seek a fix on the other side.
Make the target numbers on the characters sheet, unmodified by gear match the expected threat at CR without the needed gear.
Ex: Define a 6th level characters to hit, damage, saving throws and then design CR 6 threats around that (without gear). This can be done by assigning a fixed DC value at CR with these assumptions (and a success rate that is appropriate). Some creatures will deviate +/- 1 to 2, but the final result will be tied to a CR/character level with expected success and failure rates. That goes for the PCs also - Spells have DCs fixed by their level with little manipulation from stats.
I think a few items can be left in the mix and have assumptions tied to them - magic armor and weapons. I would dump all save boosters, stat boosters, and the other four of the big six: the secondary armor boosters (rings of pro and amulets of natural armor).
I would only keep weapons and armor and account for them on the creature side in expectations (some hp and AC adjusted for level).
TL;DR - don't use the values as listed on CR assumptions on page 291 in the Bestiary. If you dump the gear most of those numbers need to be revised down.
-----------------------------
Inherent systems, autoscaling gear (what I use) do not work very well - I have had little success with implementation with either system.
Instead of having characters meet a criteria with gear assumptions - why not have vanilla characters with minimal gear be the baseline for new assumptions built into the threats? Using a new baseline, not the numbers on page 291 but a revised set of numbers based off of page 291.
Anyway - good luck with your system.
|
|
@Broken:
I think your idea of tying some bonuses to having MW equipment can be good, because it makes Sundering a lot more attractive. If any MW armor worn by Joe is Enhanced, then I can Sunder Joe's armor to really undress him. But I get around the standard reason not to Sunder, because even though he lost a +4 Enhancement bonus, I didn't just lose +4 loot.
Likewise, if you adopt the Monks Are Masterwork idea, monks get around that nicely; can't Sunder the monk's armor because he's not using any.
I'm not so sure about the bonus being magical though;
1) The thing people hate about AMF isn't that they're weaker (okay, they don't like it), but that they suddenly need to recalculate their entire character sheet.
2) It gets in the way of the "awesome mundane" concept, if your carefully non-caster fighter is inherently magical because he's high-level. It forces a flavor (fighters have innate magic) that's not needed.
I understand that you don't like people penetrating special material DR too easily with their integrated enhancement bonus. Fortunately, THAT isn't necessary. Previously, the big argument against a "golf bag" of cold iron, silver and adamantine weapons was that it made it too expensive to have a decently enchanted weapon for every situation, screwing martials. That's no longer a problem, because your improvement for the weapon is now automatically transferred to whichever weapon you're currently using.
Given that, I think it's reasonable to make the weapon bonus mundane, and no longer require that weapons have at least a +1 bonus before receiving special properties. Any magic weapon can penetrate DR, and there's always Magic Weapon spells.
It's a little bit awkward for wildshaping druids and animal companions to penetrate DR/special material though; maybe they ought to have a new spell for that, like Versatile Magic Fang.
---
On to shields. As it is right now, the formula for armor/shield enhancement is quadratic; (bonus^2)*1000gp. This means that a +1 armor and +1 shield sets you back 2000gp, but +2 armor costs 4000gp. You equate 9000gp spent on enhancing armor with a +3, but for 8000gp you could have a +2+2; better AC for less money.
---
As for tying Deflection/NAC to rings and amulets; I think that's a poor move. One of the advantages of integrating this system is to free up slots so that you don't hear people say "nah, I'll pass up that ring of something nice, because I need the ring slot for my ring of protection".
Basically, everyone is wearing a ring to get Protection, except they bought a simpler ring. Everyone is still wearing the same standard equipment. (This is more conspicuous with rings than with armor; it's not strange that everyone is wearing armor for protection, but it IS weird if everyone is wearing rings for protection.)
---
I think your system might also be a bit too rigid; you're making everyone use the same Big Six loadout, basically. But in practice, a S&B fighter will prioritize his magic shield differently than a 2H or 2W fighter will, and the wizard will probably spend more on a single stat booster than a druid. The druid is spending that money on Wild armor or an Amulet of Might Fists, and doesn't rely on his spells nearly as much as the wizard does. And the wizard isn't spending money on enhancing a weapon, he's buying metamagic rods.
Basically, despite the name, the B6 aren't actually the same 6 items for every class, but you're making them that way now. I think the only truly constant of them are the ring of protection, amulet of natural armor and cloak of resistance, with some people taking two and others taking a single big stat booster.
Fixing Monsters instead of PCs
For me, fixing every stat block of every monster ever printed seems more trouble than fixing 6 PCs once per campaign. That is my call, you call it the other way. It's all good.
Anyway - good luck with your system.
Thank you.
I'm not so sure about the bonus being magical though;
1) The thing people hate about AMF isn't that they're weaker (okay, they don't like it), but that they suddenly need to recalculate their entire character sheet.
2) It gets in the way of the "awesome mundane" concept, if your carefully non-caster fighter is inherently magical because he's high-level. It forces a flavor (fighters have innate magic) that's not needed.
Treating the bonuses as magical and not working in a AMF was a judgement call on my part. I did it to preserve the way it currently works in game. If you want to treat the bonuses as "awesome" mundane" you could totally do it with little impact on the system as a whole.
I will respond more later, got to make a BBQ!
|
|
Its actually easier than you think
- Write up values at CR (expected saves and DCs, AC and damage) as master list:1/8 to 20
- Apply those values to existing creatures at their CR (on the fly or detail re-write as you need them).
Add in variance of 1 to 2 based upon the creature (one-trick creature increase the DC, creature with several SLAs, lower the DCs)
Ex: Fire Snake has a burning venom as part of it's attack - it injects it on a bite or it can spit it as a weapon. The Fire Snake is a CR 3 creature - you've decided that CR 3 creatures in your game have a DC save of 15 (a number I'm throwing out for the sake of argument). You can make the poison a generic DC 15, or you increase the DC on a bite and reduce when it spits (DC 16 on bite and DC 14 on spit) if you want more variance and customization. The key issue is that CR 3 = 15 as you baseline.
You create the master list of the numbers you want and you can apply them on the fly. The revisions of creatures is not the hard part - once you have your list you would probably memorize most values. The hard part is deciding on the numbers on that list in the first place.
I'm trying this method next, I've spent enough time on internal bonuses and scaling items to know that they don't work. PF and 3rd ed numbers are way off on assumptions (high magic) fix that and you won't even need the big six in your game. I've banged my head against that wall to many times to know that you can't work around bad numbers.
Anyway, I'm done here.
Would allowing Mage Armour to stack with IB6 make incorporeal creatures a little too easy to defend against?
I understand that you don't like people penetrating special material DR too easily with their integrated enhancement bonus. Fortunately, THAT isn't necessary. Previously, the big argument against a "golf bag" of cold iron, silver and adamantine weapons was that it made it too expensive to have a decently enchanted weapon for every situation, screwing martials. That's no longer a problem, because your improvement for the weapon is now automatically transferred to whichever weapon you're currently using.
That is exactly what I was going for.
Given that, I think it's reasonable to make the weapon bonus mundane, and no longer require that weapons have at least a +1 bonus before receiving special properties. Any magic weapon can penetrate DR, and there's always Magic Weapon spells.
I agree! In the FAQ.
Q. How do other magic items change in IB6
A. The bonuses that are gained from the IB6 do not stack, therefore items that exist in the game that grant those bonus do not need to be removed. The main changes need to occur in the Weapons and Armor categories. The special abilities of weapons and armor tend to be left behind in favor of superior bonuses. I recommend allowing the special abilities to be applied to Master Worked items at a cost of 1.5 times the normal value. Allow magic weapons or armor to have up to a +5 bonus from magical special abilities.
It's a little bit awkward for wildshaping druids and animal companions to penetrate DR/special material though; maybe they ought to have a new spell for that, like Versatile Magic Fang.
I have been thinking about this one. I think I will let Druids and Animal companions gain the Attack/Damage Bonus from IB6. The Natural Attack is comparable to the Improved Unarmed Strike and so I think they should get the bonus. Since they don't get bonuses for being unarmored they would not get the IB6 bonus to defense though. hmm, going to think about this some more. We have a storm coming here. Be back on when it is safer.
It's a little bit awkward for wildshaping druids and animal companions to penetrate DR/special material though; maybe they ought to have a new spell for that, like Versatile Magic Fang.
First, the original question. Do they currently have anything that allows Wildshaped Druids or Animal companions the ability to bypass non magic DR? I don't think they do. Your Versatile Magic Fang spell is probably needed.
It will be in FAQv2, PCs and Companions will gain the benefits of Weapon enhancement if they have a natural attack (Claw, Bite, etc.) Since they do not have a class feature or ability that grants them additional AC while unarmored they do not benefit from the Defense enhancement. Master Worked Barding or "Dress" (I think that is the right term) will be required to gain the benefits. A druid will need a suit of wild armor to gain his benefits while wild shaped.
On to shields. As it is right now, the formula for armor/shield enhancement is quadratic; (bonus^2)*1000gp. This means that a +1 armor and +1 On to shields. As it is right now, the formula for armor/shield enhancement is quadratic; (bonus^2)*1000gp. This means that a +1 armor and +1 shield sets you back 2000gp, but +2 armor costs 4000gp. You equate 9000gp spent on enhancing armor with a +3, but for 8000gp you could have a +2+2; better AC for less money.
I think I have it covered in the FAQ. A S&B 4th level S&B fighter in IB6 would have a +1 Shield and +1 Armor. A Two-handed weapon fighter would just have a +1 Armor. At 5th, The S&B would then treat the shield and his hand weapon as +1 and the Two-handed weapon fighter now gets a +1 weapon as well.
In IB6, if you have the feats and the master worked gear, you get the bonuses. The Two Weapon fighter makes out like a bandit if his off hand weapon is a shield. Getting the Shield enhancement and the off hand weapon enhancements for free. This makes sense to me as that is how most people fought, and "we" don't see it a lot in games because of the price both in gold and feats to make it work "as seen on TV"
As for tying Deflection/NAC to rings and amulets; I think that's a poor move.
hgsolo made a interesting argument here, and I like my answer. I will add to the FAQv2 a "multiple sunder" rule on armor. "Cutting away" bonuses until the armor stops working completely.
I think your system might also be a bit too rigid; you're making everyone use the same Big Six loadout, basically. But in practice, a S&B fighter will prioritize his magic shield differently than a 2H or 2W fighter will, and the wizard will probably spend more on a single stat booster than a druid. The druid is spending that money on Wild armor or an Amulet of Might Fists, and doesn't rely on his spells nearly as much as the wizard does. And the wizard isn't spending money on enhancing a weapon, he's buying metamagic rods.
Basically, despite the name, the B6 aren't actually the same 6 items for every class, but you're making them that way now. I think the only truly constant of them are the ring of protection, amulet of natural armor and cloak of resistance, with some people taking two and others taking a single big stat booster.
Look deeper. Not everyone will have the same gear.
A S&B Fighter will have his Armor and Shield enhanced at the same level for free.
A 2H fighter will have his weapon and armor enhanced.
A 2W fighter will have his armor and both weapons enhanced.
Each fighting style gets what they need when they need. And in the cases of S&B and 2W at a significant discount.
In IB6 everyone gets a built in stat booster on a stat of their choosing at 9th. But you are not limited to just the one booster. A wizard could use his extra money to buy a stronger stat booster for Intelligence as early as 5th level on the new wealth by level chart. Then at 9th, boost a secondary stat of his choosing.
I am actually split as to how often you could re-declare which stat the built in stat booster enhances. At the least, you should be able to re-choose every time it goes up. I am going to try it that way first and see how it goes in game.
Wild armor, Amulet of mighty fist (if you still need it after above) and other customized gear I think can be covered by the larger Other Magic Item pool now.
Would allowing Mage Armour to stack with IB6 make incorporeal creatures a little too easy to defend against?
I am going to try it in my game and see. I want to say, "Wizards should be awesome at fighting ghost!" BUT...I know someone is going to buff the fighter and ETC... with it until the poor "ghost" won't be able to attack anyone with the ability. If you only want to treat the +4 from the spell as blocking incorporeal touch on AC I think that would be fine and fair too.
Making it simple!
Well after you try it, tell us how it works. It never hurts to try, and we end up with awesome stuff all the time from trying.
I like the concept of this, but the chart in the PDF you linked is way too small, any way you could up the size on that?
Work in progress!
|
|
It's a little bit awkward for wildshaping druids and animal companions to penetrate DR/special material though; maybe they ought to have a new spell for that, like Versatile Magic Fang.First, the original question. Do they currently have anything that allows Wildshaped Druids or Animal companions the ability to bypass non magic DR? I don't think they do. Your Versatile Magic Fang spell is probably needed.
That's why druids may want that Amulet of Mighty Fists +3, rather than an Amulet of Natural Armor +4.
|
|
Honest FeelingsThank you The Red Mage for looking over the IB6. For my players and myself we are really hoping this system works for us. It wasn't meant to remove gear or save wealth, just standardize certain treasure so a PC doesn't feel like a they are not equipped for a challenge.
It sounds like you have a fix that works for you group and you guys are good with it.Thank you again for looking it over.
Sure thing, it was in good faith. You're on the right track in trying to solve a problem that has plagued the game for like 15 years. It just has a lot of room for improvement in my opinion.
I too like it so far.
The 'Magic' aspect for weapons confuses me.
So the IB6 +1 weapon bonus is a non magical effect and you need a magical effect (such as flaming or cold or keen) to make it 'magical' for DR purposes or Magic Weapon spell?
Just curious on the 'why' of this.
I tend to lower powered games so I am ok but just curious.
It was a judgment call on my part. If you want to use the system and treat it as magical go ahead.
That's why druids may want that Amulet of Mighty Fists +3, rather than an Amulet of Natural Armor +4.
Well if I go ahead with my thinking. Then by the time a Druid would get the Amulet of NA +4 they would have the equivalent of a Amulet of MF +5 while wild shaped.
as far as penetrating DR/"X"...
Ok, don't throw fruit at me. But does an Amulet of MF work? I know about this. But it calls out "weapons." Weapons are not enchanted with a spell, they just use caster level. The Amulet specifically uses the spell Greater Magic Fang which specifically says it does not bypass anything but DR/Magic. I always assumed it did bypass like a weapon until we started talking about it. Now, I am second guessing that.
It just has a lot of room for improvement in my opinion.
Hey The Red Mage, what would you change? You mentioned Gear Dependency and Wealth Drain as still issues. As well as over complexity. Any quick ideas on how you would change it to better fit your needs.
|
|
@Broken: the amulet may use GMF in its creation requirements, but to determine what it actually does, you should only be reading it's main effect entry. Which is granting an enhancement bonus to attacks, with no "no-DR-penetration" clause. It does however talk about adding other powers, just like magic weapons.
I think the DR penetration use of the amulet is actually the main reason to go to high enhancement bonuses. It's pretty expensive; twice the cost of a normal weapon. (Good price for 3+ natural attacks, but still a lot of money.) There are enough other, cheaper buffs, the only reason to go really high with the amulet is to get past DR.