Still more Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

baduin · Post by **baduin** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 2:11 pm

Put in the scaling at the other end. The maximum enhancement bonuses to armor, weapon and abilities and resistance bonuses to saving throw equal 1/3 of character level. But if you are high level, you must still find a magic item with high enough bonus.

This has an additional benefit: you can sell +5 sword on a village fair, but only for the price of +1 sword - for low lever buyers there is no difference.

For other magic items, there would be minimum levels necessary to use them. Below that level, item is unmagical. Eg Hat of Disguise - level 5, Ring of Freedom of Movement - level 17, ring of invisibility - level 15, Winged boots level 14, broom of flying level 14, wings of flying level 18.

If an item possesses multiple abilities, for each ability use its minimum level.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:23 pm

Or screw the stupid, flat, numerical bonuses (+x to weapon/armor/saves/AC/stats) that you have to have to live. Hardwire them into the chassis of the basic characters. Now you don't need a +5 sword to be useful at 15th level...in fact, you can't have a +5 sword; the +5 is a reflection of your awesome fighterly abilities.

Magic items should be glitter, flash, and options, not basic survival necessities.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:59 pm

sigma999 wrote:How did you even extract that from the 5 pages?!?
I saw ubernoob pay respects to you and Bigode, Judging Eagle's post(s), and maybe a few hundred extended BAWWWWWWs, but specific information?

You still talking about the discussion at BG? I'm not even a member ...

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:57 pm

The problem is that basically you can't have NPCs that use magic items if this is true, because if NPC gear is as good as PC gear, then your PCs are going to be totally loaded up on magic gear that all scales with them, so they'll literally have a batcave of auto scaling gear after a few levels.

This is a point. Maybe the static/dynamic gear should be based on whether it takes up a body slot. So armor scales, bracers and headbands scale, but a potion or a flying carpet or an ioun stone doesn't scale. Maybe cut down the number of slots here too - just Head, Body, Arms, Legs, Cloak/Throat.

That really just leaves weapons as both scaling and easy to swap between. If you find this a problem, you can add an attunement period of whatever length before a weapon grants you its full capabilities.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:02 pm

Actually, on Slots... remember, don´t limit them to slots, it´s stupid and makes for boring characters. Thrice-Crowned Kings and Emperors with Eight rings should be viable characters.

I limit magic item slots to up to your HD, to a max of 8.

Lower lvl PCs can thus be given items without the game getting out of hand, and giving low level groups lots of gear doesn´t make them overpowered.

Instead it makes them have to pick and choose what gear they can use.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:49 am

Found this gem on the WotC boards while looking to see if there was an official clarification for Versatile weapons and [2W] damage expressions:

I have always felt that comparing "average damage" of weapons was a broken philosophy... you can't roll 5.5 on a d10 (or at least I sure can't, I manage some 5s and some 6s though) so I always compare damage minimum and maximum, because those things I can roll. neither is more important than the other unless you have horrible (or great) luck with dice.

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:42 am

Judging__Eagle wrote:Actually, on Slots... remember, don´t limit them to slots, it´s stupid and makes for boring characters. Thrice-Crowned Kings and Emperors with Eight rings should be viable characters.

I limit magic item slots to up to your HD, to a max of 8.

Lower lvl PCs can thus be given items without the game getting out of hand, and giving low level groups lots of gear doesn´t make them overpowered.

Instead it makes them have to pick and choose what gear they can use.

I like it...but I'd be inclined to just say "8 slots" no matter what your level, and you can use any combination of items that you can physically wear. Eight necklaces or rings? Sure. Two pairs of boots and three suits of armor?

Of course, consumables don't count towards "slots," and neither do hand-held items (weapons, wands, whatevers).

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:36 am

Bigode wrote:
sigma999 wrote:How did you even extract that from the 5 pages?!?
I saw ubernoob pay respects to you and Bigode, Judging Eagle's post(s), and maybe a few hundred extended BAWWWWWWs, but specific information?
You still talking about the discussion at BG? I'm not even a member ...

Still talking? I only briefly mentioned that ubernoob had mentioned.. ah fuck it.

Talisman: I would go for more of a Chrono Trigger direction and limit those level-indepedant item slots down to 4.
They even had types: weapon, armor, helmet/hat, and special.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:07 am

Josh_Kablack wrote:Found this gem on the WotC boards while looking to see if there was an official clarification for Versatile weapons and [2W] damage expressions:

I have always felt that comparing "average damage" of weapons was a broken philosophy... you can't roll 5.5 on a d10 (or at least I sure can't, I manage some 5s and some 6s though) so I always compare damage minimum and maximum, because those things I can roll. neither is more important than the other unless you have horrible (or great) luck with dice.

This is what happens when kids don't learn maths in school.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:21 pm

sigma999 wrote:Still talking? I only briefly mentioned that ubernoob had mentioned.. ah fuck it.

It was just a question - if I wanted you to shut up, I'd have said exactly so.

Anyway, no need to answer; I read the quote. If someone quotes me and it's somewhy relevant to recoginze me, try Flamewarrior (was my username at WotC, should be a bit better known).

---

I also (don't) like to hear people claim that a d10 averages (exactly) 5 ...

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:11 pm

Talisman wrote:Two pairs of boots and three suits of armor?

Unless one of the suits of armor is padded, one is chain, and one is breastplate. And it's metal knight-boots over soft leather boots.

And IMO hand-held items and single-use items should count for as long as you use them.

Bigode wrote:I also (don't) like to hear people claim that a d10 averages (exactly) 5 ...

Eh, that's worse than the nutcase who only compares min and max rolls. At least he'll come up with the right number.

K · Post by K » Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:49 pm

Draco_Argentum wrote:
Josh_Kablack wrote:Found this gem on the WotC boards while looking to see if there was an official clarification for Versatile weapons and [2W] damage expressions:

I have always felt that comparing "average damage" of weapons was a broken philosophy... you can't roll 5.5 on a d10 (or at least I sure can't, I manage some 5s and some 6s though) so I always compare damage minimum and maximum, because those things I can roll. neither is more important than the other unless you have horrible (or great) luck with dice.
This is what happens when kids don't learn maths in school.

I am consistently surprised that people don't understand the power of math.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:18 pm

Bigode wrote:
sigma999 wrote:Still talking? I only briefly mentioned that ubernoob had mentioned.. ah fuck it.
It was just a question - if I wanted you to shut up, I'd have said exactly so.

Anyway, no need to answer; I read the quote. If someone quotes me and it's somewhy relevant to recoginze me, try Flamewarrior (was my username at WotC, should be a bit better known).

---

I also (don't) like to hear people claim that a d10 averages (exactly) 5 ...

Yeah, I've come to understand that over the course of a year.

Also, you've mentioned that you are Flamewarrior before and I do remember things like that, but have yet to see you anywhere else but here! Regardless I'll keep it in mind.

As for the fucktarded assumption that averages are bad to use for probability, that writer needs to go back to public school.
Ironically I was just thinking about that 5 vs. 5.5 difference concerning a 1d10 roll since I've been trying to rework how criticals work in 3.5e.

It would seem that since one can't truly define a median out of an even number, a fraction is a must.

If you have a d9 or d11, then yeah. You can take an average of 5 or 6 respectively.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:20 pm

Well, if you're not using fractions, figuring averages for multiple dice becomes really hard. The easy way to figure out that the average die roll on 2d6 is a 7 is to multiply the 3.5 average of 1d6 by 2. If you're allergic to fractions, you have to make a table of all the different combinations of die rolls and their totals to figure that out.

Edit: And furthermore, in RL statistical analysis you end up with average results that you can't actually generate all the time. Like that old stat about the average American couple having 2.3 children.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:31 pm

Almost every single person has an above average number of arms.

-Username17

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:41 am

sigma999 wrote:Also, you've mentioned that you are Flamewarrior before and I do remember things like that, but have yet to see you anywhere else but here! Regardless I'll keep it in mind.

Damn, one might say that was actually aimed more at ubernoob (who quoted mein the first place), but I don't expect to be quoted again soon anyway.

And yeah, I have more arms than average. Lungs too; reminds me of a famous soccer (you know, the sport that oughta be called football - not that I care much for sports) player, who once said "That ball, I wouldn't get it even if I had 2 lungs!"

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:35 am

It is football... but us Americans are backwater, stubborn, and stupid and insist on making things difficult.
We also don't use the metric system very often, a national habit that is quite frustrating IMO since it's cost us mistakes as large as crashing a Mars lander thanks to conversion errors between measurement systems.

FrankTrollman wrote:Almost every single person has an above average number of arms.

-Username17

You confuse me more and more lately.
The average number of arms for humans as a whole is almost 2.
Some have less, far fewer have more.
As an average it would be almost 2 but not quite since the rare 1 to 1.9 occurences (less than 2, due to something as minor as a missing fingertip or nail) drags the average lower by a tiny fraction.

shau · Post by **shau** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:16 am

sigma999 wrote: You confuse me more and more lately.
The average number of arms for humans as a whole is almost 2.
Some have less, far fewer have more.
As an average it would be almost 2 but not quite since the rare 1 to 1.9 occurences (less than 2, due to something as minor as a missing fingertip or nail) drags the average lower by a tiny fraction.

What's confusing? Most people have 2 arms, but some, like my great grandmother, have one or no arms. Because there exists a significant number or people who are missing arms, the average number of arms that people have is just under 2. Since most people have 2 arms, and 2 is more than just less than 2, then most people have more than the average number of arms.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:00 am

shau wrote:What's confusing? Most people have 2 arms, but some, like my great grandmother, have one or no arms. Because there exists a significant number or people who are missing arms, the average number of arms that people have is just under 2. Since most people have 2 arms, and 2 is more than just less than 2, then most people have more than the average number of arms.

I didn't disagree.
I just had to work it out for myself and for anyone else interested just like, well, you did.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:32 am

sigma999 wrote:I didn't disagree.
I just had to work it out for myself and for anyone else interested just like, well, you did.

I'm sorry, but I feel obliged to report that since everyone (including you, as seen) was able to figure it on their own, there was nothing confusing or worth reporting.

And fvck imperial measurement - didn't you use to hate the Great Britain?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:59 am

It's not like the English adopted the Metric system either. I mean, that'd involve using something the French made, and changing with the times, all in the name of doing something sensible.

So clever countries like Australia use it, and the rest of Europe tries (unsuccessfully) to force England to use it, but it's going to be a while before the UK and US decide to do something that makes sense.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 2:18 am

At least our upper level (8th grade on) science classes use metric pretty exclusively...

Talisman · Post by **Talisman** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:38 am

Bah! Metric!
America uses the American system, which by definition makes it the best system of measure!

More seriously, some of our highway signs in Kentucky are dual standard/metric...like "Devil's Hollow Road, 1 mile (3.2 km)". But there are a couple that put the km first...but they're still physically located by the mile, so you get things like "Jeffersontown, 1.6 km (1 mile)"

Seems funny to me, anyway.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:41 am

Bigode wrote:I'm sorry, but I feel obliged to report that since everyone (including you, as seen) was able to figure it on their own, there was nothing confusing or worth reporting.

Assume, ass, you, me, etc.

And just because a person is an American doesn't program ones personality by some kind of limey-hating default. Fuck the founders, this is 2008.
I love British culture. Well, OK the chavs and tea time are obnoxious, but I like a lot more about U.K. than I don't like.
That's coming from me as an individual, rather than a culture-war standpoint. I really don't buy in to all that; making a decision for oneself is a modern luxury I abuse regularly.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:44 am

Judging__Eagle wrote:Actually, on Slots... remember, don´t limit them to slots, it´s stupid and makes for boring characters. Thrice-Crowned Kings and Emperors with Eight rings should be viable characters.

One idea I considered was having items take up essence points. At the start of the adventure (or the day, depending on resource system), you get say 20 essence points. When you use a magic item, that may include putting it on (for a constant use item), or activating an ability from it (for an item you've got to activate), then the item becomes bonded to you for that advneture or that day, and you pay an essence activation cost.

The advantage to high level items could be that they do the same things as low level items for the most part, only they cost a lot less essence. So a low level character's magic sword might be 10 essence, which is half his allotment of magic items. But the epic character may only pay 1 essence for his sword, and both do the same thing.

So its' worthwhile to track down low essence weapons to use. Of course, low level people probably don't care because they may only own one sword, so whether it costs them 10 essence of 2 essence isn't a big deal because there's no other items they want to use.