More thoughts on v4

[flechette]

He's saying there are items that have 'hates fire' and 'cannot be destroyed by fire' on the same item. It needs to be one or the other, or they shouldn't be able to be on the same item...

[Timo Pietilä]

Item suffixes are interesting, one thing I noticed in the descriptions is what they can't be harmed by are sort of double posted, you have for instance:
it hates fire, acid, lightning etc...

and then again you have : It cannot be harmed by acid,fire, lightning,

it's sort of double described in the description.

Doesn't "hates" mean it is harmed by corresponding element? Those are opposite of each other, not same twice?

[Malak Darkhunter]

Item suffixes are interesting, one thing I noticed in the descriptions is what they can't be harmed by are sort of double posted, you have for instance:
it hates fire, acid, lightning etc...

and then again you have : It cannot be harmed by acid,fire, lightning,

it's sort of double described in the description.

[Starhawk]

Can weapons really have a non-magical bonus to hit? Discuss. (3 marks)

There is plenty of precedent for this just in the various editions of D&D, where various non-magical bonuses to hit and damage were introduced. Sometimes this was because of craftsmanship (the "masterwork" quality) and other times because of the use of a special material (a mithril or adamantine weapon).

One could argue that some items in LOTR, such as Bilbo's coat of mail, were not strictly magical -- that they instead gave extra bonuses because of the manner and method of their construction and the material of which they were made. While Sting had an obvious enchantment, as did the various named magical swords such as Glamdring, I don't think your average dwarf-crafted platemail carried an enchantment in the way that we're used to thinking about such things.

[ogozi4]

Yes, indeed. Things get a little fuzzier when you talk about craft/magical bonuses to weapons. The dice can't really handle to-hit changes.

They sure get really fuzzy!

[Jungle_Boy]

" "

I agree with this, make affix names start at +3 or 4 bonuses.

[fizzix]

Can weapons really have a non-magical bonus to hit? Discuss. (3 marks)

The only argument I would make against it has to do with difficulty of displaying the information. Adding more +s and -s is a no-go with an already packed display.

However, we have something of an advantage in that to-hit values impart very little information to the end-user, where to-dam plusses clearly do. I think if this route is taken, we should strongly consider not displaying to-hit information on the main line and relegating it to the inspect screen.

[Magnate]

Hmmm. Would Restore Item restore a Broken sword to a normal (no affix) sword?

[sethos]

and the flip side means that an otherwise decent "Mixed bag" item, ex: broken sword of (Insert awesome affixes here) would become permanently nerfed, you can no longer "Enchant" it up to being as good as a non-broken sword.

I started this reply thinking that this was a bad thing...
but a "broken" sword SHOULD never be as good as a "mastercraft" sword.

I like it.

[Derakon]

Alternately your default level of craftsmanship has imperfect balance, a slippery grip, etc. which results in the weapon being harder to use than a well-crafted one. That might not affect how hard you can strike but it could easily affect how easily you can hit your target.

[Magnate]

Can weapons really have a non-magical bonus to hit? Discuss. (3 marks)

I think so. There is precedent in other RPGs for non-magical weapon enhancement, from superior craftsmanship, being manifest in to-hit bonuses. One way to think of it is e.g. the sharpness of swords: a less sharp sword might glance off clothes/armour without wounding, where a sharper one will cut through and draw blood.

So I am not seeing +hit/+dam as purely magical (in the way that +AC is if we separate craftsmanship and magical along the base AC / +AC axis).

[takkaria]

Yes, indeed. Things get a little fuzzier when you talk about craft/magical bonuses to weapons. The dice can't really handle to-hit changes.

Can weapons really have a non-magical bonus to hit? Discuss. (3 marks)

[fizzix]

That seems a little unnecessarily over-complicated to me. Wouldn't it be simpler just to have the craftwork bonuses increase base AC? Distinguish "Tough Gloves [3,+0]" from "Gloves of Protection [1,+2]".

Yes, indeed. Things get a little fuzzier when you talk about craft/magical bonuses to weapons. The dice can't really handle to-hit changes.

[Magnate]

This is exactly what came up in the discussions around Repair Item before they went away again. Adjusting base AC++.

Ok, happy to make quality prefixes affect base AC instead of +AC - that's easy enough. Making acid damage or disenchantment change the name is going to be hugely painful, but in principle I agree that the quality affix should change with acid damage, and the enchantment suffix (protection or whatever) should change with disen. It should be possible to combine that logic with whatever naming solution we end up choosing.

[takkaria]

That works so long as acid then goes after the base AC value of the armor. Restoration scrolls could then take the item back to the base AC of a standard item of that type -- so your Tough Gloves [3] went to Damage Gloves [0] which get repaired to Gloves [1].

This is exactly what came up in the discussions around Repair Item before they went away again. Adjusting base AC++.