This post is going to address several "bad ideas" found in the UA; I mean, might as well get them all out of the way at once, right?
Weapon specialization is a VERY bad idea...it falls under the category of "how much have you been drinking, Gary?" Len Lakofka first introduced the idea of an archery specialist (character class) along with a lot of really crunch missile fire rules in Dragon #45; it's not terrible (we had an archer PC back in the campaign of my youth), but most of the crunch only serves to slow down the game (worrying about whether actions occur at the beginning, middle, or end of a segment? Come on, dude...we don't need to micromanage more than we already do). And it introduced the idea of "point blank range" (*sigh*), to Gygax and got him thinking about OTHER possible types of specialists. Hence, weapon specialization.
One can see the appeal in an existing (long run) campaign: high level fighters are watching all the other character classes get fancy spells and abilities for achieving those 'teen' levels and, yet, they're doing the same-old-same-old since they picked up that frost brand sword back at 6th level; 'where's the love?' they cry. Unfortunately, implementing weapon specialization wrecks the combat economy from the very beginning. A normal party generally has a potential damage output of 4.5 damage per PC (roughly) with the high strength fighter types making up for low damage wizard types. But this goes off the rails with weapon specialization and (especially) double specialization (both available at 1st level). A fighter with an 18+ STR (up to 18/50...achievable for most fighter types) and double specialization in longsword strikes with a +4 to hit and +6 to damage, as well as getting two attacks every other round...a potential average damage output of 21 points in round one (25 against a large sized creature). Average hit points for an ogre are 19...for a bugbear 15. First level fighters should not be able to chop down gnolls and hobgoblins with impunity, and if the DM ups the challenge of monsters thrown at 1st level groups, the other party members (who have the same combat abilities as ever) are far more likely to suffer. Plus PBR rules means that same fighter, even without double specialization had a potential average damage output 34 damage per round, due to double damage and adding STR bonuses (all part of the PBR rules) for shots fired within 30'. Back when we used the UA rules in my youth, we saw a LOT of bow specialists.
Bad Len. Bad, bad, bad.
Next terrible idea to discuss is the Method V version of generating ability scores. Ostensibly restricted for human characters, this method of ability generation all but assures you of achieving the scores you need to take whatever particular class you desire to play. Having also used this a bit when the UA first came out, I can tell you the PCs end up having a LOT of high scores, not just in the ones they need...far more so than any of the other methods found in the DMG. Rolling 9, 8, 7, 6, and 5 dice (and taking the best three) for the five most important abilities of a particular class are going to give you much better scores than the DMG's Method I which has you roll 4d6 across the board...and who cares if MV makes you roll 3d6 for one (ONE!) ability score when that ability is, more often-than-not, Comeliness?
Method V appears to have originated in Dragon #63 with the introduction of the barbarian class. Originally, the barbarian had NO minimum ability qualifiers (probably a good thing, considering it's supposed to replace normal man types like the nomad, caveman, tribesman, etc. in the MM), but instead determined its abilities through a new method: 9d6 for STR, 8d6 for CON, 7d6 for DEX, 3d6 for INT and CHA, and 4d4 for WIS. The sea change here, however, is the choosing of the class before rolling the dice (i.e. before seeing if the player has achieved the dice rolls needing to qualify for the class). Gygax discusses this decision in Dragon #67:
A few wondered why a decision to be a barbarian character had to be made prior to rolling dice for attribute scores. The answer is simple: The game is based on role-playing principles, and it is easier to do so with a course determined in the first place. Method I of Generation of Ability Scores encourages the player to choose a character profession from a predisposition rather than dice determined statistics. It is but a step removed from there to deciding on play as a barbarian subclass fighter and rolling dice accordingly. Frank Mentzer suggests that the 4d6 system could be employed with minimum score requirements of 16 strength and constitution, 15 dexterity, and a maximum wisdom of 15. That will work, but it seems to beg the question. Playing as a barbarian is a determined choice, not as one of several possibilities -- or a mere afterthought. This is a part of the whole concept......In all truth, the sub-class is not too powerful. It is, in fact, under-powered unless some very good rolls are gained in the areas of strength, dexterity, and constitution. To have real prospects for long-range play, the character must have 18, 16, and 17 respectively. That, Gentle Readers, is why they are given 9d6, 7d7, and 8d6 for those categories. A low-level barbarian has a better than average chance of survival without such high rolls, but at higher level, he or she is not going to do well unless strength, dexterity, and constitution combine to give high hit points, low armor class, and superior punishment potential.
Indeed. So the lesson, Gary, is "don't play a barbarian if you can't roll the high stats," NOT 'give the players the ability to play whatever they want.' Sorry. After 40+ years of game play (more than Gygax had at the time he was writing), I've seen what coddling does to one's game. That ain't the way to go.
So, now we turn our attention to the cavalier...a class that may have had an interesting kernel of an idea, but then worked hard to make it work with these other concepts (like weapon specialization) to its overall detriment.
I mean, that's sugar-coating things. The class is a travesty.
Here's what you get with the cavalier in its FINAL presentation (i.e. as it appears in the UA):
- It is not a subclass of fighter, but its own class...and it puts the paladin subclass beneath its banner (more on this later).
- STR, DEX, CON of 15+, INT and WIS of 10+ to enter; however, Method V in the UA makes these quite easy requirements (with 8d6, 7d6, and 9d6 dice rolls).
- Open to humans, high elves, gray elves, dark elves, and half-elves with NO LEVEL LIMITS. That's right...you don't like being limited to 6th or 8th level fighter? Be a cavalier (who still fights and saves as a fighter), and achieve whatever level you like.
- Hit points start at 1d10+3 at 1st level with D10s up through 10th (note: fighters only go through 9th) with +3 hit points thereafter (same as a fighter).
- Progressive "to hit bonuses" in lance plus two other weapons of choice (one a sword, the other a horseman weapon like a flail or military pick). This bonus starts at +1 and increases by +1 every six levels with no end. This bonus can be used defensively as part of a parry (and can also "parry" with a shield at the same time). Cavaliers may make multiple attacks as a fighter 5 levels higher than their actual level with these weapons of choice. High elves would be advised to select longsword.
- A bunch of horse/riding related skills that no one cares about in a dungeon.
- Each of STR, DEX, and CON are assigned a % number (similar to exceptional strength) and every level the cavalier rolls 2d10 and adds the number to the current percentage; when the number exceeds 00, they move up to the next number, eventually topping out at 18/00 in all three abilities (the percentage doesn't mean anything for DEX and CON, but an 18 is still an 18). How this interacts with the CON reduction from a raise dead/resurrection spell isn't stated, nor if these numbers can exceed racial maximums.
- Immunity to fear, +2 bonus to save versus illusions, a bunch of 90% chances to resist mind-effecting magic, etc.
- Ability to continue functioning at negative hit points (though cannot continue to fight).
All pretty swell, right? Like a fighter except more powerful (and potentially a LOT more powerful). You'd probably be thinking, man, that cavalier cat must need a ton of experience points to level up (as the barbarian does). HA! That's the kicker, son...the cavalier needs LESS x.p. to level up than the 'lowly' fighter...at least into the teens:
9th level -- fighter: 250,001 cavalier: 220,001
10th level -- fighter: 500,001 cavalier: 300,001
11th level -- fighter: 750,001 cavalier: 600,001
12th level -- fighter: 1,000,001 cavalier: 900,001
13th level -- fighter: 1,250,001 cavalier: 1,200,001
14th level -- fighter: 1,500,001 cavalier: 1,500,001
So, sure...after reaching 14th level, the cavalier will need more x.p. per level than the fighter to level up (an extra 50K per). But his 300K per level is still a damn sight faster than the ranger (325K), paladin (350K), or barbarian (500K). And to out-pace the fighter? With all those additional benefits? I mean, just what the hell was Gygax thinking?
 |
| Elf? Probably. |
This is not a complaint about "power creep;" this is simply stabbing the character economy in the heart with a red-hot (lance) point.
SO, NO. There will be no cavalier in my games, sir...not in the way they are detailed in the UA. Neither will there be any weapon specialization or "point blank range" for missile fire. Nor, will I be using Method V for the generation of ability scores (I remember axing that waaay back in high school...and having fierce arguments with my brother over the subject). No sir! Method I will (continue to) do us just fine.
However, I might very well include the barbarian class...I'll just remove all minimum ability requirements for entry. You want to be a sickly member of your tribe/village, that's okay by me.
; )
In hindsight, one thing that really bugs me about making the Paladin a subclass of the Cavalier is that it forces Paladins into being knights in shining armor. Sure, playing Galahad could be fun, but that's not the only way to play a Paladin. I've seen suggestions that the best way to model Gandalf or Solomon Kane would be as Paladins.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I always consider Joan of Arc as an archetypal Paladin. Touched by God, there was something about this crazy peasant girl that rallied French fighting men to her banner, despite a lack of armor, training, or (apparently) sanity. The "Maid of Orleans" obviously had a substantial Charisma to her...and possibly the ability to perform divine miracles (hence the Sainthood).
DeleteBut was she trained to use a lance on horseback? To fight with a flail? Did she have the attributes and skills of a cavalier? No to all of these.
There's no reason to belittle or demote the fighter class to 'second rate.' The paladin is a subclass; the cavalier could have been a subclass of fighter, too. But it's VERY setting specific (I feel). I don't need it for my setting.
That cavalier is really bad. Bonkers really. I doubt that it was ever play tested.
ReplyDeleteWeapon specialisation was never part of our BX 1e hybrid games. It's a bit bland as well as over-powered, and I'd rather pick from a list of feats. FWIW I think that the weapon specialisation should've been given out a milestone levels like 4th Hero and 8th Superhero.
Is the cavalier fixable? The idea of an Arthurian knight is very appealing to me.
In a standard AD&D campaign (we're talking about a 1E book here), a 4th level or 8th level fighter should be pretty darn good, even without weapon specialization. The 4th level level fighter with a +1 STR bonus is going to hit an ogre 50% of the time, even without a magic weapon (which they probably have)...the same as a 1st level fighter with double weapon specialization in my example above. The 8th level fighter probably has a +2 (if not +3) weapon, gets 3 attacks every 2 rounds, and has a THAC0 of 13...superheroes are going to eat ogres for breakfast.
DeleteMaybe if the campaign setting was some magic poor, mudcore world, I'd consider weapon specialization...but my world isn't magic poor.
Sorry...I didn't answer the question at the end of your comment. Is the cavalier fixable? Prior to writing this post, I went back and listened to ChGoWiz's podcast episode discussing his analysis of the cavalier, especially its positive aspects:
Deletehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-37-reading-unearthed-arcana-the-cavalier/id1321200323?i=1000641045312
But in his next episode, he backtracks quite a bit. It's HARD...the class is a hard one to fix.
What's the basic concept? It's a subclass of fighter, a horseman specialist, colored by the concept of the romantic, chivalric knight. Okay. Well, the x.p. chart can stand if you make the class LESS USEFUL outside of its role as a destrier-riding freakazoid. I'm okay with the weapon bonuses, and even the adjusted attack rate for "weapons of choice." But the ever-upwards trending ability scores (why exactly does a cavalier need DEX anyway?) has got to go...and for my money, I wouldn't allow elves or half-elves to enter the class except with a substantial level restriction: both the original Cavalier article (Dragon #72) and the UA list the demi-humans as being "U" ("unlimited") for level restriction, but Gygax's article in Dragon #96 ("New Jobs For Demi-Humans") differs substantially:
"Furthermore, both elves and half-elves may be cavaliers, with level limits the same as for members of the regular fighter class."
THAT never made it into the UA (one can speculate why...) and it would have made a huge difference, limiting elves to 7th level ability and half-elves to 8th.
Letting people play the character they want in what is ultimately a game where people play pretend is hardly some deep betrayal of principle. It is notable that even Gygax acknowledges this, and he could be quite crotchety about such things. It is hardly coddling to let the player who wants to play a barbarian play a barbarian.
ReplyDeleteBut yes applying basic math and comparison to things is important, and it is depressing just how long it took D&D to start doing it. Either no cavaliers or only cavaliers (and removing the fighter altogether) seems defensible, but how anyone thought they were balanced is a hell of a question.
I'm going to (respectfully) disagree with you. I think the random generation of ability scores coupled with ability score barier for entry into specific classes is PURPOSEFUL design.
DeleteIf a game where "anyone can be anything whatever you want" is desired there are plenty of games that allow that: 3E, 4E, and 5E, just to name three.
AD&D has a bit of "playing the hand you're dealt." Yes, all the various methods of generating ability scores allow some "give" for players...arranging scores to taste, or selecting the set that you like (hopefully one that allows you entry into the class/race of your choice).
But, no, I strongly disagree with simply allowing a player to play "whatever they want." That way leads to a party of rangers. Or paladins. Or whatever. Different classes are more difficult to acquire for a REASON...they are supposed to show up less often in the game.
So, no. Method V is a terrible concept. So was the original idea for rolling barbarian ability scores.
From a verisimilitude perspective, if you have enough PCs that you need to worry about genuine demographic representation of your world, you are doing something odd.
DeleteFrom a rules perspective, if a class has been designed which is 'balanced' simply by being rare, that's not balanced. Because when it DOES show up, it won't be balanced - and once again, you do not have enough PCs to be statistically significant and for that to balance out. Even if it would balance out, which is debatable given human psychology is what it is.
If playing the hand one is dealt is so important, allowing people to rearrange scores and discarding characters whose scores are too low both seem like bad ideas as well.
Method V is absolutely a terrible concept, mind you, but it's terrible because it's a godawful method of letting people do what they want, not because letting people play what they want in a fantasy game is inherently bad.
Again, there are reasons that attributes are rolled randomly and there reasons there are entry requirements for classes. This is purposeful design. It requires players to make choices and causes them to consider other options...options they might not consider if simply given carte blanche to choose any particular character type.
DeleteEquating the rearrangement of randomly determined ability scores to "choosing one's character type" is bogus. It IS playing the hand you're dealt...you don't get to pick your cards, but you DO get to play them in the order you desire. Don't be silly. Finding a way to win with those particular cards (i.e. finding a way to play a successful character with the scores you've rolled) is part of the challenge of the game.
This is not about fantasy demographics. My table has seen multiple rangers, paladins, and bard-wannabes simply using the standard (Method I) way of rolling ability scores. I do not find merit in your argument.
I agree with all of these EXCEPT weapon specialization. Your math is stacking the bonuses on an 18+ strength... We normally rolled 3d6 for stats and I don't remember a campaign where anyone managed a legit 18 strength. I can see it unbalancing things in the case you mentioned. Weapon specialization gave the fighter with a 15 or 16 as his prime requisite a bit of an edge and also allowed two fighters in the party to differentiate themselves a bit. It was never an issue in our games anyway, but that's what was great about the old rules!
ReplyDeleteHm. None of the suggested methods for generating ability scores in 1E default to “just roll 3d6.” We always used Method I (4d6, arrange to taste) cack in the day…and we do the same today except that NOW a character must have at least two 15+ scores to be considered “viable” (as per the PHB).
DeleteAs such…there are PLENTY of 18+ STR fighters in the game. What’s more, if you use the DMG age adjustments and racial adjustments for races like half-orcs, hitting 18 becomes quite easy.
Regardless: even for PCs with “only” STR 17 (not unusual either, in 1E), you’re talking potential PBR damage of 16-36 damage per round.(26 points average)…That’s more potential damage output than any five character party, under the ‘standard’ rules.
Should a first level PC be able to take down an ogre in one round? I don’t think so…but it appears your opinion differs. Let me put it another way:
How would your players feel getting hit by arrows from four 1st level fighters with now specialization? Potential average damage of 106 points per round? How’d they like that? Especially given the x.p. They’d net from defeating those four 1st level fighters…seems a pretty paltry reward, doesn’t it?
In a world where any fighter can specialize, there’s no reason not to, so EVERY fighter encountered in the game should have specialization.
No. As said, weapon specialization throws off the combat economy of the game. It is poor design and will turn your game into a shambles.
lol... we used the rule for a decade give or take without trouble and we DID use 3d6 for stats (and racial adjustments) because we started with Holmes Basic. While we did dive into AD&D when we got our hands on it, we never changed the method of character generation all the way through 2nd edition.
DeleteWe are talking about ancient history and I was simply relating the experience in my group, not challenging your math.
Okay.
DeleteI don't think (lower-tier) weapon specialisation is broken necessarily, it just needs to be gated at higher experience levels. This gives fighters a little something as they get above sixth level, say, but isn't as crazy as your amusing example of a 1st level ogre-killer. This also makes more sense from a narrative perspective; it seems unreasonable that a 17 year-old warrior should have mastered an ancient weapon art right out of the gate.
ReplyDeleteDouble specialisation is a bit much at any level, but might work as a special boon granted to a high-level fighter that has performed some truly remarkable service for an entity that possessed knowledge of the technique. It would naturally requires months, if not years, of training to acquire, and probably other sacrifices besides. Just spending another proficiency slot isn't gonna cut it.
Point blank range doesn't make much sense given how archery generally works, although maybe it makes crossbows a bit more viable? Either way, they're not shooting cannons at those orcs.
I will again point out (as I did in a prior comment) that if you include weapon specialization or PBR rules in your game, there's no reason for NPC antagonists not to use the same rules. Do the players want a crippling amount of damage inflicted on them?
DeleteNo, I don't think it's necessary to give fighters...even high level fighters...an opportunity to "specialize." Fighters begin with four weapon proficiencies, and have five at 4th level, six at 7th, seven at 10th level, eight at 13th, and nine at 16th. That's a ton. And yet, there are a LOT of weapons for the fighter to learn during their career, including half a dozen types of sword, a couple axes, bows, crossbows, spears, daggers, maces, pole arms, etc. PLUS all the various exotic weapons found in the UA (lassos and whips and falchions, etc.). The fighter is a killing machine, and his/her ability to master any magic weapon the group comes across is a skill not to be taken lightly...who's going to wield that Hammer of Thunderbolts? That Mattock of the Titans? That Scimitar of Speed? That Axe of the Dwarvish Lords?
Oriental Adventures had a "kensai" character class who was a dedicated specialist in a particular weapon and, for me, that's the way to do specialization (although I admit to not ever using OA or seeing how the class would work in play). But for me, a "fighter" should be able to FIGHT, as well as possible, with any weapon they wield...not a master of a single particular style but a master of combat.
It's not about what's necessary, merely about providing an interesting choice to the player; to give up some amount of weapon diversity for a small bonus. Would players mind it being used against them? I doubt they'd notice. If limited to higher-level fighter opponents, an extra two damage per hit, while certainly not nothing, is hardly crippling. Would they mind if an opposing fighter had a very high strength instead? And indeed, that's part of the choice: if you use this, so will some of the monsters. Fair is fair.
DeleteExcept that it's not a "small bonus." In the case of granting extra attacks, it's an exponential bonus; in the case of granting bow specialization, it's a matter of adding strength bonuses and DOUBLING arrow damage at "point blank range" (i.e. within 30'). That's not an "interesting choice," in my opinion...that's a fairly steep escalation.
DeleteLet's say you limit weapon specialization to fighters of 7th level or higher (you wrote sixth level, but a fighter doesn't gain a new weapon proficiency at 6th). The standard 7th level fighter with a +2 long sword and a STR of 18/25 has a THAC0 of 11, an average damage of 9.5 (11.5 versus large creatures), and an attack rate of 3/2. Against a hill or frost giant (both have AC4; both are typical encounters on monster table VII), the standard fighter has an expected damage output of (roughly) 12 points per round. An average hill giant would be expected to fall in just over 3 rounds (3.1) while an average frost giant would be expected to fall in just under 4 rounds (3.9).
Now, if you add weapon specialization to the same fighter, THAC0 drops to 10, damage goes up to 11.5/13.5 and attacks to 2/1. Expected damage against those same giants jumps to 20.25. Now the hill giant can be dispatched in less than two rounds (1.9) and the frost giant takes barely more than two (2.3). The weapon specialist fighter is killing two giants for every one that the standard fighter does...that's not a "minor bonus;" it is nearly doubling your fighting power!
Meanwhile, if that same 7th level fighter chose to specialize in bow combat, even with non-magical arrows, his damage output at PBR would be 12-22 at a rate of 3/1. Expected damage output against those giants would be 38.25 per round. A hill giant only has an average hit point total of 37.5...you're talking about a 7th level fighter with NO MAGIC WEAPONS dropping a hill giant every round. That is ridiculous.
No. An "interesting choice" is whether to take lance or long bow with a weapon proficiency. Weapon specialization isn't an "interesting choice;" in campaigns that choose to include it, is the ONLY choice.
DMs are well advised to leave it out.
Yeah, fair point. The increase in attack rate is too much of a multiplier.
DeleteIt's those "hidden costs" that get you.
Delete; )
Agreed a garbage class.
ReplyDeleteFor me the STR, DEX, AND CON going up each level was always a head scratcher. Why did one class have special rules to increase it's ability scores?
I could see adding a rule that every class got to improve three scores each level. I don't know if I like it but at least it uniform and even makes all ability scores have decimals not just STR. But one class? Huh?
It's not even super beneficial as on average it takes 9 levels to boost a score by 1 point, but still.
Also *sigh* Seahawks. I didn't expect much this season but they keep getting my hopes up only to play terrible home games.
Agreed on the ‘Hawks. I was curious how this season would look, and it has both exceeded expectations and disappointed in crushing fashion. The home losses (5!) have been exceptionally tough to bear.
DeleteSo many parts of the Unearthed that I never read again after acquiring the book...
ReplyDeleteThe crying need of players to be more and more powerful, justified by whatever pretense that game developers can invent, rational or not, gamebreaking or not, goes on to this day. There had been fingerprints of like proposals decorating the pages of Dragon magazine for years... we were repulsed and disgusted by these ideas at the time. When I said I'd be using none of the new classes from UA, I received zero pushback from my players; they all seemed to be in my headspace, wanting the game to be difficult, not wishing to make it less fun by making it easier to win.
But... in the above and elsewhere in this UA nostagia trip, I'm seeing the reflections of hundreds of conversations I took part in at university in the few years that followed, before I turned my back on the community for, what, 20 years. The same rationalisations, the same resistance to limitations being placed. It's all so boring. I don't know why people comment. These things don't get settled. Ever.
If I haven't said so, you're wholly correct, JB. I just don't see what it accomplishes. Anyone with sense enough to understand your arguments and agree with them arrived at all these same conclusions years and years ago. Anyone who hasn't yet isn't going to.
I just thought it deserved another look through my “mature” eyes (ha! I’m going blind these days…how’s that for mature?)…because maybe there was something there worth salvaging.
DeleteAnd there is! (I think) just not much. Not much at all.
A rant 40+ years in the making! The cavalier is way too fiddly but between UA and OA it seems like that was the direction of Gary's thinking before he and TSR parted ways. Would he have found a balance? We'll never know. I do like some level of weapon specialization but it's true it does throw off the balance of the original game more than you might think. It definitely shortens up the scrabbling with goblins and rats portion of the game arc. I generally play Hyperborea these days and since my brain still uses AD&D as a yardstick I can easily underestimate how powerful a foe will need to be to challenge the PCs. Hyperborea has done a nice job sort of taming the cavalier and barbarian classes.
ReplyDeleteI am altogether unfamiliar with Hyperborea.
DeleteFormerly known as Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperborea. The game system is basically a smoothed out version of AD&D 1e (including UA) with a good dash of Holmes. It plays a lot like how I play AD&D since I started with BX/BESMI and still used that as my baseline when I adopted AD&D (all of this nearly 40 years ago).
DeleteHate weapon specialization. Fighters should be good at Fighting, not at one or two specific weapons that they have to us in all situations.
ReplyDeleteWe are on the same page.
DeleteSo, my opinion of weapon specialization / mastery is that it's fine if it's mostly decoupled from the class and level system. Make specializations and special weapon techniques purely diegetic things that character might learn in-game via training under a master. In just exactly the same way that the main character of a kung fu movie might go about learning a special kung fu move.
ReplyDeleteWhat is a specialization (granting +1 to hit and damage with a specific class of weapon or whatever) or a special martial technique, mechanically speaking, if not a kind of disembodied "magical item"? Considered this way, there can be no objection: player characters can already find magical items that grant bonuses to hit and damage with the arms that bear such enchantments, or items that conjure blasts from horns and force-walls from cubes and many other things more wondrous. And to get them, characters need only brave the dangers of dungeons and other adventures.
To my way of thinking, this is little different from braving an adventure to find the Hermit of Monkeytop Mountain who can teach the one-handed monkey sword-grip technique, provided you're willing to spend gobs of gold and have that PC drop out of the campaign for a couple of game-months. Such things should be kept rare, but they can function as the fighter's equivalent of magical item crafting and spell research.
It's really just incumbent on the DM to make sure that any such arts and techniques included in the campaign remain within the bounds of reasonableness, and do nothing that would upset the campaign's balance or cause the combat system to drag — just exactly like any physical magical item a PC might obtain.