I seriously can not believe the hostility in this topic. I'm not even necessarily in favor of set bonuses, but some of you people on the opposing side are being downright rude.
Disasterrific wrote:
Yes, but what it comes down to is that it would also be pointless. This is a fundamental game design philosophical difference and the two camps are not going to see eye to eye on this, but you've got to strip it down from all the clutter and leave just the core of solid gameplay. Set bonuses are just frills and distractions. Ultimately, my issue is that it simply doesn't make the game better. After that it's simply a matter of "Why not have it?" vs. "Why have it?"
It would not be pointless. It would serve several interesting purposes and has a multitude of justifications (the latter could be interpreted as purposes in and of themselves, for logical reasons):
(1) It would make realistic sense: A set of equipment built
specifically to be used together would obviously be preferable to piecemeal armor sets; have you ever seen real armor? All the interlocking plates and straps and cords and whatnot? A warrior simply
would be better in combat if his equipment fit together properly.
(2a) It could very well make sense within the context of the game. Perhaps a wizard enchanted the entire
set of armor, never even considering that the pieces might be used individually; this is roughly equivalent to the (very nice!) idea of reassembling a magical item, except on a grander scale (that is to say: if the broken shards of an enchanted sword can be more than the sum of its parts, why not the scattered remnants of a suit of enchanted armor?).
(2b) It could also make sense if, under some circumstances, enchantments are more than linearly additive.
(3) Tactical depth. I'm going to use someone else's example of a full suit of armor with a light enchantment, because it was an absolutely brilliant suggestion.
Consider that, very probably, there is going to be at least one item which is individually superior to the corresponding item of a given set; eg, a pair of gauntlets better than say the Valor Gauntlets. Without a set bonus, this is a simple choice: use the stronger gloves.
With the perfectly logical set bonus, however, the player is now allowed to evaluate this pros and cons on a deeper level: does he use the weaker gloves to free up another character's torch-hand? Does he wear the whole set simply because he's tired of casting light repeatedly? Does he use the stronger gloves because he values durability and power over all else? This is just one possible example.
This sort of tactical decision making is not only immensely enjoyable, but also already a key part of why people love games of this and similar genre.
