Proposal Adventurers Vault

Halford · Jan 1, 2009

Well it had to come, and personally I am a big fan of the Adventurer's Vault so I thought I would bite the bullet.

I suggest this is something we take out time over. I believe we should come up with a list of potentially problematic items, derived from our own limited experience and from various forum posts, etc., which we can persuse.

Personally I believe that some of the most problematic items are those that have effects which technically do not require the weapon to be used. For example Bloodclaw weapons at will power is simply used on an attack, not an attack with the weapon which I feel it should be rerequired. Personally even with that caveat I still regard Bloodclaw weapons as problematic and worthy of review.

Halford · Jan 1, 2009

Problematic Items

Bloodclaw Weapons Page 65
Girdle of the Dragon Page 165

[sblock=Reason]Compare the following...
Belt of Vim [p.164]Lvl 18 85,000 gpProperty: Level 18: +2 bonus to Fortitude defense.
Girdle of the Dragon [p.165]Lvl 16 45,000 gp

Property: Gain a +2 bonus to Fortitude defense.
Power (Daily): Standard Action. Make two attack rolls: Melee 1; Strength + 3 vs. AC; on a hit, the target takes

3d6 + Strength modifier damage. If both attacks hit the same target, the target is grabbed (until escape).Umm, I will take the the Girdle of the Dragon please...[/sblock]

Reckless Weapon Page 76
Double Weapons Page 9

nerdytenor · Jan 1, 2009

I'd love to see AV as part of L4E, too.

We should consider two ways of doing this, listing forbidden items, or listing accepted items. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

garyh · Jan 1, 2009

nerdytenor said:
I'd love to see AV as part of L4E, too.

We should consider two ways of doing this, listing forbidden items, or listing accepted items. Both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Since I'd imagine the accepted items ought to vastly outnumber the prohibited items, I think it'd be simpler to list the prohibited items.

Lord Sessadore · Jan 1, 2009

I have a feeling that, due to the sheer number of items in the AV, listing the problematic ones would be better. Most of the items in the book I think are fine, but there are a few problematic ones. I didn't bring my copy with me over the holidays, so I can't really check up on any items I think might be problematic yet. However, there is one set of items that I can remember off the top of my head.

More Problematic Items:

Double weapons as written.

[sblock=Reason and Suggestions]As written, they let Tempest fighters from Martial Power stand well ahead of the two 'normal' types of fighters, since they get their off-hand damage bonus with both sides of the weapon, which have larger damage dice than any other off-hand weapons, in addition to granting the defensive property. Granted, that's only a problem if tempests get approved, but it'll come up eventually. If we do allow double weapons, I think we need to rewrite/clarify them a bit.

My suggestion would be to explicitly apply the off-hand property to only one side of the weapon, and explicitly give each side of the weapon only one type (unless it should actually have two, though I don't think such a case exists yet). I don't see a need to specify which side has the defensive property though - it doesn't apply to any attacks, so it doesn't matter which end of the weapon is defensive, as long as you are wielding the weapon.

For example, the double sword. As written, one completely valid way to interpret the double sword (if you choose to ignore common sense) is that both sides of the weapon are off-hand and light blades and heavy blades. This is problematic especially for the rogue - it could allow a rogue to take Heavy Blade Opportunity and use it with his rogue at-wills (which you can't use a heavy blade with), which is something that until the double sword was strictly not possible, and I don't think it should be. In my suggested version, the main-hand side would be a heavy blade (and would not have the off-hand property), and the off-hand side would be a light blade with the off-hand property. The entire double sword would have the defensive property.[/sblock]

nerdytenor · Jan 1, 2009

garyh said:
Since I'd imagine the accepted items ought to vastly outnumber the prohibited items, I think it'd be simpler to list the prohibited items.

True enough, although we need to careful not to let anything slip through the cracks. I suppose we have enough eyes for that.

Another thing to consider is to roll out the items in batches - for now we could consider, say, only items level 10 or lower - that should last us quite a while, yes?

nerdytenor · Jan 1, 2009

I agree double weapons are problematic. Perhaps the easiest solution is to outlaw them, and have them be flavor only (so that a double weapon is simply one main hand weapon and one off hand weapon joined together).

garyh · Jan 1, 2009

nerdytenor said:
True enough, although we need to careful not to let anything slip through the cracks. I suppose we have enough eyes for that.

Another thing to consider is to roll out the items in batches - for now we could consider, say, only items level 10 or lower - that should last us quite a while, yes?

The Level 1-10 batch idea is a good one, I think. It'll really let us focus on what'll be most pressing the soonest.

I also like, at a glance, Lord Sessadore's double weapon idea.

Lord Sessadore · Jan 1, 2009

nerdytenor said:
I agree double weapons are problematic. Perhaps the easiest solution is to outlaw them, and have them be flavor only (so that a double weapon is simply one main hand weapon and one off hand weapon joined together).

Yeah, this is basically what my suggestion boils down to - it's two weapons, each with unique properties, that are joined together. I also think even with my suggested adjustments they could be problematic - for example, if one side of a double axe has the off-hand property, it becomes the only off-hand weapon that does d10 damage (if I remember correctly).

SeaPainter · Jan 1, 2009

Lord Sessadore said:
Yeah, this is basically what my suggestion boils down to - it's two weapons, each with unique properties, that are joined together. I also think even with my suggested adjustments they could be problematic - for example, if one side of a double axe has the off-hand property, it becomes the only off-hand weapon that does d10 damage (if I remember correctly).

If it were "off hand" only to offset the oversized off hand weapon penalty that afflicts anyone who isn't a 2W ranger... other than that, it doesn't get the benefit of being an off-hand weapon.