Magic item rarity revision forthcoming?

[Balesir]

It seems to me that part of the problem is that the original design gave only one dimension with which to define magic item "worth" - level. Thus, for any level of item, you have a straitjacket that defines (a) the magnitude of the power(s) the item may contain, and (b) the number and range/applicability of the power(s) in the item.

Maybe what is needed is for there to ba a clear guideline for the number and range/applicability of powers for a "single item". This could even be done with the rarity system; Common = "1 item", Uncommon = "3 items" and Rare = "6 items", maybe. Thus, each item has a level (which determines how much "oomph" each power they hold may have) and a number of powers that determines rarity. The Flaming Sword example has an enhancement bonus and ability to switch damage type (1 "item" worth), extra damage on every strike (another "item" worth) and a daily power (a final "item" worth). The item is level 6 at +2 bonus (because it's not much better, in absolute power, than a straight +2 weapon), but costs 3 times as much as a "simple" or "common" level 6 item. Basically, it is treated like three items that happen to occupy the same slot and be usable all at once.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think the idea of rarity is about the power level of the items at all. It is about controlling character access to item powers. Common items never have powers, or possibly just have some kind of power that could be harmless if it were spammed. Uncommon items have powers that really need to be restricted such that no matter what level you are you can't gain access to multiple instances of that power.

Rare items are a bit of a different beast. They are almost certainly going to be more powerful than other items at the same level, but given that players will never be getting the choice of these items and will see a small and controlled number of them they don't NEED to be on the same power curve as other items. Look at artifacts, they too don't fall into any kind of power curve that resembles normal items except in a VERY general respect of the types of powers they have will be generally appropriate to the tier they are designed for. You can think of rare items as somewhere intermediate between artifacts and normal common/uncommon items. What the level of an item tells you is roughly what point in the game it is considered appropriate to give out that type of item in order to maintain expected power levels and modes of play.

As for artifacts being listed in Compendium as "uncommon", so what? All items default to uncommon. Artifacts are outside the whole parcel scheme anyway, so a rarity category for them is irrelevant, not part of the rules, and is just there because of the way Compendium works. Really, trying to ball bust on WotC at every turn for the most trivial minutia gets tiring. Can we just from now on in all threads assume that everyone hates WotC and is silently breaking their nuts with a hammer every 5 minutes so we can just not have to read it anymore?

 

[KarinsDad]

As for artifacts being listed in Compendium as "uncommon", so what? All items default to uncommon. Artifacts are outside the whole parcel scheme anyway, so a rarity category for them is irrelevant, not part of the rules, and is just there because of the way Compendium works. Really, trying to ball bust on WotC at every turn for the most trivial minutia gets tiring. Can we just from now on in all threads assume that everyone hates WotC and is silently breaking their nuts with a hammer every 5 minutes so we can just not have to read it anymore?

A bit of an overeaction, wouldn't you say? I merely said that I found it amusing. I find a lot of other CB issues a lot more annoying (like clicking the button 20 times and waiting 3 seconds for each click to level up 20 times). With respect to common vs. uncommon vs. rare items, WotC partially mitigated one of their most annoying magic item problems (same level items with differing power or utility levels) conceptually, but not via implementation. It's great that they came up with a good idea, too bad they didn't follow through.

You think their implementation was wise. I think their implementation was lazy and hardly implemented at all. Sure, it saved them a lot of money by not doing the actual work, but it also is yet another way to disgruntle customers. Not as wise as you claim I think. You wouldn't be overreacting to mild comments against WotC if it weren't for the fact that so many people are complaining about their service at the moment.

People don't want to have to do the work themselves to figure out a good implementation for this solution to a problem that WotC themselves created. They want WotC to do it for them precisely because there are thousands of items. They want to go to the Compendium and filter by common or uncommon or rare (of course, the Compendium currently cannot do that).

And although the solution sounds good, it's not going to be work out that well in practice if most every PC is limited to crafting or purchasing only vanilla +2 neck items cause every other neck item is uncommon (ditto for all other items). If 20% or so of items are not common, the solution actually creates new problems with a deficit of common items at each level. For the solution to work, there needs to be a large enough pool of common items so that the uncommon ones feel special and cool and the common items handed out seem reasonable and not totally vanilla. Otherwise, the game will just be played with the players not even having the option to craft or purchase the items that they really want like they originally had.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, my complaint is more general. The constant refrain is "bad, broken, WotC sukz, money grubbing, etc etc etc" and I just get sick of it all. My eyes can only roll up into my head so many times in one day. In all fairness it isn't particularly you KD. I'm just saying, overall, can we just can that refrain? I'm interested in "Hey, such and such is like X, but why isn't it like Y, would that work better and be more cool?" vs "Obviously this horribly broken X exists so that we will be forced to pay WotC more money next month for Y!". I should just start a whole other thread for that, but it would be pointless...

As for the whole rarity thing, I can't really say anything more than what I've said before. I will however observe that I'm not even being overly generous to WotC here. MAYBE THEY DID go through every single item with a fine toothed comb and decided exactly what should be each rarity category. I've assumed they were rather cursory about it for reasons that I've stated before, but this is only a hypothesis. For all I know Mike Mearls himself sat down and went through the entire list item by item and has a well-reasoned argument for every single item.

I agree, there could be more common items at more levels. As, again, I've said before DMs really CAN handle that though. Every game is different and it is a lot easier on the DM to be saying "OK, if you want to craft an uncommon item just ask me about it and we'll decide if it seems reasonable to either reclassify it or come up with a way you can make it." than "OK, every single time you even contemplate making anything I'm going to HAVE to decide if it should really be common or not because WotC overenthusiastically dumped all kinds of questionable stuff into the common category."

DMs really don't have to do some vast amount of work here. Let the players do what they have always done and just say they want to make an item and then do what DMs have always done and figure out what should happen next. It isn't like the players are going to go down the list and try to ask about 1000's of items. They'll have a small number of requests for specific items now and then.

I'd finally note that, as people have already noticed, BoMS is a poster child for exactly why most items should default to uncommon. Here we have the issue in a nutshell. Anyone can now craft BoMS and players will expect to be able to as it is listed as common, yet it pretty much obviously shouldn't be a common item. While I want to see more common items I'd rather see too few and not have to deal with dozens of cases like BoMS which I will now have to specifically tell all the players they can't craft willy nilly. This is fine in my game, no big deal, but for more open games or events where it really isn't practical to vet everything constantly and the DM may only run into it at the table the more conservative categorization makes a LOT of sense to me.

 

[Marshall]

Well, my complaint is more general. The constant refrain is "bad, broken, WotC sukz, money grubbing, etc etc etc" and I just get sick of it all.

Yup, WotC has been demonstrably incompetent this year and are making close to NO effort to improve.

As for the whole rarity thing, I can't really say anything more than what I've said before. I will however observe that I'm not even being overly generous to WotC here. MAYBE THEY DID go through every single item with a fine toothed comb and decided exactly what should be each rarity category. I've assumed they were rather cursory about it for reasons that I've stated before, but this is only a hypothesis. For all I know Mike Mearls himself sat down and went through the entire list item by item and has a well-reasoned argument for every single item.

The problem here is that there is no way to look at it that says WotC knows what they are doing.
They are either too lazy/cheap to go through the items and give them a fair rating or just so grossly incompetent that they think these ratings are correct. Neither of those options looks good for the company and
either is easily demonstrable.

I agree, there could be more common items at more levels. As, again, I've said before DMs really CAN handle that though. Every game is different and it is a lot easier on the DM to be saying "OK, if you want to craft an uncommon item just ask me about it and we'll decide if it seems reasonable to either reclassify it or come up with a way you can make it." than "OK, every single time you even contemplate making anything I'm going to HAVE to decide if it should really be common or not because WotC overenthusiastically dumped all kinds of questionable stuff into the common category."

No, now they just dump all kinds of questionable and/or outright stupidly broken into the uncommon category.

I'd finally note that, as people have already noticed, BoMS is a poster child for exactly why most items should default to uncommon. Here we have the issue in a nutshell. Anyone can now craft BoMS and players will expect to be able to as it is listed as common, yet it pretty much obviously shouldn't be a common item. While I want to see more common items I'd rather see too few and not have to deal with dozens of cases like BoMS which I will now have to specifically tell all the players they can't craft willy nilly. This is fine in my game, no big deal, but for more open games or events where it really isn't practical to vet everything constantly and the DM may only run into it at the table the more conservative categorization makes a LOT of sense to me.

No, BoMS shows what a common item SHOULD be. Simple, direct, equip it and forget it. Uncommon should be reserved for items that make you make choices and Rares are plot devices.

 

[Nifft]

Well, my complaint is more general. The constant refrain is "bad, broken, WotC sukz, money grubbing, etc etc etc" and I just get sick of it all. My eyes can only roll up into my head so many times in one day. In all fairness it isn't particularly you KD. I'm just saying, overall, can we just can that refrain?

If we never tell them that they did something bad, how will they learn?

If they never learn, how will they do better next time?

The stifling silence you champion is bad for the game you like.

MAYBE THEY DID go through every single item with a fine toothed comb and decided exactly what should be each rarity category. (...) For all I know Mike Mearls himself sat down and went through the entire list item by item and has a well-reasoned argument for every single item.

If they did a whole bunch of work in secret -- and then threw the work away -- and the results of this work are identical to being lazy, then they have made an error exactly equal to the error of being lazy.

As, again, I've said before DMs really CAN handle that though. Every game is different and it is a lot easier on the DM to be saying "OK, if you want to craft an uncommon item just ask me about it and we'll decide if it seems reasonable to either reclassify it or come up with a way you can make it." than "OK, every single time you even contemplate making anything I'm going to HAVE to decide if it should really be common or not because WotC overenthusiastically dumped all kinds of questionable stuff into the common category."

DMs really don't have to do some vast amount of work here. Let the players do what they have always done and just say they want to make an item and then do what DMs have always done and figure out what should happen next. It isn't like the players are going to go down the list and try to ask about 1000's of items. They'll have a small number of requests for specific items now and then.

Mmm. The trouble is that some players try to use the rules as guidelines -- "oh this is Uncommon, it would be against the spirit of the rules to craft that" -- while some players see the rules as an obstacle to be overcome in their quest for Real Ultimate Power(tm).

IMHO the game shouldn't be written such that pestering the GM results in a power-up. There should be concrete limits to optimization, and the boundaries should be well marked, so that you get your power-ups from playing within the rules of the game, rather than by petitioning for rules changes in your favor.

I'd finally note that, as people have already noticed, BoMS is a poster child for exactly why most items should default to uncommon. Here we have the issue in a nutshell. Anyone can now craft BoMS and players will expect to be able to as it is listed as common, yet it pretty much obviously shouldn't be a common item.

Perhaps you're thinking of IAoP (which are Uncommon), but confusing them with the very similar BoMS (which are Common).

Both items grant a static bonus to the damage of certain attacks. One is perfect for Essentials characters, the other is preferred by non-Essentials characters.

Cheers, -- N

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If we never tell them that they did something bad, how will they learn?

If they never learn, how will they do better next time?

The stifling silence you champion is bad for the game you like.

I never said anything about 'stifling silence'. I said "dry up with all the WotC stupid, lazy, evil, beat my dog" routine. We HEARD it, the first 4000 times. I address it to whomsoever sees fit to take it as a criticism. Not everyone does it by any means.

But more to the point I never said to stop pointing out what can be made better, why, and how. Just lets STOP with the 50% of every thread pre-dedicated to the same tired refrain of telling us how bad, evil, etc the people are who DARE to work for less than they could get in most positions they could be holding to work on providing us with our entertainment. I mean I KNOW bashing them IS a lot of people's entertainment, but I'm bored of it

If they did a whole bunch of work in secret -- and then threw the work away -- and the results of this work are identical to being lazy, then they have made an error exactly equal to the error of being lazy.

Huh? I mean I'm hearing a lot of people saying " job there guys" but really exactly how sure is everyone it IS factually not well done? I want to hear specifics, examples, reasons etc not this "Oh, most things are uncommon, that's just awfulz!!!!" SHOW ME. What should be common? Tell us, since if you can look at the list and see what's WRONG with it then you logically must also know what would be RIGHT with it! lol.

Mmm. The trouble is that some players try to use the rules as guidelines -- "oh this is Uncommon, it would be against the spirit of the rules to craft that" -- while some players see the rules as an obstacle to be overcome in their quest for Real Ultimate Power(tm).

IMHO the game shouldn't be written such that pestering the GM results in a power-up. There should be concrete limits to optimization, and the boundaries should be well marked, so that you get your power-ups from playing within the rules of the game, rather than by petitioning for rules changes in your favor.

This is not a sensible statement. Players can ALWAYS pester the DM for more power. Players HAVE ALWAYS pestered the DM for more power. Unless and until they have total ultimate power there is always more they can ask for. I'm saying the line was redrawn in a conservative fashion that gives the DM some room to maneuver. Players don't ask for LESS power. Wasn't half the point of this whole exercise to dial it back a bit? I agree there is room to debate by HOW MUCH, but you surely can't be telling me it will be easier for me to take the PCs commons and tell the players they are now uncommon when the rules say different vs going the other way!!!

Perhaps you're thinking of IAoP (which are Uncommon), but confusing them with the very similar BoMS (which are Common).

Both items grant a static bonus to the damage of certain attacks. One is perfect for Essentials characters, the other is preferred by non-Essentials characters.

Cheers, -- N

I'm not confused about anything. I said exactly what I meant to say. BoMS SHOULD be uncommon but it is common. It illustrates my point, better to be conservative. This is exactly what (BoMS aside) WotC has been. It is a conscious deliberate choice of the designers, not 'laziness' or stupidity. Do you think the lazy and stupid people get to be full-time game designers? Excuse me? In what industry does that happen? Do you think nobody out here in the rest of the world wouldn't snap up the chance to have that job? Of course they would. The competition is fierce. I don't doubt that there are perfectly well qualified people outside of WotC, but to imagine that they are so dumb that they only hire lazy stupid people seems incredibly far-fetched to me.

 

[KarinsDad]

Huh? I mean I'm hearing a lot of people saying " job there guys" but really exactly how sure is everyone it IS factually not well done? I want to hear specifics, examples, reasons etc not this "Oh, most things are uncommon, that's just awfulz!!!!" SHOW ME. What should be common? Tell us, since if you can look at the list and see what's WRONG with it then you logically must also know what would be RIGHT with it! lol.

I think there are some examples that can be found: Riding Boots, Muleback harness, Arcanist's Glasses.

To me, this isn't the real issue though.

The real issue is that there are ~300 common items out of ~8900 items and the vast majority of those 300 are not useful to any given current group of PCs. If nobody can use a Rod in the group, 24 items out of 300 are useless as common items. Split across 30 levels, that pretty much leaves 10 common items per level, a third of which are pretty worthless or repetitive for a given group of players/PCs.

There are also entire areas of magic like Wondrous items that have no common items.

Plus, there are items like Dragonshard Augments where many of them should be common, but are not.

Don't get me wrong. I really like the concept. But, I think that the definition of common is too restrictive because it's going to somewhat force the DM's hand when handing out magic items if the DM is someone who likes to follow the WotC treasure parcel guidelines closely.

I'm personally trying to come up with my own house rule on what a common item should be, just because of how limited the core rule definition is.

 

[Nifft]

I never said anything about 'stifling silence'. I said "dry up with all the WotC stupid, lazy, evil, beat my dog" routine. We HEARD it, the first 4000 times. I address it to whomsoever sees fit to take it as a criticism. Not everyone does it by any means.

So far as I have seen, the only person in this thread bringing up anything like those hyperbolic complaints is you.

But more to the point I never said to stop pointing out what can be made better, why, and how. Just lets STOP with the 50% of every thread pre-dedicated to the same tired refrain of telling us how bad, evil, etc the people are who DARE to work for less than they could get in most positions they could be holding to work on providing us with our entertainment. I mean I KNOW bashing them IS a lot of people's entertainment, but I'm bored of it

There are lots of other threads on the forum. No need to stay here and be bored.

Huh? I mean I'm hearing a lot of people saying " job there guys" but really exactly how sure is everyone it IS factually not well done? I want to hear specifics, examples, reasons etc not this "Oh, most things are uncommon, that's just awfulz!!!!" SHOW ME. What should be common? Tell us, since if you can look at the list and see what's WRONG with it then you logically must also know what would be RIGHT with it! lol.

Drop the derisive, mocking tone, and I'd be happy to oblige.

This is not a sensible statement. Players can ALWAYS pester the DM for more power. Players HAVE ALWAYS pestered the DM for more power. Unless and until they have total ultimate power there is always more they can ask for. I'm saying the line was redrawn in a conservative fashion that gives the DM some room to maneuver. Players don't ask for LESS power. Wasn't half the point of this whole exercise to dial it back a bit? I agree there is room to debate by HOW MUCH, but you surely can't be telling me it will be easier for me to take the PCs commons and tell the players they are now uncommon when the rules say different vs going the other way!!!

Previously:
Humble Hamster - "Can I make this item?" - "Sure, if you can afford it."
War Weasel - "Can I make this item?" - "Sure, if you can afford it."
-> A clear rule gives no wiggle room.

Now:
Humble Hamster - "Can I make this item?" - "The rules say it's Uncommon." - "Oh..."
War Weasel - "Can I make this item?" - "The rules say it's Uncommon." - "Yeah but they also say you can waive that if you want, and if you look at this pie chart you'll see that the group's item distribution blah blah and besides, it's very similar to this item blah blah, and you totally gave Dave that awesome sword and I want to make something awesome too. And you owe me ten bucks from pizza last week. So can I have it?"
-> Vague rules reward wiggling.

I'm not confused about anything. I said exactly what I meant to say. BoMS SHOULD be uncommon but it is common. It illustrates my point, better to be conservative. This is exactly what (BoMS aside) WotC has been. It is a conscious deliberate choice of the designers, not 'laziness' or stupidity.

Why should it be uncommon? It fits the common profile to a T. (As do the IAoP, which are not common.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there are some examples that can be found: Riding Boots, Muleback harness, Arcanist's Glasses.

To me, this isn't the real issue though.

The real issue is that there are ~300 common items out of ~8900 items and the vast majority of those 300 are not useful to any given current group of PCs. If nobody can use a Rod in the group, 24 items out of 300 are useless as common items. Split across 30 levels, that pretty much leaves 10 common items per level, a third of which are pretty worthless or repetitive for a given group of players/PCs.

There are also entire areas of magic like Wondrous items that have no common items.

Plus, there are items like Dragonshard Augments where many of them should be common, but are not.

Don't get me wrong. I really like the concept. But, I think that the definition of common is too restrictive because it's going to somewhat force the DM's hand when handing out magic items if the DM is someone who likes to follow the WotC treasure parcel guidelines closely.

I'm personally trying to come up with my own house rule on what a common item should be, just because of how limited the core rule definition is.

Now see, if I were working for WotC this is pretty much like what I'd want to hear. I agree, the breakup between common and uncommon is pretty conservative. I'd hope to see some careful relaxing of the list.

So far as I have seen, the only person in this thread bringing up anything like those hyperbolic complaints is you.

Oh, I don't really expect them to stop, but you never get what you want if you don't ask for it, and it is always best to ask in no uncertain terms. I could have made the same complaint in any of 100 threads of course. You can't really deny that it is a constant refrain. Maybe not everyone bothers to say anything, but after reading 90,000 repetitions of basically the same thing I am going to guess I'm not the only person that would love to just not see it again. As I said in my last post it is beyond any amount of credibility that WotC hires idiots and has a master plan that involves 4e D&D as a mechanism for fleecing people (that's what oil companies are for).

There are lots of other threads on the forum. No need to stay here and be bored.

Ah yes, the old "don't complain, just move on." And I guess my answer is the people doing all the complaining could just move on to a different game too. In each case the thought is equally appreciated.

Drop the derisive, mocking tone, and I'd be happy to oblige.

Derisive mocking tone?! LOL, this is my NICE VOICE. You don't want to hear derisive and mocking. Really, pardon me if you find it derisive. It was an entirely honest question. Pointed perhaps, but not at all intended to be sarcastic.

Previously:
Humble Hamster - "Can I make this item?" - "Sure, if you can afford it."
War Weasel - "Can I make this item?" - "Sure, if you can afford it."
-> A clear rule gives no wiggle room.

It was a rule so loose that it required another highly restrictive rule to make it work (daily item use). We already know that rule was intensely unpopular. Basically the old crafting rule was no rule at all, you could just make anything.

Now:
Humble Hamster - "Can I make this item?" - "The rules say it's Uncommon." - "Oh..."

And here is exactly where the DM has the chance to say something besides "No". That is the whole point. There's no reason to just brush off this player. A good DM tip is to make sure that these types of players are constantly engaged.

War Weasel

- "Can I make this item?" - "The rules say it's Uncommon." - "Yeah but they also say you can waive that if you want, and if you look at this pie chart you'll see that the group's item distribution blah blah and besides, it's very similar to this item blah blah, and you totally gave Dave that awesome sword and I want to make something awesome too. And you owe me ten bucks from pizza last week. So can I have it?"
-> Vague rules reward wiggling.

It has nothing to do with vague rules. There are 1000's of vague rules in the game for said player to pester the DM about. This is a player issue, not a rules issue. Just like with young children, when you clearly lay down the rules and don't reward annoying behavior you will have the best results. Maybe I'm just an old codger at this point but players of this ilk usually don't survive long at the table.

Why should it be uncommon? It fits the common profile to a T. (As do the IAoP, which are not common.)

Cheers, -- N

And this is an interesting point. It demonstrates that a simplistic "it doesn't have item powers, so it should be common" kind of rote rule simply doesn't work. Someone understood this with IAoP since the item has been infamously ubiquitous since it was introduced. BoMS OTOH as you say APPEARS to be a candidate for a common and was made common. It wasn't a known problematic item because up until recently it really wasn't all that exciting. With the introduction of Essentials it becomes a problem. You can't make a simple rule that sorts the items and gets it right. Ergo it is better to make items uncommon and then justify reasons for them to be common at need. BoMS is going to have to be kicked to uncommon. Good job they didn't overdo it or there would be 200 more items that would likewise need to be reclassified. Now maybe there are 200 other items that need to be moved to common from uncommon, but at least that doesn't involve taking away things players had before, always a better policy when possible.