Voting for Rarity?

[Amphimir Míriel]

I feel the opposite. Any item that shows as a recommended or must have is automatically common. We see people running around with these items all the time. Bracers of Archery, Iron Armbands, Staff of Ruin, Dwarven Armor, Gauntlets of Blood, Strikebacks, etc. all seem to be the bread and butter items. Characters who have access to these items are the basis around monster design.

We'll have to agree to disagree.... and thank you for reminding me of which items I won't allow in my games.

Once these items are made common, the system needs to take this as the baseline when constructing uncommon and rare items. No uncommon or rare bracer should be worse than Iron Armbands. No uncommon or rare staff should be worse than Staff of Ruin.

Sorry, no... The baseline should be a character with a starting 16-18 in the primary attribute with a "Magic +X" weapon or implement with no additional conditions.

It is the assumption that characters will have 20 starting attributes and munchkiny items like the Iron Armbands or Staff of Ruin what breaks the game and forces DMs into making Level +4 encounters the "norm"

 

[Mengu]

Sorry, no... The baseline should be a character with a starting 16-18 in the primary attribute with a "Magic +X" weapon or implement with no additional conditions.

This baseline would be too far off reality. The game system protects you only so far. Yes, it's possible to have a level 30 character who swings a 2d6+13 shortsword. But looking at either the hit points of a standard level 30 creature (around 270), or the kind of damage your typical level 30 character can dish out, this is not a reasonable baseline. Monster hit points increase at a certain rate. Therefore, character damage has to increase at a proportional rate. Magic weapons and natural stat boost progression is simply insufficient by themselves.

It is the assumption that characters will have 20 starting attributes and munchkiny items like the Iron Armbands or Staff of Ruin what breaks the game and forces DMs into making Level +4 encounters the "norm"

It's a matter of preference I suppose. You say munchkin, I say baseline. Out of the gate, the game had problems with monsters having high defenses and high hit points. In time, these issues have been resolved with feats like expertise, lowering elite/solo defenses, lowering solo hit points, and increasing damage with item bonuses. With these tweaks combat was taking a more desirable amount of time, but this time, monsters weren't dishing out enough damage. So monster damage has been tweaked. These tweaks have brought us to a pretty good equilibrium. Going back to no item munchkin bonuses to damage would just be a step back which would again require adjustments to the system.

My players like to optimize and I encourage it as DM. Level+4 encounters are certainly not the norm in my games. As a matter of fact I don't believe I've ever used one, except possibly in a case where they made a poor choice and fought two encounters at once. I find that level or level+1 encounters are sufficiently entertaining, and level+2 or level+3 encounters are sufficiently challenging. I've used level-1 encounters in cases where there is a time pressure, and wiping the encounter fast or forgoing a short rest can have advantages.

In the long run it really doesn't matter which knobs and dials are being turned to create a fun, fast and furious combat environment. Add bonuses to attack and damage, or shave off defenses and hit points from monsters. It all has the same goal.

 

[BobTheNob]

I feel the opposite. Any item that shows as a recommended or must have is automatically common. We see people running around with these items all the time. Bracers of Archery, Iron Armbands, Staff of Ruin, Dwarven Armor, Gauntlets of Blood, Strikebacks, etc. all seem to be the bread and butter items. Characters who have access to these items are the basis around monster design.

Alot of people have agreed with the observation, but I am not one of them. I not only disagree, I am actually distressed by it. If what you are saying here is true (in particular the last sentence) then monster design assumes characters are carrying these number crunching items.

Therefore to not have them is to not be on par with current monster design? Ouch. So, even though there is a massive selection of really interesting gear out there, if I want to be able to mash it with any creature then you dont really have a choice, you have to fall back on the short list of most potent equipment?

If what you have said is true, wow have they made a game design mistake.

Sorry, that item list you presented is, to me, the things they need on the rare list, and monster design should not assume characters are carrying them.

 

[Jhaelen]

Sorry, that item list you presented is, to me, the things they need on the rare list, and monster design should not assume characters are carrying them.

I agree. And my anecdotal evidence supports that view.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, the way the conversation is going, rarity is borked because it doesn't let you get MOAR SWORD DAKKA with corresponding rareness (as the Holy Avenger shows).

The way to fix this, I'd think, is to make sure that when you make an item rare, you increase its power to that of a top-of-the-line item of that level.

So then, finally, getting the Holy Avenger feels like a reward for more than just the warm fuzzy feelings associated with the words "Holy Avenger." If you get your paws on a souped-up Holy Avenger, you will keep it and love it and sleep with it and use it over the course of many levels and maybe marry it in one of those sword-marrying ceremonies that some kingdoms want to outlaw. Because it is MOAR SWORD DAKKA.

This means that "rarity," by itself, is a useless concept.

We need to have rarity keyed to an item's power, or else it doesn't feel like there's an actual reward for the item.

If I'm wielding my standard +5 Vorpal Sword and I would toss this "Holy Avenger" in the scrap heap, it's not worth being called Rare, and if you want it to be called Rare, you need to make it an attractive alternative to the other items.

If Rare items are supposed to be character-defining they ALSO need to be mighty like thews.

Or else the distinction only tells me that I might have to work extra-hard for my lumps of coal this Christmas.

 

[Scribble]

The way to fix this, I'd think, is to make sure that when you make an item rare, you increase its power to that of a top-of-the-line item of that level.

But wouldn't you say this creates an unfortunate catch-22?

If you make rare items more powerful, without having the system account for it, then the players with the rare items are overpowered. This also has the unfortunate side effect of DMs then not wanting to give them out.

If you make the system account for it, then those without them are underpowered. They end up needing the items or they get slaughtered. This has the unfortunate side effect of players starting to expect them.

This means that "rarity," by itself, is a useless concept.

Not really... Weren't you the one telling me that calling a card rare makes people just strive to find it harder?

That's what I think a lot of this has to do with. The items don't need a power boost to make them special (And we've discovered that doesn't really even work haven't we?)

It's a mental thing.

They're special simply because it's harder to acquire them.

It's like a first edition of a book or something. It's no different then say- the 10th edition. The words are the same. But it's the first edition, and harder to find- so it feels cooler.


The system now can have that old school "Ooooh what's in THIS chest???" feel without also screwing with the math.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

What this game needs is more "items with a sense of wonder" like the Decanter of Endless Water and Murlynd's spoon and less "items of +2 to damage"

 

[eamon]

But wouldn't you say this creates an unfortunate catch-22?

If you make rare items more powerful, without having the system account for it, then the players with the rare items are overpowered. This also has the unfortunate side effect of DMs then not wanting to give them out.

If you make the system account for it, then those without them are underpowered. They end up needing the items or they get slaughtered. This has the unfortunate side effect of players starting to expect them.

I don't think this is true. Essentially, neither items nor PC's have some one-dimensional "power" quantity. Their power depends heavily on the situation. An item can be more or less useful depending on who has it, who else is in his party, whether they're helping him use the item effectively, what other items he has, whether he's actively retrained abilities to synergize with the item, and what the overall situation is.

I bet I could find several epic items that are perfectly fine for 1st level characters (assuming they can't sell or disenchant them).

So if you give someone a +4 weapon when the rest of the party has +2 weapons, sure, that's going to make others feel underpowered by comparison. But many items aren't weapons, and even weapons don't have to be that straightforward or that egocentric. If you give away items with more unique abilities, or that really only enhance a particular role, and in particular if you prefer items that naturally encourage spotlight sharing, then an item can be very powerful without unbalancing the party.

 

[Iron Sky]

If I was to make the magic item system, I'd probably divide it into a few different categories that I'd rename later:

Utter crap: I can't imagine having a character pick this item over something else. It has powers that are useful only rare builds or useful in extremely limited circumstances (if at all), especially if it's higher level than a generic "+x thingy" for weapons/armor. Ironically, the majority of daily item powers fall here.

Average: This is at or around the strength of a generic "+x thingy"* or I could conceive of having one with a generic build or getting one when I'm higher level and can use petty cash to fill a slot with it. Items with encounter powers or decently useful properties mostly fall here.

Great: This item shows up in a wide array of builds or single-handedly "makes" a powerful character build. (Frost weapons, Iron Armbands of Power, etc). Items with at-all-useful at-will or great encounter powers or great properties mostly fall here.

If the rating system was based mechanically, I'd probably make Greats = Rares, Average = Uncommon, and Utter Crap = Common.

If the rating system were based on real-world functionality**, I'd reverse the ratings. Just look at the CharOps boards, imagine they are the picky buyers of the economy (the ones that write Consumer Reports and the like) and see how many of the hundreds of marginal items would remain in the market.

It would be telling if wizards took a "character survey" and had everyone upload the Summary of their characters so the magic items they had could be parsed into a spreadsheet and stats like "65% of melee characters have Iron Armbands of Power in their Arms slot" could be generated.

[sblock=*]A +1 sword is decently powerful, since it's level 1, cheap, and easy to get, say, compared to a level 3 +1 sword of toad stabbing that has a daily power that immobilizes reptiles. Higher + weapons maintain the same power level since they are the first ones reachable as characters gain levels.[/sblock]

[sblock=**]I.E. crappy items tend to be "evolutionarily" phased out of the economy by presence of superior items and the associated lack of consumer demand for the inferior item.[/sblock]

 

[Artoomis]

Rare = character-defining, right?

Holy Avenger has been represented as the archetype of "rare," right?

And yet, when I read through the weapon, it is hardly what I'd call "The most prized weapon of any paladin." The old version of this in previous editions were that exactly, but this version has only one property you might not have from other sources anyway - "Power (Daily): Minor Action. You and each ally within 10 squares of you gain a +5 power bonus to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses until the end of your next turn." Very cool, granted, but hardly what I'd call "character-defining," especially when it does not stack with power bonuses that may come form other leader classes.

4e toned-downed magic items so that I don't think there are any that are really "character-defining" any more. That's not necessarily a bad thing, by the way.

This is with the exception of intelligent magic items - those really can be "character-defining" items. But, then again, those did not need a "rarity" system as they were already special things.

Holy Avenger

The most prized weapon of any paladin.

Level: 25
Price: 625,000 gp
Weapon: Axe, Hammer, Heavy Blade
Enhancement: +5 attack rolls and damage rolls
Critical: +5d6 radiant damage
Property: A holy avenger deals an extra 1d10 radiant damage when the power you use to make the attack has the radiant keyword.
Property: On a critical hit you can spend a healing surge.
Power (Daily): Minor Action. You and each ally within 10 squares of you gain a +5 power bonus to Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses until the end of your next turn.

Special: A holy avenger can be used as a holy symbol. It adds its enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls and the extra damage granted by its property (if applicable) when used in this manner. You do not gain your weapon proficiency bonus on an attack when using a holy avenger as an implement.