what do you do when a +3 bloodclaw weapon is more powerful than a +4 artifact

[JoeGKushner]

It's one of the reasons why, despite numerous players have magic items in my game, and having a few 'potion' shops, and having allies that can find/hunt down/inform the players where an item is, that there is no 'true' magic shop. There is no place they can go, plunk down a bag of gold, and buy exactly what they want.

I try to work with the players so that they're aware that there is magic, but that unless their characters are scholars or masters of ancient history (academic or bards) that they're not going to have that 'meta' knowledge that the player does.

Makes them appreciate the items they do find more and makes them role play harder to get items they feel would complement their character. For example, if they go to a contact and explain what type of weapon they want in terms of what it does, it makes for more interesting options than merely asking for Item X on page 105. It's a lot like the old adage for Ravenloft; description, description, description.

 

[malraux]

Am I the only one who doesn't see the Bloodclaw weapon as overpowered?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Am I the only one who doesn't see the Bloodclaw weapon as overpowered?

I havent' run enough or played enough to say with 'definitive' authority.

However, the rogue striker in my game, which lacks a defender role at the moment, has come to near death so often, that I can't see the player taking anything that would increase the damage he takes.

 

[Obryn]

"everything is core."

[inigo]You keep using these words.

I do not think they mean what you think they mean[/inigo]

-O

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I'm still wondering what the artifact was.

I'd be strongly tempted to keep a Vicious weapon over an artifact of a higher plus. At least that I don't have to keep happy and stroke it and make it feel good.

Brad

 

[malraux]

I havent' run enough or played enough to say with 'definitive' authority.

However, the rogue striker in my game, which lacks a defender role at the moment, has come to near death so often, that I can't see the player taking anything that would increase the damage he takes.

Note that the rogue can't do triple damage (or at least can't if he wants to do SA damage), only double damage. Given the high attack bonus of the rogue, for every point of damage he takes from this, he's dishing out ~1.5. Comparing that to something like the Subtle Weapon (which adds the enhancement to damage with combat advantage), I really can't see the rogue wanting the bloodclaw weapon.

I'd worry most about a class like the barbarian, a striker with a lot of HP to burn and typically carries a 2-handed weapon.

 

[evilbob]

JoeGKushner: That works when you don't have a PC with access to ritual magic, but thanks to Enchant Item, anyone can have anything they want at any time (post-level 4). Reigning in shops only goes so far - and it still doesn't work on the core problem, which is player expectation. Players should reasonably expect that any "core" items are balanced or at least playable. DMs should reasonably expect that they don't have to second-guess everything constantly. Sure, some variation and human error is to be expected, but I guess my problem is that I've come to the point where there are SO many errors it is beyond what I find to be "reasonable."

As for bloodclaw weapons: it's not really the main focus of my point, only an example; but for those who do not know, the pure blinding power that bloodclaw offers is truly amazing (or ridiculous, depending on your perspective). It might as well be called "add 20-35% damage for free". The HP loss is a joke; it's seriously a joke. There is no reason any melee character should not be using this weapon; it's that good. The only thing that comes close to giving it a run for its money is its sister, reckless. But honestly taking almost no damage each hit is still better than +10% enemy chance to hit you.

 

[jbear]

I think JoeGKushner has hit on something interesting. It's MUCH harder to "ban" a broken item in a system where it's pretty much expected that a) every character can (at least eventually) get any item they want, and b) "everything is core." In older editions, treasure was more of a "what you got" vs. "what you get for yourself" mechanic, so it was easier to control. Now, anything is available and "everything is core," so it's much harder to argue against specific items - especially without an individual review of each. Not that rule 0 doesn't exist or is invalidated or anything; it's just a harder argument (at least in my opinion).

In response to some of the direct questions, in the game I was talking about in the OP I am a player, but I also DM. It's not really relevant to this thread, I think: you can think of it in either PC or DM terms and it's pretty much the same set of issues.

I am afraid I may have to disagree with you here. As I read through the thread this was precisely the question I had in mind. It casts a light on the perspective you are coming from. It's a lot harder for you to solve a problem like the one's that are damaging your enjoyment if you are a player. As a DM, you are holding the reigns and can more easily guide the game to a place where you feel comfortable.

The other question that some others have asked but (still at the end of page 3) still remains unanswered, which I also find relevant (if you ant to find solutions at least), is whether or not others in your group share the same feelings. Have you talked with anyone else about your issues that you play with or even as an entire group? I think after the game dice are put away it's important to communicate amongst players and DM's about how people are feeling, like's/dislikes etc. I try and keep this kind of communication open to my player's and react accordingly. I have a huge group which includes people with very varied tastes. But I do my best to keep that in mind as I design events/encounters etc. If I didn't have that 2 way communication, I'd be in the dark and unaware if someone was feeling some kind of problem, boredom or whatever. If you want a solution because you enjoy the majority of the game, maybe communication with your fellow players is a good place to start. Together find a solution everyone concerned agrees upon.

I can't add too much as my group are all new to RPG's, and none of them speak english so Power Gaming is impossible as they can't read the books. Not to mention we've only just hit lvl 4 so they'll be getting there hands on their first +2 items... so maybe these broken elements are more pronounced as one progresses as I haven't experienced a problem with my swordmage's bloodclaw weapon. He actually has to sacrifice his AC bonus for having a free hand if he wants to dish out the damage, so I find that a reasonable deal (and of course it's only +1).

I will say though, that although the system implies magic items should be as readily available as tennis raquets in a sports store, I haven't found it complicated, taxing or strange to distribute treasure as, when or how I set fit. I use the packages as a guideline of estimated wealth the PC's should have, and then place treasure in places or on people is I deem appropriate to the story. Again my player's haven't read the AV to know what they are missing out on... but I always give them cool and interesting stuff, and I think that's the main thing.

 

[Mallus]

That works when you don't have a PC with access to ritual magic, but thanks to Enchant Item, anyone can have anything they want at any time (post-level 4).

The DM can always say 'no'. Not that I'm a big advocate of 'no', mind you, but it does have its place.

Reigning in shops only goes so far - and it still doesn't work on the core problem, which is player expectation.

Player expectations are best managed through a group's social contract ie, when they agree to work together to make a enjoyable gaming experience.

Players should reasonably expect that any "core" items are balanced or at least playable.

I don't know... 25 years of gaming have taught me to expect the opposite .

DMs should reasonably expect that they don't have to second-guess everything constantly.

The need for constant DM second-guessing is cut down dramatically with the right social contract in place (ie, we're all working together to make the fun).

As for bloodclaw weapons: it's not really the main focus of my point, only an example; but for those who do not know, the pure blinding power that bloodclaw offers is truly amazing (or ridiculous, depending on your perspective).

Bloodclaw weapons aren't ridiculous, they're merely better than most of the competing options. They lead to characters being similarly-equipped, not game-breaking situations.

There is no reason any melee character should not be using this weapon; it's that good.

2 out of 4 melee characters in our game use them. I imagine the players who didn't select them have their reasons (and yes, they are clever, well-educated fellows familiar with the rules).

 

[Doug McCrae]

These bloodclaw weapons sound like an attempt to fix 'the grind'.

I think I'd houserule them to deal the same amount of damage to the target as they do to the wielder, not double or triple.