• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

The new, shiny "Stuff I Have/Would Ban" thread!

Obryn

Hero
If Bloodclaw is balanced, removing it from the game is no big deal, people will just use something else.

If Bloodclaw isn't balanced, then no harm removing it.
Yup. And given the number of "M4SS1V3 DPR" builds which include it, I think encouraging other choices is fine. :) My goal is to make it so there's not one best choice. I understand that something will always be the best - so my end point is kind of arbitrary - but cutting off the extreme tail of the curve at least leaves a wider variety of competing items near the top.

Grasp of the Grave is just a horrible spell, and the game is well rid of it. In some groups it's not abusively horrible, but in others... We actually discussed it last night at a game where the players were talking about how broken it was, and I noted that it would probably be dealable if the daze ended when you left the zone. Still totally brutal with fighters and being knocked prone, though, they pointed out. Maybe if it affected PCs too...
Yeah, I came up with few potential fixes before basically deciding it was easier to ban it - there are plenty of other choices at that level. Affecting allies would help it a lot, but maybe not enough. Regardless, every fight I've seen it in has turned into a slaughter - and that was without a fighter.

-O
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
If Bloodclaw is balanced, removing it from the game is no big deal, people will just use something else.
Well maybe... whether its a big deal or not its' possible people like the trade off choice provided by bloodclaw (I kind of do).

If Bloodclaw isn't balanced, then no harm removing it.

Well one might like its effect just not its extremity or you might like its flavor.

Also I am more inclined to change things than ban them, identifying clearly what might bother me about the game element lets me deal with it better.
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
Obviously I negated hit chance for that particular example. But even assuming that with hit chances it means that you average 1 damage to you for every 2 you do to an enemy, that still means that in 10 rounds of combat, you've taken 30 damage to do 60 to the enemy. Assuming my level 12 character, that's my healing surge value.

If you had an item that said "Spend a healing surge to do 60 damage to an enemy" that you wouldn't take it? And that it wouldn't be kind of overpowered. Especially considering if everyone had one, we could just spend 2 healing surges each and defeat the entire encounter.

To be totally fair, such an item would be the same as a Healing Surge plus some resource to use that surge (i.e. the PC still takes the damage, hence, will often have to be healed an additional time in combat). And, the item would gradually give the damage over the course of 10 rounds. Plus, such an item would only do 40 damage instead of 60 if used with a shield, etc.


How much damage does your 12th level PC do without it? 20 dpr per round (including misses)? Now, it's 26 per round.

So, the 260 hit point monster takes 10 rounds to defeat instead of 13.

But, how much damage would the Barbarian take back from the monster in 3 rounds? He takes 30 with the item (his choice of course). The monster in 3 rounds could easily do nearly that much.

So, the problem with Bloodclaw is action economy.

The Barbarian (or some other PC) would have taken that damage anyway. The damage is merely a footnote.

The problem is how quickly multiple of these more potent items stack and drop an encounter from 10 rounds down to 6 rounds, hence, using even fewer resources per encounter overall.
 

Destil

Explorer
One my issues with bloodclaw is that it's undercosted. It's one of if not the top damage boosting weapon enchant, but it's at the minimum cost for some reason (item level +1). I might be willing to allow it in a game if it didn't eat temp HP and it was at item level +4...

As far as double weapons, I really dislike the Eberron ones, because they suck. But they designed themselves into a hole with the two weapon ranger. The issue is:

Two Weapon Ranger can use two normal one handers for free. So for a double weapon to be good for them (at the cost of a feat) both halves need to be better than a one-hand weapon (equivalent to a superior one-hander).

Everyone else can take one feat to get the double weapon, but if they're equivalent to a superior one-hander in each hand that's actually worth two feats (Wepaon Prof and Two-Blade Warrior).

On the other hand, if they're not equivalent to two superior weapons the ranger doesn't get anything from using them.

My solution would be:
Two Blade Warrior becomes a standard heroic tier ranger feat, Requires Str and Dex 13. Two-Weapon rangers get their choice of this OR Weapon Prof (any double weapon) at 1st, instead of gaining it as a class feature.

All double weapons are equivalent to wielding two one handed martial weapons.

Double Sword: +3/+3 d8/d8 heavy blade
Double Scimitar: +2/+2 d8/d8 heavy blade, high crit
Urgosh: +2/+2 d10/d10 axe/spear
et cetera.

Drop defensive as written. Sad but true: sword and board fighters end up even with or behind two-weapon fighters for AC, since there's no way for them to increase their AC from a shield (that stacks with Armor Spec) though feats. And they have check penalties and deal less damage. Defensive is a reasonable property, but it should require you to use the weapon in your main hand and show up on something like a d8 +2 one-handed military weapon or a d8 +3 superior one-hand weapon.
 
Last edited:

Eric Finley

First Post
Personally I really love the flavour of Bloodclaw and Reckless, which makes it a pity that they're so out of line. Given the typical disparity of monster HP and PC HP, I think its ratio is quite appropriate; all it needs is to be handled with "the obvious" interpretation (e.g. you have to be using the Bloodclaw itself to make the attack, you pay once per attack roll, etc - things that got missed in RAW but are quite intuitive nonetheless).

As an interesting comparison point, the newer Blood-Drinker line of items is quite comparable in effect to Bloodclaw, but with the sequencing different. Take 5 damage on a miss in order to add +2d6 to the next attack (if it hits). IMO weaker, because you can't avoid the miss effect even if you don't need it, and the ratio is poorer... but it's not actually that much poorer than Bloodclaw when all's said and done, and unlike Bloodclaw it's not limited to melee attacks.

Other than those, the OP's list is pretty much mine as well, plus double weapons (again, other than Staff Fighting and the Spiked Chain line of feats). Some Paragon Paths and specific combos (e.g. Blood Mage) would get a private talking-about and arrangements made with the player before they could choose them. But with the (IMO correct) read on damage bonuses as "apply only to damage done as a direct and immediate result of an attack roll", many things - possibly including Blood Mage - become much less problematic.
 

The Fog is rolling in!

To make a long story short: This game is all about fun. That fun is achieved by group harmony. For ex, if player A does 2x the damage of player b, and they are both strikers, player b is going to feel inadequate.

To restrict some things to keep harmony is absolute a viable strategy that should not necessarily reflect poorly on a Dm.

Oh, and if you want something overpowered. Try a mount. Specifically, a Giant Riding lizard from Adventurers vault. A single feat and the cost of a 6th level magic item will net you a giant riding lizard.

Oh ya, and anytime the rider makes a melee attack; the lizard gets to make one at +10 to hit that deals 2d6+5

Put that in your pipe and smoke it :p
whoever made it must love R.A Salvatores drow im guessing, cause it smokes any legit mount.
 

Holy Bovine

First Post
Except for campaign specific stuff (Dragonmark feats, races etc) I tend to not ban anything. I even have a Bloodclaw weapon in the party now and really can't see the problem with them *shrug*. Anyways I never have a problem as a player with DMs banning stuff - as long as I know about it ahead of time. Given the power down most items get in 4E the urge to ban them seems much less nowadays.
 


Majoru Oakheart

Adventurer
To be totally fair, such an item would be the same as a Healing Surge plus some resource to use that surge (i.e. the PC still takes the damage, hence, will often have to be healed an additional time in combat). And, the item would gradually give the damage over the course of 10 rounds. Plus, such an item would only do 40 damage instead of 60 if used with a shield, etc.
True, but so far my experience with my fighter who has had his Bloodclaw weapon for about 4 levels now is that I can Bloodclaw every round of the combat without every worrying about going down enough hitpoints that I need healing during the battle. I normally wait until the end. I believe there has been one combat where I started taking enough damage that I stopped using Bloodclaw.

And most people with shields don't take Bloodclaw weapons. It isn't overpowered when it is 2 for 1. Only when it is 3 for 1.

How much damage does your 12th level PC do without it? 20 dpr per round (including misses)? Now, it's 26 per round.
No, he does an average of 9 damage a round(1d10+10=15.5*0.6=9.3, 12.6 on rounds I use a 2[w] atttack) including misses. It adds 5.4 more. That's a good amount of damage. But it's only part of the problem. My Iron Armbands also add 1.2 damage per round. The total of the two means that 41.5% of my damage comes from those two items on rounds I use a 1[w] attack(For a 71% increase in damage).

If I use Rain of Blows, I get 3 attacks at 1d10+5. Average 10.5*0.6=6.3. Three times is 18.9. Meanwhile the Iron Armbands+Bloodclaw combo adds 19.8 damage. This gives a 105% increase in damage by having these items.

So, the 260 hit point monster takes 10 rounds to defeat instead of 13.
Assuming I lose 41.5% of my damage, it means that a monster takes 14 rounds to defeat instead of 10. 4 rounds of a monster hitting you is a fairly big deal.

For me, alone to kill a 260 hitpoint creature using the numbers above, it would take approximately 28 rounds(16 rounds with the Bloodclaw and Iron Armbands, saving me 12 rounds). Let's assume a group of 5 people who do equal damage. It takes about 5.6 rounds to beat it. Or 3.2 rounds if all of those can add Bloodclaw and Iron Armbands. Or less than 2 rounds if they all use action points.

Keep in mind that if you split those 260 hitpoints amongst 3 creatures, it is likely that one or two of them are for sure dead in the first round meaning they never get to act.

But, how much damage would the Barbarian take back from the monster in 3 rounds? He takes 30 with the item (his choice of course). The monster in 3 rounds could easily do nearly that much.
In 4 rounds(as I figured out above), the Brute I used as an example does 32 damage in the 4 extra rounds it has. 54 damage if it is bloodied for those 4 rounds. Either way, you save at least a bit of damage. And the monster could have encounter powers or recharge powers that do more damage the longer it survives, so killing it faster is always better.

Plus, there's always swing damage. IF the monster hits with all 4 of its attacks while its bloodied it does 90 damage on an average roll and easily over 100 on a good roll. Easily enough to take someone down. You want to avoid that by giving it as few actions as possible.

So, the problem with Bloodclaw is action economy.

The Barbarian (or some other PC) would have taken that damage anyway. The damage is merely a footnote.

The problem is how quickly multiple of these more potent items stack and drop an encounter from 10 rounds down to 6 rounds, hence, using even fewer resources per encounter overall.
I agree. This is the main problem. Too much damage stacking together causes the number of rounds the battle lasts to become very small. In a very small battle, the PCs need to use less of their resources and the monsters have less chance to use their recharge powers and their interesting attacks. It's also less satisfying to defeat monsters so quickly.

But that's not the entire problem. The other side of it is that the difference between someone who takes these items and those who don't can be close to double damage. It sucks to sit down at a table as a newbie and not know about Iron Armbands or Bloodclaw and show up with a character who does half the damage of everyone else at the table. This is especially true when people start combining some other combos that you don't know as well. Add in Dual Implement Spellcaster, Two Weapon Fighting, and Lasting Frost cheese and the damage difference between two level 12 characters can be even bigger than that.
 

If Bloodclaw is balanced, removing it from the game is no big deal, people will just use something else.

If Bloodclaw isn't balanced, then no harm removing it.

Removing things like the bracers is tougher since nothing else fills its role, but it mostly reduces damage across the board _while allowing another choice to be valid_. Suddenly some people might consider using a magic shield, for instance.

Grasp of the Grave is just a horrible spell, and the game is well rid of it. In some groups it's not abusively horrible, but in others... We actually discussed it last night at a game where the players were talking about how broken it was, and I noted that it would probably be dealable if the daze ended when you left the zone. Still totally brutal with fighters and being knocked prone, though, they pointed out. Maybe if it affected PCs too...

But there are actually _lots_ of valid reasons to remove things from the game, as long as it's not a kneejerk response. Those reasons can vary from 'I like being able to give out magic items for a couple item slots without people ignoring them' to 'I don't want most combats settled during the first round AP-massive damage nova' and anywhere in between. All sorts of valid gameplay reasons.

Course, some of us also play and run LFR, in which your table might 2-round curbstomp almost every fight _or_ risk a possible TPK, depending on how well they know their magic items. :(

Yeah, there are certainly some things that might as well be banned or at least nerfed and I think the OP obviously hit on the main ones. As you say its mostly a matter of what choices are viable. Items which are so far above the general level as BC/Reckless/IAoP/BoA are exactly those items. There's no need for a player to even think about wanting any other enchantment in those categories. Its not even that they may degrade game play, its just that a game full of BC fullblade wielding barbarians is BORING. Why even have any other weapon enchantments with those two in the game? Same for arm slots.

I'd say Staff of Ruin falls at least very close to being in the same category. The case with implements is a bit more complex since most casters will want to have other ones at least for specific purposes and using an SoR effectively may well require several feats, so it isn't quite so clear-cut. On top of that at least some casters seem to need a decent way to stack on a bit of extra static damage. I'm not sure though that would be true if the other 4 items were out.

Grasp of The Grave IMHO is a bit of a different case. Its not that the spell is so devastatingly effective or even in theory better than anything else at level 5. In fact I think its hard to argue its REALLY better than Stinking Cloud hands down. The problem with it is its MINDLESS. There are no downsides to using it at all. It lasts all encounter, doesn't effect allies, and the effects it does have are pretty much universally effective except maybe if the enemy is primarily artillery. Its a stupid people spell that just rewards uncreative play excessively. Its perceived overpoweredness is really mostly based on that. You can just as thoroughly destroy an encounter with other level 5 dailies, but you might actually have to get a bit creative sometimes to do it. GotG on the other hand just always works.

Personally though, I hesitate to fling the word "ban" around too heavily. I just maintain strict control of what items are going to show up in the game by not placing ones I don't want around and making it impossible for PCs with Enchant Item to just whip out any old thing simply because it happens to be written up in AV or some other book or its in CB.

As for the whole orbizard lockdown thing, banning items ain't going to fix that people. Phrenic Crown is kind of a nice item to use in that build but hardly necessary. You'd have to ban ALL save penalty items just to put guaranteed lockdown out of reach before level 28. The problem is guaranteed lockdown isn't the ONLY issue. Even reducing a solo's saves by 10 points at level 28 is drastically increasing the character's power and it will still be the premiere option since it means an average 4 round lockdown, which might as well be forever. Its a BIT less problematic getting practically guaranteed lockdown vs regular/elite monsters at higher levels, but its still kind of problematic since knocking out one of the DM's soldiers in a single hit is pretty close to being an encounter-breaker in most cases.

Frankly I think the entire CONCEPT of the orbizard is bad. It simply shouldn't exist or the mechanics need to be entirely different.
 

Remove ads

Top