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

[keterys]

I doubt I'm going to get a board dedicated to the 4e game to agree with my analysis that 4e is deeply, fundamentally flawed and that this sort of problem was inevitable because of the poor design choices made at the very beginning of the effort...

The real question is why are you even trying? There's definitely been some interesting discussion, but it seems almost inevitable that it ends up eventually being threadcrapping.

An item that does +2 damage per attack is "fundamentally flawed?" Hmmm, does that mean a WEAPON that does +2 damage per attack is also fundamentally flawed? Or is it only flawed because it's an armslot item? Would an item that gave a +2 to AC also be fundamentally flawed (in pure mathematical game terms a +2 to AC is identical in game balance to a +2 to hit, and a +2 to hit is generally recognized as far more powerful than a +2 to damage.)

It is by design for the weapon to be okay doing that, yes. A +2 AC arm item would also be fundamentally flawed, though you're completely wrong about it being identical in game balance to +2 to hit.

Seriously, are you saying the item is fundamentally flawed BECAUSE it's an arm slot item, and all the myriad other equally (or more) powerful items are not flawed because they are NOT armslot items?

Some of those are also flawed, as mentioned upthread, but yes. Exactly. It doesn't matter if there are reasonable comparisons on weapons. Weapons are designed to be better.

You can argue with that, of course. But that's not the point of this thread.

It so happens that I don't like that design choice either, but changing things so primary and secondary slots are equally powerful is way into the houserule forum's territory.

 

[keterys]

Hmm... so what if the character's concept depends on executioner's axe? Or dual bastard swords?

Out of curiosity, in terms other than mathematical ones, how can the character's concept _depend_ on those?

For example, a player goes 'I want to play a dwarf barbarian who hurls himself into combat while swinging around a huge axe'. Beyond DPR, what's the difference in his concept between it being a greataxe or an executioner's axe? Same thing for the dual-katana wielding samurai - those can be bastard swords or longswords, and the only thing that changes is 1 point of damage. It's not going to change your combat style. As you've previously posted, apparently it's not even going to change the combat at all if he's dealing more damage.

 

[Obryn]

I doubt I'm going to get a board dedicated to the 4e game to agree with my analysis that 4e is deeply, fundamentally flawed and that this sort of problem was inevitable because of the poor design choices made at the very beginning of the effort... so let's go down your track instead.

An item that does +2 damage per attack is "fundamentally flawed?" Hmmm, does that mean a WEAPON that does +2 damage per attack is also fundamentally flawed? Or is it only flawed because it's an armslot item?

Weapons that give +2 to damage aren't flawed. Weapons that give +2 to attack aren't flawed. Armbands that give +2 to damage are, IMO, flawed. I'll explain below...

Would an item that gave a +2 to AC also be fundamentally flawed (in pure mathematical game terms a +2 to AC is identical in game balance to a +2 to hit, and a +2 to hit is generally recognized as far more powerful than a +2 to damage.)

You're missing some key details here which changed between 3.5 and 4e. In 4e terms, any non-weapon item which gave a universal +2 to hit, or non-armor item that gave +2 to AC would be very broken, if it stacked with weapons or armor.

4e's attack roll math is quite tight - bonuses to attack rolls are about as major as you can get. Ditto, bonuses to AC. In 3.5 a +1 to hit barely matters - especially when you had attack rolls that exceeded your enemy's AC. Ditto, a +1 bonus to AC. In 4e, attack rolls pivot around the 50% mark, so every +1 represents a 10% increase in your frequency of hitting. (Yes, 10%; if you hit on 11-20 before, but now hit on 10-20, you hit 10% more often.) Your AC is similarily valuable. If you have any cost-free items that add to AC or Attack Rolls, and they stack with your armor or weapon, it's a problem.

In comparison, bonuses to damage are much less powerful in 4e. You need to hit first and, in general, HPs are higher. This is rather immaterial to the question of the Iron Armbands, though, since I'm not arguing they're brokenly overpowered.

Seriously, are you saying the item is fundamentally flawed BECAUSE it's an arm slot item, and all the myriad other equally (or more) powerful items are not flawed because they are NOT armslot items?

This is still the same argument, and I still have the same reasons as above. And yes, part of it is because the arm slot is a secondary one, as opposed to the Big 3. Armbands should not be essential, and if someone wants one, there should be meaningful choices among them.

-O

 

[brassbaboon]

Weapons that give +2 to damage aren't flawed. Weapons that give +2 to attack aren't flawed. Armbands that give +2 to damage are, IMO, flawed. I'll explain below...


You're missing some key details here which changed between 3.5 and 4e. In 4e terms, any non-weapon item which gave a universal +2 to hit, or non-armor item that gave +2 to AC would be very broken, if it stacked with weapons or armor.

4e's attack roll math is quite tight - bonuses to attack rolls are about as major as you can get. Ditto, bonuses to AC. In 3.5 a +1 to hit barely matters - especially when you had attack rolls that exceeded your enemy's AC. Ditto, a +1 bonus to AC. In 4e, attack rolls pivot around the 50% mark, so every +1 represents a 10% increase in your frequency of hitting. (Yes, 10%; if you hit on 11-20 before, but now hit on 10-20, you hit 10% more often.) Your AC is similarily valuable. If you have any cost-free items that add to AC or Attack Rolls, and they stack with your armor or weapon, it's a problem.

Heh, I love math. You are arguing that a 5% increase in your to hit chance is a 10% increase in your number of hits, and you know what? You're actually correct, although most people would twist their brains trying to figure out why. (The reason is because if you are hitting 50% of the time, then a 5% increase in your PROBABILITY to hit is a 10% increase in your FREQUENCY to hit.

However, this is just pure math. Exactly the same thing was true in every game that depends on probability to hit and puts the "appropriate" to hit mark at 50% or so. I still play 3.5e and I have not found the dice rolls which hit to be significantly different in general play between 3.5e and 4e, so I simply don't agree that this is more important in 4e. If it's a problem in 4e, then it was a problem in 3.5e too. The real question is "is it really a problem?"

In comparison, bonuses to damage are much less powerful in 4e. You need to hit first and, in general, HPs are higher. This is rather immaterial to the question of the Iron Armbands, though, since I'm not arguing they're brokenly overpowered.


This is still the same argument, and I still have the same reasons as above. And yes, part of it is because the arm slot is a secondary one, as opposed to the Big 3. Armbands should not be essential, and if someone wants one, there should be meaningful choices among them.

-O

OK, so the problem isn't that they provide a +2, but that they are "secondary slot items" and therefore should not provide damage bonuses that stack with weapons or feats. That's the sum total of your argument then.

I. simply. disagree.

It's a magic item. What the heck is the whole concept of a "secondary slot" in the first place? Is magic INHERENTLY less powerful if it emanates from something attached to your arm, as opposed to being worn on your hands or embedded into a weapon?

That is so outrageously arbitrary that it beggars verisimilitude (which has already been thrown to the ground and kicked repeatedly by the at-will, encounter and daily power mechanic).

In fact, this is a primary example of what I mean when I say the game is fundamentally unsound. Everything about the game mechanic is arbitrarily twisted around this goal of maintaining some artificial balance to the point that the rules no longer make any SENSE. They're just rules for the sake of rules. And they are so obviously absurd that the GAME'S OWN DESIGNERS don't even understand or adhere to them.

 

[keterys]

I. simply. disagree.

That's your prerogative... and would potentially engender some great house rules.

But it's neither here nor there on actual 4e rules discussion.

It's a magic item. What the heck is the whole concept of a "secondary slot" in the first place? Is magic INHERENTLY less powerful if it emanates from something attached to your arm, as opposed to being worn on your hands or embedded into a weapon?

Primary slot items are weapons, armor, and neck, and are intended to be more powerful than the other types. It was discussed in the article I linked earlier about the design of magic item slots in 4e.

But, yes, they're more powerful. Full stop. Them's the rules. You don't like them. We get it.

 

[brassbaboon]

That's your prerogative... and would potentially engender some great house rules.

But it's neither here nor there on actual 4e rules discussion.



Primary slot items are weapons, armor, and neck, and are intended to be more powerful than the other types. It was discussed in the article I linked earlier about the design of magic item slots in 4e.

But, yes, they're more powerful. Full stop. Them's the rules. You don't like them. We get it.

No, you DON'T "get it." It's not about ME. It's about a game system that is so arbitrary and unsound that THE GAME'S OWN DESIGNERS can't stick to the "rules" you think exist. I say again. I. Didn't. Create. The. Iron. Armbands. Of. Power. I really didn't. It wasn't me. It was WIZARDS OF THE COAST. You know, the guys who MADE the rules.

All I'm doing is pointing out the REASON for this is because the game mechanic is fundamentally unsound. If it was fundamentally sound THEY WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THESE ITEMS. Or the other items that are being discussed. The problem isn't that someone created some item, the problem is that the rules are so arbitrary and unreasonable that the game designers themselves are obviously not sticking to them. If your analysis of this is so obviously correct, why hasn't Wizards simply errata'd the items out of existence? (Along with everything else that breaks the same rules?)

I'll tell you why. BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH THEIR MARKETING STRATEGY.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am of the camp: don´t ban items.

But I also of the camp: players can make wishlists and create items, but i won´t give out everything they demand.

But for beginning DM´s i advice removing items from play which are not balanced. If you hand out to good items either nerf them (make bracers a daily power which will last for an encounter or an encounter power which lasts for a round like barb and sorcerer feats respectively) or remove them.

Never would i give those items to every character of a group. If its an item of all players lists, i would hand out a single one and look what happens

edit: the whole balance debate is somewhat superficial. 4e does a very good job of balancing. But it can never be balanced.

Only problem: The game is (still) too transparent for players.

I remember the times, when players were not allowed to even look at DM material. In 3e players had to look into this book. 4e puts everything a player needs into the Phb again. I don´t think all magic items belong there.
And most unbalancing items are in adventurers vault. A misnomer. The old tome of treasures would have been a more proper name. It suggests, that it is DM material. So there would be a nice line between "basic" magic items and "extra" items to reward players. Treasures, not tools of trade.

 

[keterys]

Heh.

Moving right along, what do other people think of the dragonshard augments that got added? +1/+3/+5 damage to lightning or radiant or implement powers with a weapon.

Or the warlock armor that gives them combat advantage whenever shadow walking.

Or anything other than armbands, really.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Those all from the Eberon Player's Guide? I haven't seen that yet.

Not having seen them I can't really comment other than to say as you have described it the warlock armour sounds really powerful.

 

[keterys]

The warlock armor is in AV2 - I believe it's 10/15/20/25/30 for levels, and yeah... it's very powerful indeed. It's also put on warlocks who could arguably use a boost. Not sure if it's viable to do things like have a rogue/warlock use it to always have combat advantage, or if that's even a real problem.

The dragonshards are in the eberron book, but I've started to see them trickling into use, being added onto staves, or used by the lightning and radiant weapon users, etc.