Magic item rarity revision forthcoming?

[Felon]

ed way upped the monster HP...so yeah those IAoP do help minimize the kludge of chopping that huge blob of tofu down so you can get back to the plot.

Does anyone think combats in 4th ed are TOO short? If not, what the heck is the problem with an item that reduces the grind. Please, if they could be twice as good that would make the game twice as good, but then non-melee characters would be penalized.

It seems those Bracers of Mighty Striking being common while IaoP are uncommon is a big FU to classic 4e melee characters, while Essentials get a free pass.

Yay, item favoritism.

You kind of countered your own position here. You are fine with IAoP but don't like BoMS creating "item favoritism" towards essentials classes.

IAoP (and bracers of archery) are a significant "screw you" to implement wielders as they are. I play an epic-level sorcerer in one campaign, and it gripes my buns a bit that the three melee guys in the group can take it for granted that they'll get a +6 to damage. And it's not like I can say "oh yeah? well, look at what I got in my arms slot", because there are no compelling choices for arms slot items for implement users at all.

In fact, there's a huge amount of favoritism towards weapon users across the board. Gauntlets of destruction are so ubiquitous in my current games that most palyers just assume that everyone gets to re-roll 1's for damage. And that horned helm...Sick stuff.

It's not just something that cropped up in one or two books or was prevalent early in the game. It's ongoing--and nobody really cares. Consider all the petty stuff that spawn endless debates in these forums, and nobody raises hell about the huge amount of bias towards weapon users in items, feats, and just basic damage dice.

It really is mind-boggling.

 

[KarinsDad]

IAoP (and bracers of archery) are a significant "screw you" to implement wielders as they are. I play an epic-level sorcerer in one campaign, and it gripes my buns a bit that the three melee guys in the group can take it for granted that they'll get a +6 to damage. And it's not like I can say "oh yeah? well, look at what I got in my arms slot", because there are no compelling choices for arms slot items for implement users at all.

In fact, there's a huge amount of favoritism towards weapon users across the board. Gauntlets of destruction are so ubiquitous in my current games that most palyers just assume that everyone gets to re-roll 1's for damage. And that horned helm...Sick stuff.

It's not just something that popped in one or two books or was prevalent early in the game. It's ongoing--and nobody really cares. Consider all the petty stuff that spawn endless debates in these forums, and nobody raises hell about the huge amount of bias towards weapon users in items, feats, and just basic damage dice.

This.

And, the inverse happens as well.

Implement users got Weapon Focus dropped as a damage source not too long ago. So much for the Dual Implement Sorcerer (the fact that a Sorcerer often had to become Dual Implement in the first place, just to be competitive damage-wise was a bit bothersome as well).

On the other hand, martial types still get to daze foes, knock them prone, immobilize them, stun them, etc. In addition to getting bonus damage from items and feats left and right.

I don't mind martial types doing a lot of damage. I just wish that the magical types had a more clear picture of being the hands down winners when it comes to effects, and that strikers of all classes were significantly better at damage than defender types. When a martial defender does 20 points of damage to 3 foes and an arcane striker does 25 or 30 points of damage to 1 foe, I'm not seeing that the striker is that unique in the overall damage arena.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There are SOME compensations, but I agree that they are limited. Staff of Ruin for instance, and superior implements, both allow for some degree of added bonuses to damage (or to-hit for an accurate implement) etc.

I guess the real question is are implement users really dragging a whole lot on potential damage output? Are weapon users really able to achieve the kind of overall battlefield control and wide ranging control effects that casters can? It seems to me that a caster can achieve stuff that a melee character really can't. There's a lot of utility in being able to mark out a chunk of the battlefield anywhere in a wide area and create a zone or wall there. It is hard to say "this is as good as doing a whole lot of extra damage" but they do each have some unique types of features. I'd also say there aren't too many ways weapon users can slap an effect on one (or more often several) enemies that are "over there someplace".

 

[Felon]

This.

And, the inverse happens as well.

Implement users got Weapon Focus dropped as a damage source not too long ago. So much for the Dual Implement Sorcerer (the fact that a Sorcerer often had to become Dual Implement in the first place, just to be competitive damage-wise was a bit bothersome as well).

On the other hand, martial types still get to daze foes, knock them prone, immobilize them, stun them, etc. In addition to getting bonus damage from items and feats left and right.

I don't mind martial types doing a lot of damage. I just wish that the magical types had a more clear picture of being the hands down winners when it comes to effects, and that strikers of all classes were significantly better at damage than defender types. When a martial defender does 20 points of damage to 3 foes and an arcane striker does 25 or 30 points of damage to 1 foe, I'm not seeing that the striker is that unique in the overall damage arena.

I agree with a lot of this. The proliferation of action-denial effects is one of the biggest unrecoverable fumbles of 4e, and it was made necessary by the decision that every class would entail an extensive suite of powers. When designing a new class amounts to building an entire grimorie of a hundred or more spells just for its own usage, it becomes untenable to designate large groups of options as being off-limits.

"Sorry, weapon-users, no dazes for you. That's caster territory...Oh all right, don't look at me like that. You can have a few....Wait, don't grab so many! Please?"

"Sorry, defenders. I can't go giving multiple attack powers to you guys when I don't even give them to all strikers. What's that? You're griping because you insist that dual-weapon fighters should be a viable build...Weellll, all right, maybe we were being too uptight. Go ahead and take a bunch. I'm sure nobody will notice. Just don't mention it to the warlocks. They don't realize that they've really got nothing."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree with a lot of this. The proliferation of action-denial effects is one of the biggest unrecoverable fumbles of 4e, and it was made necessary by the decision that every class would entail an extensive suite of powers. When designing a new class amounts to building an entire grimorie of a hundred or more spells just for its own usage, it becomes untenable to designate large groups of options as being off-limits.

"Sorry, weapon-users, no dazes for you. That's caster territory...Oh all right, don't look at me like that. You can have a few....Wait, don't grab so many! Please?"

"Sorry, defenders. I can't go giving multiple attack powers to you guys when I don't even give them to all strikers. What's that? You're griping because you insist that dual-weapon fighters should be a viable build...Weellll, all right, maybe we were being too uptight. Go ahead and take a bunch. I'm sure nobody will notice. Just don't mention it to the warlocks. They don't realize that they've really got nothing."

Yeah, I definitely agree they overdid it with effects from the start. Conditions should have been considerably less common than they are. For martial classes it seems like Essentials does pretty well deal with that. For AEDU classes that ship has pretty much sailed though. Personally I think the 4e devs would LOVE to be able to go back with 20/20 hindsight and revisit a number of these design decisions, and effectively Essentials is doing that to the extent it can while still being '4e'. It also explains the tendency of the devs to want to sort of push the classic 4e stuff into a corner and not have to pay a lot of attention to it if they can help it.

 

[Nifft]

As I said in my last post it is beyond any amount of credibility that WotC hires idiots

None the less, they make chronic errors.

For example: every NPC in 3.x had errors in its stat block, sometimes in the use of the PrC or class rules it was meant to showcase.

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.

You're the one who's bored here.

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.

A good DM can run damn near anything.
A good game can be run by a mediocre DM.

Why is this a big deal for me? Because I'd like to see more people in the game, and in my experience they seldom start out as good DMs.

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.

Again, a good DM can handle even a crappy game.
I care about this because I don't want the next crop of players -- from which my group will draw -- to be brought up being rewarded for behavior that we will need to quash.

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.

No, this is absolutely wrong.

IAoP were very exciting. Were you into CharOp when they were introduced? They're a blatant violation of the 4e design rules and a raw power boost. That is the essence of exciting.

BoMS were not exciting until Essentials.

- - -

IAoP show two problems:

1/ There are no clear rules for what should be Common or Uncommon, except perhaps "good for Essentials" = Common, while "good for everyone else" = Uncommon.

2/ So far, it seems that it's impossible to remove bad rules (items, powers, feats, whatever) from the game. Magic allowed a lot of developer flexibility because anything ZOMG overpowered would be obsolete in some span of time, and you would just try real hard to not make that particular mistake again. 4e is similar to Magic in the sheer volume of content being produced -- which I find kind of admirable, 4e classes aren't easy to write -- but they have no end-of-life mechanic, so they can't afford to make the same kind of mistakes.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Felon]

I guess the real question is are implement users really dragging a whole lot on potential damage output?

Well, if a player were to make the jump from playing weapon-users to an implement-user, here are the adjustments he'd need to make...

* Get used to doing d6's and d8's as your base damage.
* Get familiar what the word "resist" means.
* Get used to the idea that when you take a feat that grants a damage bonus, it won't apply to every single one of your attacks.
* Don't fuss over getting an item for every body slot anymore, as they won't dramatically improve your character's attack output.
* If you want a basic attack, you have to expend one of your two at-will power selections to get it, and even so it will be weak.

There's also more nitpicky stuff, like not having the ability to customize his attack so that it gets high crit or brutal or an extra +1 to hit, but if I kept going on I'd just wind up diluting the major flaws, which are those above. Basically, his base damage will start lower than a weapon-user's, and he'll fall farther behind as feats and items broaden the gap.

Realize, these are universal adjustments he'd need to make, not class-specifc ones. Some clever ducky no doubt is going to be tempted to play -for-tat about how an implement-user transitioning to weapon-user would have to get used to not being able to blast five opponents at once, but the truth is most implement users can't actually do that either, as bursts and blasts are predominantly 3x3.

Are weapon users really able to achieve the kind of overall battlefield control and wide ranging control effects that casters can? It seems to me that a caster can achieve stuff that a melee character really can't. It seems to me that a caster can achieve stuff that a melee character really can't. There's a lot of utility in being able to mark out a chunk of the battlefield anywhere in a wide area and create a zone or wall there.

Here's the thing to bear in mind: all classes can do stuff.

If a character doesn't have a daily power that creates a zone or wall of flame, then he has some other daily power in that slot instead that does something spiffy in its own right. And that's true whether or not that character uses implements, weapons, or both.

Let me make it even more straightforward. If my implement-wielding character fires off a bolt of flame as an encounter power, on what basis should I be doing only 2d6 or 2d8 while some other guy with a bow is doing 2d12 with his encounter attack, and yet another dude with a mordenkrad is doing 6d6 with brutal 1? Because somehere on my class's list of powers I have an option to make a zone or a wall (that I didn't exercise because I picked the flame bolt instead)? What does that have to do with it?

* We're all making a single-target attack, so that's a push.
* The flame bolt probably has some kicker effect like splash damage or dazing, but the other guys' weapon attacks have kickers too, so that's also a push.
* I'm targeting reflex while they're targeting AC, but then again I'm not getting a +2 proficiency bonus either. Some monsters might have really low reflex, but others have really high reflex, but most of the time it's 2 less than their AC (imagine that), so let's write this off as another push.
* Our ranges are all over the place: ranged 10 for me, ranged 20/40 for the bowman, and melee for hammerdude. Maybe hammerdude should have an edge, but by that logic shouldn't I have an edge on the bowman?

OTOH, if I lob an area burst 10 that stuns every creature it hits, then yeah, I can see where I oughta be taking the shaft on damage. But that's because of what the attack itself is doing, not because I'm using an implement to deliver it.

This is a blockbuster of a game balance issue, and if folks had to choose one thing to get upset over with 4e, this should be it.

Instead, nobody really gives a damn. Go figure.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

None the less, they make chronic errors.

For example: every NPC in 3.x had errors in its stat block, sometimes in the use of the PrC or class rules it was meant to showcase.

And so does every other project which is as large in scope as 4e is or 3.x was. The thing is in most fields you can just fix the mistake and go on, it isn't cast instantly into stone. They aren't any more prone to chronic errors than anyone else is. They are just being held to a totally unreasonable standard of perfection. No matter who you were to put in charge of D&D they're going to make pretty much the same volume of errors per unit of content put out. In fact I would venture to say that the actual error rate on 4e is LOW, they are just VERY willing to go back and fix them. I don't see any other games out there where that is true. A little appreciation for these guys would be good. I realize everyone in their fantasy believes THEY would do whatever much better, but frankly most people have very unreliable assessment of their own capabilities.

You're the one who's bored here.

I'm the one that it annoyed, that is true enough. I kind of suspect I'm not the only one.

A good DM can run damn near anything.
A good game can be run by a mediocre DM.

Why is this a big deal for me? Because I'd like to see more people in the game, and in my experience they seldom start out as good DMs.

Again, a good DM can handle even a crappy game.
I care about this because I don't want the next crop of players -- from which my group will draw -- to be brought up being rewarded for behavior that we will need to quash.

I think you're overstating the case. ANY DM of any stripe whatsoever will be hit by unreasonable player requests. This particular kind of request doesn't seem to me to be of the type that requires amazing DM dexterity to handle. In any case it is a fairly safe decision, the DM can just say "Sure, go ahead and make that". If the player decides to be a munchkin and make 27 more of the same item then he can say "no", which was EXACTLY the case before rarity. All making more items common does is mean the DM has less guidance on when to do this. It isn't SOLVING anything.

No, this is absolutely wrong.

IAoP were very exciting. Were you into CharOp when they were introduced? They're a blatant violation of the 4e design rules and a raw power boost. That is the essence of exciting.

BoMS were not exciting until Essentials.

- - -

IAoP show two problems:

1/ There are no clear rules for what should be Common or Uncommon, except perhaps "good for Essentials" = Common, while "good for everyone else" = Uncommon.

2/ So far, it seems that it's impossible to remove bad rules (items, powers, feats, whatever) from the game. Magic allowed a lot of developer flexibility because anything ZOMG overpowered would be obsolete in some span of time, and you would just try real hard to not make that particular mistake again. 4e is similar to Magic in the sheer volume of content being produced -- which I find kind of admirable, 4e classes aren't easy to write -- but they have no end-of-life mechanic, so they can't afford to make the same kind of mistakes.

Cheers, -- N

IAoP was ALWAYS an instance of the problem of "item that is too good and thus acquired by basically every single character in the game to the exclusion of all other choices in that slot". You can call it "exciting" if you want, but it was exciting in the same way breathing air is exciting. Making it uncommon was a great solution, now maybe a player here and there will get one, but the DM can give out other arms slot items instead without knowing for certain they will be disdained and slagged to residuum at the first opportunity to make an IAoP.

Sure, BoMS WAS an item that was OK as a common at one point, pre-Essentials. This is exactly why making it a common was a mistake and illustrates why only very few items really deserve to be common. There is exactly as you say no general rule for what should or shouldn't be common. I don't even believe it is really good to make that determination for a lot of items at the level of the rules, but is instead more an issue for a DM to work out in the context of their game.

You are correct, there is no mechanism for 4e to deprecate old content, except to errata it into such total uselessness that it becomes forgotten. That has been the case since day one. Personally I can't come up with an acceptable mechanism by which it could be done. While ideally it would be nice the thing is there are always likely to be people that want that stuff in their games. Making items uncommon allows the DM to at least do away with them in a practical sense. Common items OTOH you're stuck with, they can never be removed aside from DM fiat, which is OK, but not as easy on the DM as just "Well, I am not giving that item out."

Any way you slice it and dice it IMHO the current list of rarity categories was MOSTLY thought out well in terms of its policy. They made a mistake with BoMS. Making more items common would have just created MORE mistakes as I see it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here's the thing to bear in mind: all classes can do stuff.

If a character doesn't have a daily power that creates a zone or wall of flame, then he has some other daily power in that slot that does something else that's spiffy in its own right. And that's true whether or not that character is an implement or weapon user.

Let me make it even more straightforward. If I'm an implement-user firing off a bolt of flame, on what basis should I be doing 3d6 or 3d8 while some other guy with a bow is doing 3d12, and yet another dude with a mordenkrad is doing 6d6 brutal 1? Because somehere on my class's list of powers I have an option to make a zone or a wall (that I didn't exercise because I picked the flame bolt instead)? What does that have to do with the situation?

We're all making a single-target attack, so that's a push.

The flame bolt probably has some kicker effect like splash damage or dazing, but the other guys' weapon attacks have kickers too, so that's also a push.

I'm targeting reflex while they're targeting AC, but then again I'm not getting a +2 proficiency bonus either. Some monsters might have really low reflex, but others have really high reflex, but most of the time it's 2 less than their AC (imagine that), so let's write this off as another push.

Now, our ranges are all ove rthe place: ranged 10 for me, ranged 20/40 for the bowman, and melee for hammerdude. Maybe hammerdude should have an edge, but by that logic shouldn't I have an edge on the bowman?

OTOH, if I lob an area burst 10 that stuns every creature it hits, then yeah, I can see where I oughta be taking the shaft on damage. But that's because of what the attack itself is doing, not because I'm using an implement to deliver it.

Yeah, I don't think it is QUITE that simple. I'm not discounting any of the points you are making, but if you look at the power loadout of a Wizard vs a Fighter they are going to each have ways of effectively doing something with each action so that on the whole it seems to me they are equally effective. I don't think it is entirely relevant to try to go down the list and make a damage output comparison in each power type. I think the Wizard is a good bit more likely to be able to drop a power in such a way as to swing an entire encounter instantly and radically in favor of the party. The Fighter less so. OTOH the Fighter is constantly contributing incrementally each round to a greater degree in most cases.

I think some sort of similar comparison can be made with other casters and other weapon users. I'm not really suggesting there aren't reasons why some casters couldn't use more damage output, or that some weapon users might not be VERY strong classes. I just think it isn't a very cut-and-dried situation and that maybe "casters need to do more damage" or "weapon users do excessive damage" is too much of a generalization. Some caster classes probably could really use a damage output increase, like Warlocks. Some weapon users are living high on the hog, like bow Rangers. OTOH if you drop in a significant generally available damage increase for casters (say tied to implements in some fashion) that might well put some caster classes way ahead of where they need to be. Dropping a couple extra points of damage on a Wizard or Sorcerer (maybe Invoker too) can have a really serious impact on their performance. Given the amount of AoE some of these guys can deploy I think any solution that is required really needs to be implemented on a case-by-case basis for the specific class.

 

[Felon]

Yeah, I don't think it is QUITE that simple. I'm not discounting any of the points you are making, but if you look at the power loadout of a Wizard vs a Fighter they are going to each have ways of effectively doing something with each action so that on the whole it seems to me they are equally effective. I don't think it is entirely relevant to try to go down the list and make a damage output comparison in each power type. I think the Wizard is a good bit more likely to be able to drop a power in such a way as to swing an entire encounter instantly and radically in favor of the party. The Fighter less so.

The fighter can certainly swing an entire encounter with the drop of a single power. A well-timed Come And Get It or Warrior's Urging is devastating. Note that this devastating quality is not primarily due to whether the character executing said power is a wizard or fighter, but the design of the power itself. Rather, the fact that the fighter is using a weapon instead of an implement simply means that in addition to all the other things that make the powers nasty, they will also do more damage than if they were in an implement-user's repetoire.

It is absolutely possible to do an apples-to-apples comparison with powers. I'm shooting a laser, you're firing an arrow. I'm doing 3d6 at range 10 and you're doing 3d12 at range 40. There's a discrepancy there, and getting all holistic about it is, IMHO, kdding yourself. Sure, you have to factor in class features that have a global impact on the class's powers (like sneak attack or hunter's quarry), but that's about it.

I just think it isn't a very cut-and-dried situation and that maybe "casters need to do more damage" or "weapon users do excessive damage" is too much of a generalization. Some caster classes probably could really use a damage output increase, like Warlocks. Some weapon users are living high on the hog, like bow Rangers. OTOH if you drop in a significant generally available damage increase for casters (say tied to implements in some fashion) that might well put some caster classes way ahead of where they need to be. Dropping a couple extra points of damage on a Wizard or Sorcerer (maybe Invoker too) can have a really serious impact on their performance.

To avoid having a damage bonus apply to AoE's, it's pretty straightforward: confine the bonus to ranged or melee attacks. That's why IAoP don't help Come And Get It or Warrior's Urging.

OTOH, a ranger straps on some iron armbands, and he can get that damage bonus on every hit from a Blade Cascade. Yet IoAP continue to exist un-nerfed. If they merit existence, a similar item for casters is perfectly valid.