D&D 4E 4E - What Rules Need Fixing?

I cannot see how they are going to get rid of the gear-dependant magical item conundrum.

Suppose, you grant the characters some equivalent ability (+1 to hit & damage, or +1 to saves, or +2 to a stat for few examples) that doesn't stack with the magical weapon/item in question.

But then, what is the point of the magical item in the first place? Merely to grant the bonus to lower level characters? Or provide yourself with an ability out of class? Perhaps there is only a limited choice of the aforementioned abilities, in which case the player selects the ability associated with the most expensive items (weapons), and continues to purchase other items as before. Or selects an ability clearly associated with a magical item bodyslot, and now has that slot free for a different item.

So this does not resolve the Christmas tree character. It slightens their dependance on items to retain effectiveness, but doesn't remove it altogether.

In order to truly reorganise the issue of item dependancy, you have to take the bull by the horns: This change cannot just be done by changing the classes, but alos requires a deeper looker at the mechanics behind magic items.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

green slime said:
In order to truly reorganise the issue of item dependancy, you have to take the bull by the horns: This change cannot just be done by changing the classes, but alos requires a deeper looker at the mechanics behind magic items.

I agree.

A small dent can be made into the issue by removing all Enhancement bonuses to stats, FREX.

While I personally like this 3eism of extrapolating many such "animal buffs" from ye olde Strength spell (which had horrendous mechanics in previous editions, BTW), it certainly seems to annoy some people. And I concede that there are good reasons they might find this annoying.

A change to item dependence really requires a broad philosophy that looks at every single magic item that is directly applicable to combat, and a rough means to tally them to the moral equivalent of a Level Adjustment.
 

My post on Wizard's boards...

The main/major problems I found with 3.5 and had to house rule out are found below. I'm hoping and praying these issues are cleared up in 4th Ed. I'd written emails and posted on various message boards and had long lengthy debates on many (not all) of the below points and after years of playing 3.5 had to make slightly drastic changes to the rules. The first post in this thread said 'not RPG core books' and I'm sure many of these issues apply to exactly that, but my strong desire to see these issues addressed and fixed in 4th ed leaves me no choice. So here they are:

1) Damage Reduction, and Magic Weapon Pluses (and also the so called 'golf bag' syndrome). Monte Cook wrote an excellent article (and subsequential fix) for this issue where he basically makes getting a +2, instead of say, +1 and flaming, worthwhile again. With the new idea of the 'axe fighter' or the 'sword fighter' this seems like a much more important issue to address than ever before. Please make +5 weapon enhancements worthwhile again, and cut down (or even eliminate) the need for fighters to carry golfbags with different damage types around...

2) Darkness. Come on guys, what happened to this spell in 3.5? Also, a major beef with all darkness in general was the fact that Devils had 'darkvision' out to 60 feet, as well as undead, leaving the somewhat comical image of Devils walking around battlefields unable to see the Demons on the horizon in the Abbys because it was too dark for them to see... so they'd do what, cast Light spells...? Please make undead/demons be able to see perfectly in their 'natural' habitat. I don't want to have to read from a module 'The Dark Lord casts...um... Light...' Those 'cool' Demons had Darksight (in the Fiend Folio at least). I just gave all Demons/Devils/Undead unlimited darksight range, and all such creatures could see clearly through even magical darkness (which was 'dark', not 'shadowy illumination... )

3) Evards Black Tentacles. Such a major issue in my game it deserves its own entry. In a nutshell, this single spell nearly derailed my campaign. In 3.5 it was ridiculously overpowered, near impossible to overcome by spellcasters and subsequently was nerfed from my game forever. Not only was it overpowered it required nearly a dozen dice rolls for a handful of caught victims. Horrible, horrible spell in 3.5 both to DM and for game balance. The more powerful 'cold' version in BoVD made it even worse...

4) Please explain 'extradimensional' and 'Non-dimensional' spaces more clearly. Are they the same or different? If you use Rope Trick, and take in a portable hole, what is the 'bad' thing that happens exactly? Please clear up the confusion of this topic of non-dimensional and extra-dimentional.

5) Summoned creatures (through spells), their actions and their languages. First off, what do creatures do when summoned? Do they simply instinctively sense who the enemy is and attack that enemy (my houserule, also, they only attack perceived enemies of the caster at time of casting, for example they do not suddenly turn on a deceitful/evil NPC the party has been adventuring with). Or, do they only attack upon command? Does the spellcaster need to speak their native language? ALso, by current rules: Most Celestial creatures speak common, not Celestial, especially if they only speak one language, the default language is Common... um weird. This was also very hard to figure out in the core books. You had to first know that a creature needs an intelligence of 3 or higher, then find that the default language would be common for a summoned creature etc etc. You had to really search hard to figure this stuff out. It needs a bit more attention methinks.

6) Item Availability: By current rules, if a village had a gp supply value of, say, 200g, a single village could supply an army of 10,000 troops. In fact, in the current rules, there was no limit to the number of objects available if the population could support one single item's gold piece value. This I think needs to be addressed, and can be with the below suggestion.

What would be nice is to have some tables made up for dealing with shops that sell magic and weapons in particular, and could have categories such as:

A) Name (of the shop)
B) Name (of the store owner)
C) % chance of an item's availability based on scarcity (perhaps determined by popluation/alignment of town etc, not just gold piece value = everything in any quantity under said value)
D) dice roll multiplied by time it takes to get said item should it not be available
E) possible markup values of items, could be based on Diplomacy checks, alignment, charisma, affiliations etc.

7) For Campaign Settings/Modules

Please, please please include three basic things very often missing from every campaign sourcebook/module: FULLY FLESHED OUT Inns, Temples, and Magic Shops.

Let's face it, PC's spend almost as much time in these places as they do in a dungeon. Please include more maps of Inns, complete with the Innkeeper, maybe a table for random patrons, and a menu with price lists! Yes, you could do this as a DM yourself, but then you could also write your own campaign settings. I've always found it surprising the amount of time (and space in sourcebooks) devoted to things like 'primary trades: Timber, cloth, coal...' and other less used information. The first and most used places in any city a party is going to make use of is nearly always the Inn, the temple for healing and the magic shop. We need easier ways to make up the details of these places. Yes, you can make it up but this is hard to do on the fly, and can slow things down considerably if the DM is caught unprepared. "This town has a gold piece value of 10,000 gold... um... I guess everything's available. Sure, buy 1 million cure light wounds for your army, I guess... uh... what's the shop look like...? hmm... well, his name's, uh... Zed. Oh that's the temple cleric's name too sorry uh... his name's... uh... one sec..."

To me, Inns, Temples and Magic Shops always seemed something most useful and more important than a lot of the other information included in sourcebooks. Either add tables to the DMG or directly write more details in the campaigns/modules!

8) Spells with no save.

Silence, Choke, are just two spells that, due to their lack of any saving throw, are to me, very broken. If a spell absolutely must have no saving throw, there needs to be an easy way out for a subsequently high level monster/NPC to overcome the affliction. Silence and Choke are two such spells that could potentially confound the most powerful of spellcasters, and both are very low level spells. It shouldn't take something as drastic as spell resistance or meta magic rods to be the only alternative to being rendered out of all non-verbal spells, no save.

9) Simplify Appraise skill. Nuff said.

10) Nerf Invisibility, or at least provide easier/simpler ways to overcome it. It should either be a much higher level spell or needs more mundane ways of eliminating its potency. One simple suggestion is to give it a much shorter duration, perhaps rounds/level.

For now, I think that's it. These might seem like minor things, but for me personally, these were the biggest problems I found as a DM and caused more problems than anything else in the years I've played 3.5.
 

Nifft said:
I don't have to now, because they all know equal shares gives them equal value. Their characters are internally balanced against each other; their wealth is independent.

And you're assuming that your players are too stupid to understand the "wealth adjustment" concept and you'll need to babysit them in order for it to be implemented?

I guess I just have smarter players than you do. Sorry about that. Hope you can get better players in the future.

You're also saying that the DM needs to think extra hard about running a game with more or less wealth, since a low-wealth game penalizes some PCs far more than others by design.

That's already true. It's well understood that the fighter is more dependent on his gear than the arcanists are (for example).

KarinsDad said:
I've always thought the opposite. I do not remember "Wealth by Level" charts in 1E and 2E. They may have been there, I just do not remember them. If PCs found stuff, great. If not, oh well. A PC sometimes had just one nice magical item (like a Ring of Regeneration or in those days, a Cloak of Elvenkind) and it was cool.

Previous editions had treasure tables. The only difference in 3rd Edition is that the designers did the math and showed you the typical results of what using those treasure tables would be. Then they did the radically wacky thing of giving you other guidelines which necessarily made certain assumptions about how much power the PCs would have.

Previous editions just left you blind and let you eyeball it.

Some people look at the guidelines and cry out, "They aren't perfect!"

Some people look at the guidelines and cry out, "My god! If I change the clearly stated assumptions on which they are built, these guidelines no longer work!"

Some people look at the guidelines and cry out, "Sweet Mary, Mother of Jesus! At noon on a clear day, the sky is blue!"

Me? I say, "Thank you for the guidelines. They are remarkably accurate within the parameters given, especially considering how many variables go into the power, resources, and effectiveness of any given gaming group."

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
 

JustinA said:
And you're assuming that your players are too stupid to understand the "wealth adjustment" concept and you'll need to babysit them in order for it to be implemented?

I guess I just have smarter players than you do. Sorry about that. Hope you can get better players in the future.
My thoughts are similarly generous towards your (mildly insulting) rhetoric.

If you honestly can't see the value in de-coupling the wealth mechanic, we can't really have a conversation.

Ciao, -- N
 

Nifft said:
If you honestly can't see the value in de-coupling the wealth mechanic, we can't really have a conversation.

It's really irrelevant whether there would be any value in it or not, because there's no plausible way to do it without essentially eliminating wealth-based power from the game.

Saying you want to balance power-levels in the game without taking into consideration wealth-based power in the game is like saying that you want to buy a house without taking into consideration the price of the house or saying that you want to create a strategy for a naval campaign without taking into consideration the ships each side has.

But if you think I'm wrong, prove it. Demonstrate a workable system, in principle, for balancing encounters that "decouples the wealth mechanic" that isn't horribly broken.

Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
 

green slime said:
Suppose, you grant the characters some equivalent ability (+1 to hit & damage, or +1 to saves, or +2 to a stat for few examples) that doesn't stack with the magical weapon/item in question.

But then, what is the point of the magical item in the first place? Merely to grant the bonus to lower level characters? Or provide yourself with an ability out of class?
The latter. MIC already went down that route. Lots and lots of items with daily uses of interesting abilities often requiring only immediate or swift actions.
 

JustinA said:
But if you think I'm wrong, prove it. Demonstrate a workable system, in principle, for balancing encounters that "decouples the wealth mechanic" that isn't horribly broken.
Excellent. You are incapable of imagining something, thus I get a pile of homework.

Well, perhaps I will write one. You'll pay for the editing and proofreading, right?

Thanks, -- N
 

green slime said:
I cannot see how they are going to get rid of the gear-dependant magical item conundrum.
I did it.



As a House Rule, I made the power of the magic item dependent on the power of the character. As a simple example, only a 9th level PC could use the full capabilities of a +3 weapon; if you were only 8th level, you could only invest the weapon up to +2.

Then, as a house rule, I gave each Character Level a certain number of points to invest. As another simple example, you could get that +3 weapon, but then you might not have enough points to get the +3 armor.

Finally, I made all magic items cheap. Essentially 100gp per +1 (with simple rules for other types of magic items).

RESULT: Character level and character choice became the deciding factors. Gear became a non-issue. The PC is not beholden to his gear. Wealth is meant to be spend on luxury items (and services!), not Gloves of Dexterity. It's worked out very well for my group. (YMMV, of course.)

4e needs to do something like this. Kill the Gear-dependency Troll! Kill it!! ;) :lol:
 

Randomness in character generation/leveling. Point buy and fixed HP. Keep the random crap as a sidebar option for old grognards who need their schadenfreude of seeing their "friend" roll a couple of 1's in a row for HP for the fighter. Its high time this dinosaur went away as the default method.

Otherwise: grappling, turning, counterspelling, multiclass characters (particularly spellcasting, BAB and saves). Also anything that matters in what order it was taken. Its irritating that intelligence bonuses dont retroactively apply skill points, and it makes it more difficult to design leveled NPC's quickly.

I'd also like to see a reduction in number of rolls for attacks, particularly since they indicated a focus on group combat in 4th edition. Rolling a claw/claw/bite for a horde of monsters is a PITA and time consuming.
 

Remove ads

Top