Adv2 Item sets

[DracoSuave]

well, duh, no. where do you think blizzard got their idea from? But they popularized it, and now its a massive cliche.

diablo didnt have set items, per say. Yes, it had items [Of the (animal name here)], but having multiple pieces together didnt synergize to give you bonuses you didnt have before, like having +5 to hit for having helm, neck, torso, and two rings of the eagle. They had their own bonuses, but never would become more than that for having a full set.

You didn't play much Diablo 2 then.

Altho if Diablo 2 was the first game that had them, then it's not surprising they ended up in WoW... WoW borrowed many concepts from Diablo 2.

Mind you, that'd be Blizzard stealing from Blizzard, which I suppose isn't much of a crime in these parts.

 

[CapnZapp]

In the design and development article, they admit the group item sets were difficult to design.

And I think they did not succeed - the execution is deeply flawed.

* the set item bonus should be the major boon, not some weak extra. I feel it would have made for much more interesting sets if the items themselves were fairly vanilla, but the bonus for collecting all of them would be truly desirable.

* the d&d article exposes a fundamental flaw of 4E design: most items are only useful for a very small subset of characters. (Their examples are revealing: both suggest you should add in divine items because both clerics, paladins & others can use them; but both suggestions specifically exclude warlocks). So don't play classes like warlocks and shamans, whose implements are generally unusable for most other classes! Certainly don't play these classes if you like group item sets...

* for all the hubbub surrounding these group item sets, nobody have said the obvious: there are actually very few of these. In fact, if you don't count the ones where the designers chickened out (making the items rings or wondrous items) there are hardly more than a single set per tier.

The chances of finding a group set that are useable by your party and all its characters is next to nil. If it contains a warlock, it is even smaller.


What 4E needs is a way to make items more generic, so that an item can be useful for most characters in the group despite not being a neck item, a ring or a wondrous item.

(If all arcane classes could use all arcane implements and all divine and primal classes could use all divine and primal implements, that would be a great start. I don't even want to think about new power sources with unique implements only they can use - almost no adventures will have support for them, and rightfully so; because so few existing groups could use such exotic tools anyway.

If then the rules support for casters using weapons as implements would have been included already in the first PHB, it would be even better.

If then the AV series of books were to add generic striker items, that gave bonuses that boosted all the different marks, quarries, curses, and sneak attacks equally, it would go a long way of helping too)

Adding group item sets to AV2 was a great idea. However, they completely failed to provide the basics to support that idea.

In other words, group item sets should only have been added after changing the core rules to accommodate them.

 

[FireLance]

I know Diablo had them. I'm trying to think of a game that had them -before- diablo.

Possibly the earliest "item set" or perhaps the proto-item set, was the AD&D combo of gauntlets of ogre power + girdle of giant strength + hammer of thunderbolts.

 

[Marshall]

I know Diablo had them. I'm trying to think of a game that had them -before- diablo.

AD&D

Gauntlets of Ogre Power
Girdle of Giant Strength
Hammer of Thunderbolts

It wasnt called a 'set', but its the genesis of the idea...

 

[abyssaldeath]

You were about 3 hours late on that one Marshall.

 

[msherman]

I think that the Rod of Seven Parts probably predates the Gauntlets/Girdle/Hammer combo, too. It was first published in 1976.

 

[Marshall]

(If all arcane classes could use all arcane implements and all divine and primal classes could use all divine and primal implements, that would be a great start.)

Exactly! Way too many implement types with way too many restrictions on what classes can use which.

Do we really need Wands, Rods and Staves? Arent Totems just another type of Holy Symbol? Is it really necessary for Bards to have THREE types of items that can be enchanted into implements(swords, bows and instruments)?

 

[Marshall]

You were about 3 hours late on that one Marshall.

Yeah, thats what I get for replying before finishing the thread.

 

[AllisterH]

I kind of like the fact that all the implement classes favour differ implements.

You certainly don't see every weapon using class default to the same weapons now do you?

Making items more "generic" is what gave us the dreaded Iron Armbands of Power.

(Right now, there are still "goog generic items" as seen by another thread on this selfsame forum)

 

[Marshall]

I kind of like the fact that all the implement classes favour differ implements.

You certainly don't see every weapon using class default to the same weapons now do you?

Well, Yes, but then again every weapon using class gets the choice of what weapons it wants to use and each of those weapons has different traits and benefits.

Maybe what we need are Simple-Martial-Superior implements with different power levels dependent on type.