Adv2 Item sets

[CapnZapp]

I haven't actually checked, so feel free to comb through the Compendium and find out the real numbers, but...

Take rods for example: I have a definite feeling a large slice of all rods are only interesting to Warlocks. Another slice (though smaller) is only interesting for Artificers. And yet another for Invokers.

Three classes; one implement - but almost nothing in common. Unlike holy symbols or weaponry.

I understand WotC is adding new classes that increase the utility of rods overall; but feel it's a matter of too little too late.

What really is needed is for a way for a DM to be able to add rods to the treasure hoard without them being useful only to a single party member (I don't think many parties will have more than one rod user; and in fact, I pity the ones that do - in the off chance the rod is equally useful to all three characters, great! But much more likely is they will cannabalize each other's resources; and now we're talking about a very scarce resource to begin with...)

...as well as adding other arcane implements that aren't automatically useless to a Warlock. Currently, not only are staffs and orbs and tomes unusable by a Warlock; he or she can't even transfer their magic into rod form (per the AV1 guidelines)!

I realize there are several weapon enhancements that only apply to, say, light blades. And armor enhancements that only work for hide & scale, for instance.

But where is the implement counterpart to all the "any weapon" enhancements?!

 

[Eldorian]

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

Once again, Blizzard borrows from DnD hehe. I had forgotten the rod of seven parts.

 

[DracoSuave]

But where is the implement counterpart to all the "any weapon" enhancements?!

It's the type of enchantments available that inform your choice of which implement to use.

So, if you can use an staff or a rod, then there's little advantage to be had by getting a Staff of Roddiness. You don't do more damage, you don't get more accuracy, you don't get 'implement properties' like you do with the weapons. The only thing that -might- apply is Implement Expertise, and that can be retrained.

 

[Saeviomagy]

So instead of just having a staff of ruin, we should also have a wand of ruin, an orb of ruin, a rod of ruin, a holy symbol of ruin and a totem of ruin?

Assuming: iron armbands of power are popular because everybody wants to deal more damage, and there are no other arms slot items that increase damage to such an extent, wouldn't this mean that nobody would want any other implement property?

So your point is that the implement type isn't a problem, it's the "of ruin" property that is?

I'm glad you agree with me so completely.

 

[FireLance]

So your point is that the implement type isn't a problem, it's the "of ruin" property that is?

I'm glad you agree with me so completely.

It appears that making subtle points is not my strength. Let me try that again.

1. Obviously, every item that provides a unique benefit would be "the best" at providing that benefit. Even items that provide related benefits should each be "the best" at providing their specific type of benefit, or have some other mitigating factor, e.g. a hypothetical wand of ruin that provides a item bonus to damage rolls to all implement attacks vs. a force wand that provides an item bonus to damage rolls to all implement attacks with the force keyword and also allows the user to cast magic missile once per encounter.

2. Being "the best" in its chosen area of benefit is thus not the problem. It is only a problem when the benefit provided far outweighs (or is perceived to far outweigh) the other potential, competing benefits. For example, if there were bracers that provided a constant +1 to melee attack rolls, or resistance 2 to melee attacks, I doubt that iron armbands of power would be so popular (assuming, of course, that we aren't over-valuing damage in the first place - I'm not entirely convinced of that yet).

3. However, if there is a problem property, making the property generic is going to increase the problem, not reduce it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

3. However, if there is a problem property, making the property generic is going to increase the problem, not reduce it.

Well, no. If only player A can take advantage of a rule and that gives them an advantage that is not game-breaking, then you have imbalance. You can address the imbalance by either letting everyone use the rule, or by letting noone use it.

There's a ton of cool properties out there that are bizarrely limited to one or two classes. Most games will never see them. Most players and DMs will find that pages and pages of their AV2 never ever see play, simply because they haven't had someone who plays class X. Or subclass Y of class X.

So - two problems solved with one simple action.

 

[Flipguarder]

So Saeviomagy why not just give all characters an at will destructo beam that obliterates its target and has a static +50 to the attack roll.

Its unbalanced when combined with monsters, not between different classes.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's the type of enchantments available that inform your choice of which implement to use.

So, if you can use an staff or a rod, then there's little advantage to be had by getting a Staff of Roddiness. You don't do more damage, you don't get more accuracy, you don't get 'implement properties' like you do with the weapons. The only thing that -might- apply is Implement Expertise, and that can be retrained.

I believe we are discussing different things, but I could be wrong.

I want treasure more than one party member wants to have; encouraging the party to "fight" over the choicest bits; but at the same time opening up the tactical dimension of "what benefits our group the most".

For instance, if you get the bracers, I can have the gloves. But on the other hand, if you take the gloves, Bob can use the bracers and I can have the Circlet.

Which configuration 1) benefits me personally the most and 2) benefits the group as a whole the most.

As you probably have figured out by now, I don't do wish lists.

When I hand out a Longsword, chances are even the Rogue and the Barbarian are interested. They might not use Longswords, but they can at least transfer the enhancement across (per AV1 guidelines) to a Dagger or Greataxe.

You see my point? Goodies for Warlocks and Shamans in particular feel awfully specific - whatever they like, chances are nobody else won't. Like in "at all" - they probably won't be able to use it in any way whatsoever!

This is what I don't like.

If, say, 50% of all arcane implement enhancements could be put on all arcane implements (or at least both rods and staffs), the "interoperability" and thus "friendly competition" between arcane classes would increase significantly.

And if the same went for divine and primal enhancements, it would vastly increase the chance the two "devout" characters in the group (perhaps a Cleric and a Druid?) could benefit from one and the same item.



I don't care for how 4E makes many items so very very specific, almost to the point where only a single class, a single build of that class, and a subset of that build with a certain set of stats can use the item.

As I remember 3E, items were generally much more universal. Sure, the Greatsword mattered little to the party Wizard, but still. I'm sure there were specific class-based items in 3E too, but my gut feeling is they weren't as numerous as in 4E.

It's ridiculous how you sometimes feel the only way you can hand out a single item everybody will want to have is by handing out a neck item!

As for implements; they are a 4E invention. Unfortunately, the implementation has shown to serve to set the non-martial classes apart. Not only is this a hidden advantage for the weapon users out there, it makes it decidedly harder to build awesome treasure hoards as the DM.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, no. If only player A can take advantage of a rule and that gives them an advantage that is not game-breaking, then you have imbalance. You can address the imbalance by either letting everyone use the rule, or by letting noone use it.

There's a ton of cool properties out there that are bizarrely limited to one or two classes. Most games will never see them. Most players and DMs will find that pages and pages of their AV2 never ever see play, simply because they haven't had someone who plays class X. Or subclass Y of class X.

So - two problems solved with one simple action.

So Saeviomagy why not just give all characters an at will destructo beam that obliterates its target and has a static +50 to the attack roll.

Its unbalanced when combined with monsters, not between different classes.

You forgot the "whacky" smiley...

How do you not see Sev's point: there are too many too-specific items and there are in particular too many too-specific items geared towards arcane characters.

Or in other words, there are a gazillion items. But when you remove those items that your particular combination of four or five classes or so don't use, a lot of those items go away as "utterly uninteresting".

And what you have left is a bunch of things only a single character can use; and the golden oldies - the subset of 4E items that lots of people can use.

This is also the subset that all campaigns end up using; which is very boring indeed. Example thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/264760-generic-items-win-heroic-tier-beta.html

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So Saeviomagy why not just give all characters an at will destructo beam that obliterates its target and has a static +50 to the attack roll.

Its unbalanced when combined with monsters, not between different classes.

I am not convinced that the balance issue lies between PCs and monsters. That might exist too, but the fundamental issue is more that comparable items are imbalanced.

It is the same problem as with the old "Big Six" in 3E. The opportunity cost for not taking one of the big six was perceived too high. So everyone ended up with them, and other items got neglected.

If a particular set of level 6 bracers are considered more desirable by a significant portion of characters than any other level 6 bracer many higher level bracers, than these level 6 bracers will become more prevalant. Of course, that will lead to a character imbalance, the "cool" guys all get their fixed bonus to damage, the uncool guys don't.

But the starting point is this one item that is to desirable. Fix that, and you don't get any resulting imbalances.

Of course, there are more than one such item.

I think there can be good reasons why there is only one Staff of Ruin and not a Wand/Orb/Holy Symbol of Ruin. It gives the Staff a unique flavor as implement - it's the "war" wizards implement, a Staff wielder uses powerful spells that wreak havoc and destruction. It's just that the granted bonus is too high or too universal that's the problem.

The same thing probably doesn't apply to the Bracers of Perfect Shot or Iron Armbands of Power. They don't really add their "unique" flavor. But I think the problem is mostly that their bonuses are too high. A +3 to damage (for the same price) at epic tier will never be seen as that significant. Maybe add a daily or encounter power to the mix, and you got a solid item that not everyone is after. (Even though it might still be one of the "simple" choices then.)

And of course, some items seem to stack unneccessarily. Just make every damage bonus from items an item bonus, and you will find a way that everyone that wants a damage bonus can get one some way, but no one can stack them silly.