Augmenting Whetstones - AV - fair game ?

[Ferghis]

Agreed with the bulk of your post.

... as I don't feel they add anything.

This, I disagree with: it's not a huge issue, but it's what we come to these boards to talk about.

Since magic items are such an integral part of most D&D games, there is a vivid discussion about keeping up neck/implement/armor/weapon slot items, what to do about the magic "costs" associated with dual-wielding characters who want to stay up-to date, and the difficulty imposed by some items that don't really require any upgrades (compared to those that still do) in a game that uses inherent bonuses.

All these problems are "game-balance" problems (I'm still not fully clear on the meaning of that term, but I know it applies here) in the sense that the game is trying to balance player characters among each other. Instead of giving out magic items, giving ritual components and the "enchant an item" ritual makes players administer their own item-resources, freeing the DM from having to select items, or from trying to "balance" the player characters. It's entirely up to the players.

The rarity rules are a crucial "cog" in this framework, since it allows the DM to basically veto any item they want (unless it's common, but those are basically harmless), without this coming as a surprise to the players. This means that the DM can veto an item that gives the party flight if s/he wants to steer the players through an overland adventure without that benefit. Or invisibility items, if there is a stealth adventure coming up. And so on.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

[MENTION=27897]Ryujin[/MENTION]:

Fair enough. As I noted, that's not a problem with my PC's - if it is with yours, then yeah, you'll want some mechanism to prevent it. As discussed by Ferghis, the rarity system is how the rule set currently addresses that problem - they've shifted most items with daily powers into the "uncommon" category that PCs can't buy or make without DM permission. However, if you don't want to implement the rarity system, or feel that the rarity system doesn't adequately address the issue, then yes, by all means keep the daily item use restrictions.


[MENTION=40483]Ferghis[/MENTION]:

I accept and understand the reasons behind the rarity system, which you have addressed admirably in your post.

That said, I maintain that for my campaign and my PCs, the rarity system is NOT a crucial cog, and I maintain my opinion that, in my campaign and for my PCs, the rarity rules don't add anything. My reasons for such are as follows:

1. so far as the rarity system is designed to prevent players from spamming daily item abilities, that's not a problem with my PCs - they don't. Indeed, they generally dislike and don't use daily item abilities.

2. where my PCs do spam daily item abilities (there is a consumable that gives a +2 initiative for an encounter that one PC likes to use every encounter), such spamming doesn't negatively affect the game - indeed, given how crappy the iniative bonus is for that PC (and the group more generally - the hightest dex is 13, I think), I feel such item use improves encounters by preventing encounters where all the monsters go and then all the PCs go.

3. I've been gaming with this same group every other week or so (in various games and with various GMs) for 15 years. As such, if an item comes up that IS a problem, I think we are all mature enough for me to explain why I think its a problem and for the PCs to moderate their use of said item.

4. I don't use inherent bonuses.

5. I tend to give out more magic items instead of gold. This limits how much gold the characters have to buy stuff.

6. Given that the PCs don't have much gold to buy stuff, I don't want to further restrict what they want to buy/make to the crappiest and blandest magic items - which is why I let them buy/make uncommon items, but not rare ones.

7. I occasionally impose story constraints on items, and my players are generally willing to accept those limitations. Most commonly, these are things like "can't buy magic items outside of major towns", but I have also stated that a type of consumable that requires the maker to know supernal or infernal (the above mentioned initiative boosting consumable is one of these) cannot be bought but can be made, as vritually no one except 2 of my PCs and some NPCs who aren't item merchants know those languages.

8. Lastly, I do enjoy tailoring my magic item choices for my PCs and giving them items that I think the player will like and that will make them effective. I will admit that there drawbacks with doing so - in addition to the extra time required to make these choices, I have one player who is incredibly picky with items, such that even when I chose an item on his "wish list" (I don't do wish lists as such, but I do sometimes ask PCs what items they are interested in) he may still be unhappy with my choice.

So, while in my campaign and for my PCs, the division between common and uncommon items really doesn't add anything to the game, it may in your game and with the players in it. Certainly, if you use inherent bonuses I can understand why the item rarity rules would be much more attractive.

Anyway, sorry for the length, but I thought it important to give the basis of my opinion.

 

[Ferghis]

Those are good reasons, and thanks for posting them at length.

 

[Ryujin]

[MENTION=27897]Ryujin[/MENTION]:

Fair enough. As I noted, that's not a problem with my PC's - if it is with yours, then yeah, you'll want some mechanism to prevent it. As discussed by Ferghis, the rarity system is how the rule set currently addresses that problem - they've shifted most items with daily powers into the "uncommon" category that PCs can't buy or make without DM permission. However, if you don't want to implement the rarity system, or feel that the rarity system doesn't adequately address the issue, then yes, by all means keep the daily item use restrictions.

Given that we started this campaign a fair bit before the release of Essentials, I can't really go back and rewrite the base rules it operates by. Also given that two of my players have gone for heavy optimization, I'd be worried that they would stack the Whetstone that gives cold damage, with weapons that have other damage increasing features, in order to take even more advantage of Frost Cheese (which I despise).

 

[Ferghis]

... I'd be worried that they would stack the Whetstone that gives cold damage, with weapons that have other damage increasing features, in order to take even more advantage of Frost Cheese (which I despise).

If you have a serious problem with this (and other) combos, I would talk about it plainly with the players. Tell them you feel that frostcheese kills monsters too quickly (or whatever practical effect you dislike), and ask them not to use it. They might be amenable to that.

For example, one of my groups worked on a houserule to patch what we felt was a problem: the fact that creatures (defenders in particular) have no punishment for movement, mark-defying attacks or similar things that occur on their own turn (due to the rule that prohibits immediate and opportunity actions during your own turn). After discussing a variety of potential houserules, we simply entered a gentlemen's agreement to not purposefully take advantage of this loophole (by, for example, readying movement or attacks to occur in that timeframe). This has worked better for us than any houserule might have.

 

[Ryujin]

If you have a serious problem with this (and other) combos, I would talk about it plainly with the players. Tell them you feel that frostcheese kills monsters too quickly (or whatever practical effect you dislike), and ask them not to use it. They might be amenable to that.

For example, one of my groups worked on a houserule to patch what we felt was a problem: the fact that creatures (defenders in particular) have no punishment for movement, mark-defying attacks or similar things that occur on their own turn (due to the rule that prohibits immediate and opportunity actions during your own turn). After discussing a variety of potential houserules, we simply entered a gentlemen's agreement to not purposefully take advantage of this loophole (by, for example, readying movement or attacks to occur in that timeframe). This has worked better for us than any houserule might have.

It's less of an issue now, than it has been in the past, because they're now tending to face more creatures with variable resistance of various forms of elemental resistance. They darned near swallowed their gum, the first time they met up with a Resist 30 - Cold creature.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Given that we started this campaign a fair bit before the release of Essentials, I can't really go back and rewrite the base rules it operates by.

Well, that's not strictly true... I began my campaign about a year into 4e (so, before PH2), and we've been incorporating the various eratta and other changes into the game as we go along, including the change to the magic item rules. It has affected some of the characters (not very much, though, as we don't have any real power gamers), but I instituted a house rule that whenever eratta affected a PC, that PC got a free retrain at the next level in addition to the one they would normally get - which seemed to solve any of the problems that the eratta might otherwise have caused.

That said, just because that worked for my game doesn't mean it would work for yours. It is my opinion that the game is better for the various changes and eratta, though...

They darned near swallowed their gum, the first time they met up with a Resist 30 - Cold creature.

I would too! I hope they were at Epic... otherwise, what has resist 30 before Epic?

 

[Ryujin]

Well, that's not strictly true... I began my campaign about a year into 4e (so, before PH2), and we've been incorporating the various eratta and other changes into the game as we go along, including the change to the magic item rules. It has affected some of the characters (not very much, though, as we don't have any real power gamers), but I instituted a house rule that whenever eratta affected a PC, that PC got a free retrain at the next level in addition to the one they would normally get - which seemed to solve any of the problems that the eratta might otherwise have caused.

That said, just because that worked for my game doesn't mean it would work for yours. It is my opinion that the game is better for the various changes and eratta, though...

We've done the same but some things, pun intended, are real game changers.

I would too! I hope they were at Epic... otherwise, what has resist 30 before Epic?

Near Epic, but not quite. Off the top of my head, some Ice Archons around Level 19.