AV allows magic item power creep. Am I overlooking something?

[Lord Sessadore]

I think it's quite a stretch to say that Mr. Porkus's reading of the rule has "WOTC's Stamp of Approval" on it.

Those in favor of his reading make some interesting points, but given all the unanswered questions regarding the implementation of their interpretation, I doubt that is what is actually intended. I'd be interested in seeing some clarification from WOTC on the issue.

Oh, I don't think there's any question about it, this is totally not what WotC intended when they wrote that. I would never reveal this loophole (and it is an unintended loophole) to my players, or try to use it myself as a player. That said, if one of my players brought this up, I would work with him and allow it (because I'm just a nice guy ).

 

[Danceofmasks]

There are some overpowered stuff in AV and MP.
Consequently, (for instance) fighters are currently a fair bit more powerful than paladins.

Powers, feats, and PPs are not made equal.
The more options you have, the more synergies and combos you can find.

To say 4e is balanced regardless of how many books you use is a little naive.

Heck, just this weekend, I was at a con where there were minotaurs and warforged running around in LFR, using fighter options from MP, and they were clearly outclassing dwarven fighters.
Just sayin'.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

No more kool-aid for you!

mommy my kool-aid tastes like cyanide.

[not directed at anyone in particular]

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Heck, just this weekend, I was at a con where there were minotaurs and warforged running around in LFR, using fighter options from MP, and they were clearly outclassing dwarven fighters.
Just sayin'.

can you post some build examples? From what i have seen on these forums, a tempest dwarf is pretty sick when you give him double ended axes.

whats LFR's view on double weapons? are they both offhand?

 

[Tony Vargas]

"This use of the ritual follows
the same rules for enchanting a magic item from a
mundane item but reduces the cost. "

This means you can't create an item with this use of the ritual that you couldn't create with the normal use of the enchant item ritual, you just do it at a lower cost. Since you can't create a combined item normally, you can't create it this way, either.

So, you could turn a generic +6 sword into a Vorpal Sword or a generic +1 sword into a +2 sword, then into a +2 vicious sword, then into a +4 vicious sword, then, since the only thing unique about vicious is the crit, and it's the same as vorpal, probably turn that +4 vicious sword into a +6 Vorpal one. But you can't make things 'go away,' so you couldn't turn a +2 vicious sword into a +2 flaming one, since the end result has to be a standard item, and flaming swords don't have d12 crit.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, dwarves miss a lot in general ... now sure, dwarven tanks are really tanky, but the longer combat lasts, the more pain the party cops ... thus offense is king.
There's been debates about offense vs. defense before, but shuffle around with different players in LFR and you'll notice offense outclassing defense.

Warforged get a feat that gives them +1 to hit if an ally is adjacent to the target.
In combination with brash strike and really high strength, warforged were churning out the pain.
Using a board for a bit more AC, granting CA is usually not an issue 'cos your foe is dead (and other players were deliberately provoking OAs from these marked enemies just so combat challenge proves fatal).

Minotaurs take a swing as they fall down .. that in itself is broke, as healing effects (such as *cough* consecrated ground) will get them conscious again.

In contrast, the dwarf I saw was seriously struggling, and got mobbed by a bunch of minions at one point .. where 2 or 3 points of extra hitroll (which is where it's at when talking about warforged) would mean cleave churns through them.
Sure, he held them off fine ... but other characters were taking some pain, the leader ran out of healing effects, etc.

Especially in LFR, where a party of level 1s can expect to take ongoing damage and other status effects, the only real way to be consistent is to make sure your enemies fall fast.

 

[Mistwell]

I think it's important to note that this is not actually true. Nothing in the AV is core rules, it's a supplement book. It's completely up to the DM whether or not anything from the AV is allowed.

Is the term "core" used in 4e? I thought that was something eliminated with 4e, and there is no longer a concept of something being "core" and "not core"?

 

[Caliban]

Is the term "core" used in 4e? I thought that was something eliminated with 4e, and there is no longer a concept of something being "core" and "not core"?

*shrug* I use the term to refer to the 3 main books. If you don't like my use of it, substitute your own term for it that means the same thing.

 

[Mistwell]

*shrug* I use the term to refer to the 3 main books. If you don't like my use of it, substitute your own term for it that means the same thing.

Well, what I mean is that I thought WOTC made a point of not wanting a delineation between books of "3 main books" and "everything else", and said there are no "main" books for 4e. That's the model they went with, using annual PHBs and intentionally waiting on some important brand-type things to be released in later books, since those books are all considered equally the same type of rules, without a "core" concept.

 

[Caliban]

Well, what I mean is that I thought WOTC made a point of not wanting a delineation between books of "3 main books" and "everything else", and said there are no "main" books for 4e. That's the model they went with, using annual PHBs and intentionally waiting on some important brand-type things to be released in later books, since those books are all considered equally the same type of rules, without a "core" concept.

*sigh* Nitpicking is the death of reasoned debate.

OK, forget I wrote the word "core". The DM doesn't have to allow anything, from any book published by WOTC or anyone else.

Happy now?