Daily item limits: are they "officially" gone?

[OnlineDM]

The LFR Campaign Guide document was recently updated, and it now allows a player to choose any uncommon item of their level or any common item of their level +2 from a player resource at the end of an adventure. So, if you're 4th level, you can pick a 4th level uncommon or 6th level common item.

If you don't want any of the available Treasures, you may instead find a Common or Uncommon permanent magic item of your choice from a player resource. However, there are limits on what you can find when you pick your own item. You are limited to any Common magic item of your character level + 2 or less, or any Uncommon magic item of your character level or less.

Also, you're still allowed to use gold to buy Common magic items:

Common items offer useful but limited abilities, and are easy to find in the world. They are available for purchase in most large cities and towns, artisans can craft them, and so forth.

 

[Balesir]

Hmm, this rules change is about the one alteration made with the "Essentials" wave that I really dislike. I understand the incentives, but I think it was poorly thought through and has been poorly implemented. For the first time I have decided as a DM not to use the 'official' rules, here.

The real purpose of the rarity rules is to put magic items back in the dm's hands.

I think "real purpose" is a bit of a simplification, here. Incentives ranged, I believe, from a desire to reduce/remove onerous design constraints ("don't design an item that screws up the balance") to simplification (although removing one resource to manage in a game with so many seems like a pretty minor simplification) to allowing DMs the same sort of freedom point 1 gives designers to nerfing the power of a ritual that has an inherent problem as did the old "polymorph" spells (i.e. every time new items are added to the game, the Enchant Item ritual gets stronger). It also gives players one less obvious avenue to optimise (and obsessive optimisers overshadowing "normal players" is a problem unless the game is to spiral into elitist nerdism).

The prices for the change are also many and varied, sadly. First is that the incentives in the system for meeting milestones and exceeding the "five minute workday" are reduced. Rings still hold advantages after milestones are hit, but the only other gain at a milestone are APs, and you start with one after an extended rest and can't spend more that one in an encounter anyway, so they don't actually incentivise multiple encounters between extended rests, just reduce the penalty for them. Second is that the load on the DM to consider the ramifications of item "release" into a game and design treasure with that in mind are increased. The proliferation of daily powers available and ability of players to optimise some very powerful combinations are now controlled by the items a DM selects for the players, rather than by the rules writers. This is made harder in long campaigns because an item that is pretty innocuous at the level it is given out may enable a "broken" (for the power level of the rest of the party/the particular game) combination at a higher level with an upgrade (still allowed with the Enchant Item ritual, presumably because it must be left with some utility now that almost everything is officially "uncommon").

Overall, I regard this as a really poor return on investment.

Which is to say, no, not every single pc would- or should, imho- have a handful of them all the time.

In some playstyles, yes, but not all, and certainly not "every single player".

I really do understand your sentiment, here, but there is a major problem. Items do materially affect character power, and the standards of encounters, traps and so forth assume a certain level of character power. Changing the item distribution - and hence Character power - from game to game can lead to serious issues of player disorientation and "assumption clash". There are several possible remedies:

1) modify it so that items dont add materially to Character power

2) ensure that the items available to characters in all games are in sum of roughly equivalent power

3) arrange it so that there is a clear "standard" level of item power, and make deviations from this standard optional rules.

The first strikes me as removing the "fun" from magic items. The second requires either free access to all items (i.e. the "old" rule) or a clear and accurate measure of the real power of every item to any specific character (a huge task to create). The third requires the same measure of item power as the second, but could allow the "playstyle specific" variation of item importance you crave.

For what it's worth I would love the third option, but it would take so much effort to make it work I'm really not expecting to see it. As a fallback, the 'old' system of every item being createable and daily powers being controlled as a "resource" at least results in an "economic" maintenance of balance.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As a fallback, the 'old' system of every item being createable and daily powers being controlled as a "resource" at least results in an "economic" maintenance of balance.

I think personally that you are underestimating the crappiness of the old system. It was awful to be blunt. Every single item had to be designed to a standard which made it acceptable regardless of whether it was given out in a treasure parcel or enchanted from pocket change by a much higher level PC. Time and time again we saw where that lead as basically all the interesting items were nerfed to uselessness. Beyond that some items will ALWAYS be stronger than others for a given build. Your statement about balancing them being difficult is apt, but you should have said "flat out impossible" not very difficult. This means with crafting/purchase in the hands of the players we see simply endless repetitions of Iron Armbands of Power, blech!

While the tracking of daily uses wasn't TOO onerous it is still another thing to track and I'm glad it is gone. Beyond that explaining how the rule worked was a royal pain in the ass. Players got confused between the character's daily use allocation and daily uses of individual items, etc. I don't know how many times I've explained this rule to some players before they 'got it'. When they did get it they universally hated it. I have yet to ever run into a player that liked this rule. It made weaker daily item powers absolutely useless as well.

Basically the old rule was utter garbage. When Mike Mearls said he "took it out back and shot it" I am pretty sure that that sentiment was heartily shared by a vast number of players.

 

[Balesir]

I think personally that you are underestimating the crappiness of the old system. It was awful to be blunt. Every single item had to be designed to a standard which made it acceptable regardless of whether it was given out in a treasure parcel or enchanted from pocket change by a much higher level PC.

I think this is a bit like what Winston Churchill said about democracy - "It's the worst system of government there is - apart from all the others we have tried from time to time..." The old system was/is clunky and restrictive, sure - but the new is worse, from my perspective. As for standards of acceptability in design, I think that should still apply. A broken rules element is a broken rules element, regardless whether the base rules make it a freely accessible player resource or a perk to be awarded at the DM's whim, as far as I can see.

Time and time again we saw where that lead as basically all the interesting items were nerfed to uselessness.

If the rarity system is an excuse to feed overpowered items into play as "DM awards" that is far worse, to my mind. And if it isn't then the same constraints on design will need to apply.

I think there are already two good avenues for this sort of "cool/powerful" element, actually - consumable items (which have IMO been sadly ignored and poorly dealt with by the rules so far) and Artefacts (a much underrated and underused classification, I think, no longer restricted to higher levels).

Beyond that some items will ALWAYS be stronger than others for a given build.

Agreed. One of the things I don't think was well thought through at the get-go was the scope and role of items in the game. It still seems way too "all things to all men" and fuzzy. Functions of items basically fall into four categories:

1) The 'key bonuses' to ToHit, AC, NADs and (to a lesser degree) Damage.

2) Other fixed bonuses to damage, skills, etc.

3) 'Power' abilities that allow some special function to be used, generally as an action option, by the wielding/wearing character. Generally restricted to Encounter or Daily use.

4) 'Special' modifiers like giving damage done a keyword/type, giving light, giving movement modifiers or options.

Of these, I think (1) is a bit too much like a "feat tax" and should not be there - just give an extra +1 to each per three levels as fixed bonuses and remove the 'Expertise' etc. feats' plusses. (2) need to be very carefully controlled by bonus type (i.e. make them all 'Item' bonuses to block the "superstacking" builds). (3) are interesting and fine, but need to be controlled so that the character powers remain the core of the character, not a huge set of item powers; this might work for Superheroes games (the "gadget hero") but not for plain D&D. Limiting it to one item power per encounter (kind of similar to Channel Divinity) might work, here. Finally, (4) could probably be mostly left unrestricted - or maybe a few might need to feed into the "one item schtick per encounter" system along with the (3) category.

Your statement about balancing them being difficult is apt, but you should have said "flat out impossible" not very difficult. This means with crafting/purchase in the hands of the players we see simply endless repetitions of Iron Armbands of Power, blech!

I actually don't think it would be impossible - but it would take so much person-time to retool all existing items (for no return) that I don't see it being in the least viable.

If the alternative to players buying/making items is for IAoP to be a perk for DMs to give out at whim for "good" behaviour (as defined by the DM, of course) - blech!

While the tracking of daily uses wasn't TOO onerous it is still another thing to track and I'm glad it is gone. Beyond that explaining how the rule worked was a royal pain in the ass. Players got confused between the character's daily use allocation and daily uses of individual items, etc. I don't know how many times I've explained this rule to some players before they 'got it'. When they did get it they universally hated it. I have yet to ever run into a player that liked this rule.

There are plenty of rules players dislike, but rules are there to give a good, balanced, fun game, not what players think is their "due". Sure, some folk found it confusing as written, but when we started using glass beads to represent "item uses" (alongside those we use for healing surges and action points) just about all that confusion went away.

It made weaker daily item powers absolutely useless as well.

Less useful, certainly - but that begs the question why they are daily powers to begin with. I think it goes back to what I said above about 'scope and role' of items. Maybe I could say it better as "creation rules" - there need to be clearer ground rules about what items can and can't do; guidelines similar to those evident for class powers and (kinda) for feats.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think this is a bit like what Winston Churchill said about democracy - "It's the worst system of government there is - apart from all the others we have tried from time to time..." The old system was/is clunky and restrictive, sure - but the new is worse, from my perspective. As for standards of acceptability in design, I think that should still apply. A broken rules element is a broken rules element, regardless whether the base rules make it a freely accessible player resource or a perk to be awarded at the DM's whim, as far as I can see.

I totally disagree. There are many elements that are fine if they are restricted to one character or one use. The horn that pushes people around for instance, which was nerfed strictly because higher level PCs could equip the whole party with one each. The item itself was fine, IF used in the intended way, as a single fairly unique item that one character would have. Ironically the same item by the old rules was worthless as a one-off as the power was weak and almost never worth spending a character's daily use on. So it was both useless and broken at the same time. Rarity totally fixes this item with the removal of the daily use rule.

If the rarity system is an excuse to feed overpowered items into play as "DM awards" that is far worse, to my mind. And if it isn't then the same constraints on design will need to apply.

No, the same constraints on design DO NOT need to apply. That's the whole point. See above for the poster child example. It is only one of MANY.

I think there are already two good avenues for this sort of "cool/powerful" element, actually - consumable items (which have IMO been sadly ignored and poorly dealt with by the rules so far) and Artefacts (a much underrated and underused classification, I think, no longer restricted to higher levels).

Artifacts are fine. Of course there COULD be more of them, no argument, but the ones that exist are quite usable. I have created several of my own, it was easy and they have worked well so far. I'm considering using one of the DMG2 artifacts as well. I tend to like to make my own, but there are a few interesting new ones around that should be fun.

Consumables actually are a sort of ticking time bomb. They've all been now made uncommon, and for a lot of them that is probably for the best. I'd easily allow PCs to make any of the ones that don't cause problems and often many of the others on a limited basis. It would be good if WotC did come in and reevaluate those items, make any needed errata, and carefully classify them. Maybe add some text explaining the best ways to deploy them in a game since they never really did that before. Something to tell DMs to make them possible to craft.

Agreed. One of the things I don't think was well thought through at the get-go was the scope and role of items in the game. It still seems way too "all things to all men" and fuzzy. Functions of items basically fall into four categories:

1) The 'key bonuses' to ToHit, AC, NADs and (to a lesser degree) Damage.

2) Other fixed bonuses to damage, skills, etc.

3) 'Power' abilities that allow some special function to be used, generally as an action option, by the wielding/wearing character. Generally restricted to Encounter or Daily use.

4) 'Special' modifiers like giving damage done a keyword/type, giving light, giving movement modifiers or options.

Of these, I think (1) is a bit too much like a "feat tax" and should not be there - just give an extra +1 to each per three levels as fixed bonuses and remove the 'Expertise' etc. feats' plusses. (2) need to be very carefully controlled by bonus type (i.e. make them all 'Item' bonuses to block the "superstacking" builds). (3) are interesting and fine, but need to be controlled so that the character powers remain the core of the character, not a huge set of item powers; this might work for Superheroes games (the "gadget hero") but not for plain D&D. Limiting it to one item power per encounter (kind of similar to Channel Divinity) might work, here. Finally, (4) could probably be mostly left unrestricted - or maybe a few might need to feed into the "one item schtick per encounter" system along with the (3) category.

I actually don't think it would be impossible - but it would take so much person-time to retool all existing items (for no return) that I don't see it being in the least viable.

Well, personally I don't really care if the pluses are attached to the item or the character really. At this point most of the people I'm running games for are good with enhancement being on items. The inherent bonus thing probably DOES make more sense, but I think a lot of people playing the game aren't that analytical. They like their plus items.

If the alternative to players buying/making items is for IAoP to be a perk for DMs to give out at whim for "good" behaviour (as defined by the DM, of course) - blech!

You want to write the rules with one potential hypothetical bad DM in mind? Such a DM will find some way to stuff up his or her game. Making us use gimpy craptastic magic rules on that basis is not something I want. We're fixing a problem, not creating one.

There are plenty of rules players dislike, but rules are there to give a good, balanced, fun game, not what players think is their "due". Sure, some folk found it confusing as written, but when we started using glass beads to represent "item uses" (alongside those we use for healing surges and action points) just about all that confusion went away.

It is just an awful awkward kludge of a rule created to solve a problem that only existed because the whole "you can craft anything" was a bad idea. With that rule in place you simply cannot offer really interesting good items, unless you go all the way to labeling them artifacts. Personally I run for people that like to craft things and will craft things. They'll get plenty of scope to do that. This really SHOULD be harped on so that DMs are all well aware they should allow a decent amount of crafting. It is only when the players can make multiples of certain items or make certain highly desirable items that it gets problematic.

Less useful, certainly - but that begs the question why they are daily powers to begin with. I think it goes back to what I said above about 'scope and role' of items. Maybe I could say it better as "creation rules" - there need to be clearer ground rules about what items can and can't do; guidelines similar to those evident for class powers and (kinda) for feats.

There are ground rules for items. They now include the ability to make some that are actually really significant on a limited access basis, and to make ones that if available once a day are just nice and cool but when you can do the same thing 12 times a day are broken or unfun. Try making some items. You'll find that under the new system you have MUCH more freedom to do so.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Our group having finally got to go off on a big shopping spree, I'm rapidly realising why the commonness rules are needed.

Going through the wish lists of all the different characters really makes me realise: 99% of the gear that everyone wants is identical. If it weren't for the fact that we're pretty heavily under standard loot levels, every melee character would end up with iron armbands of power, gauntlets of blood and a frost weapon. Most of the casters would just get the gauntlets and the frost weapon (because we have one person who is doing frostcheese.. and that means vulnerability for everyone).

Now with the common/uncommon etc split, we're liable to end up upgrading things that we've found, and trying to pick up a bunch of things that we haven't - and not everyone is going to get everything they're after. It gives diversity, and IMHO that's good.

 

[Balesir]

AbdulAlhazred, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, because what you want out of D&D items seems totally at odds to what I want out of them. I see D&D 4E as primarily designed to be a "players face challenges through their characters and struggle to overcome them" game. This gives issues with elements that are controlled by the DM but are part of the players' toolkit, not part of the challenge. You apparently want the game to be something else.

A few parting responses:

No, the same constraints on design DO NOT need to apply. That's the whole point. See above for the poster child example. It is only one of MANY.

My (second) option of retained constraints contained a condition. If you take away the condition, it no longer applies, clearly.

You want to write the rules with one potential hypothetical bad DM in mind? Such a DM will find some way to stuff up his or her game. Making us use gimpy craptastic magic rules on that basis is not something I want. We're fixing a problem, not creating one.

It's not about a "hypothetical bad DM" - it's a structural fault caused by a dissonance with the basic structure of the game. Having a player "toolkit" that is developing in-game be under the almost total control of the DM, whose main focus should be on creating balanced, engaging challenges is a core clash of aims. Any DM is going to have confused objectives with that scheme.

It is just an awful awkward kludge of a rule created to solve a problem that only existed because the whole "you can craft anything" was a bad idea. With that rule in place you simply cannot offer really interesting good items, unless you go all the way to labeling them artifacts.

Try abandoning the read of "all the way to labelling them artifacts". The way I read the new 'artifact' category is that it is no longer the "uber-item" slot - it is any item that is more a part of the scenario in play than it is a character element/tool. The 'pushing horn' (was that the 'Horn of Blasting'?) you cite would fit here well, in my view, if it was meant to be a neat solution/aid in one specific situation/scenario as a one-off effect. It doesn't have to be super-powerful to be an artifact - and I think that is a brilliant addition to the game and an excellent way to differentiate "items as player toolkit" from "items as story/scenario gimmicks".

Personally I run for people that like to craft things and will craft things. They'll get plenty of scope to do that. This really SHOULD be harped on so that DMs are all well aware they should allow a decent amount of crafting. It is only when the players can make multiples of certain items or make certain highly desirable items that it gets problematic.

I really don't think it matters if the characters make (or 'craft') things, buy things or find things - the key discriminator is whether the selection and acquisition of those items is in the control of the players or in the control of the DM. My view is that anything that is part of the attributes/resources/tools that the players have (through the vehicle their characters) to overcome challenges should be under the players' control*. Anything that forms a part of the challenges the players must overcome and the scenario in which they encounter them should be controlled by the DM. Crossing or mixing these will lead to confused objectives and invite conflicting interests.

* Within the boundaries established collaboratively at the game start for the campaign, to be more fully correct.

There are ground rules for items. They now include the ability to make some that are actually really significant on a limited access basis, and to make ones that if available once a day are just nice and cool but when you can do the same thing 12 times a day are broken or unfun. Try making some items. You'll find that under the new system you have MUCH more freedom to do so.

I really meant the ground rules used by the game designers and developers in WotC. An understanding of what items are for, what they can do and what they should not be allowed to do is needed - and I see no sign of it in the spread of design so far published.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there simply needs to be a level of trust between the players and the DM to have a good game. If the DM is going to be a wank about items and not make any effort to understand the players desires, or the players are going to simply treat items like they are class features instead of being elements of the story that the DM has legitimate input into then you're not going to get the best results out of the system.

The problem with the original 4e item rules was that they were slanted almost entirely in favor of the players. Thus they became constricted by the kind of restrictions that must exist on class features and no room was left for story. Every fighter expected to have IAoP, etc. The new system puts story back in as a factor. The DM can now both invest item acquisition with some story significance and by moving them out of the realm of required class features (not completely accomplished, but much more true than before) he has the option to use more interesting and varied items.

As for the thing about artifacts. This is just terminology. A rare or uncommon item need not be labeled 'artifact'. The functional result is the same, an item which cannot be acquired casually and thus can be more story related. There is now a nice scale, common items that anyone of sufficient level can craft readily, uncommon items one might be able to craft and may come up in treasures in small numbers, rare items which are one-of-a-kind, and the most significant items of all being artifacts which primarily drive the story.

The old system simply lacked enough distinctions and put too much responsibility on the players, who are not in as good a position to judge story significance and are also motivated by other factors to naturally favor utility over anything else. Yes, bad DMs might use this system as some kind of stick against the players, but this is a classically disfunctional situation. The rules cannot fix that and it will manifest regardless of how items are handled. If you have an issue with allowing the DM even a modicum of control over the game I simply don't consider that a rules issue at all. Find a DM you can trust.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

As much as I sorta dislike the rarity thing, I abhored the previous "only one daily item can be used" mess.

Also inherent bonuses own zone, 420 need zero magic items to do your job everyday.

 

[Balesir]

I think there simply needs to be a level of trust between the players and the DM to have a good game. If the DM is going to be a wank about items and not make any effort to understand the players desires, or the players are going to simply treat items like they are class features instead of being elements of the story that the DM has legitimate input into then you're not going to get the best results out of the system.

'Story' is only an emergent property of D&D (in any of its editions). It has no mechanisms to generate or control story; trying to add them in or appliqué them on top of the D&D systems is likely only to lead to a confused mess. Other systems are so much better at this (Indie titles like Primetime Adventures or Universalis) that I can't even really see a motivation for it (as opposed to during the early days of D&D, when such alternatives really didn't exist).

Of course you need a DM you can trust - any player needs to be trustworthy, to play fairly and keep to the spirit of the game.

The problem with the original 4e item rules was that they were slanted almost entirely in favor of the players. Thus they became constricted by the kind of restrictions that must exist on class features and no room was left for story. Every fighter expected to have IAoP, etc. The new system puts story back in as a factor. The DM can now both invest item acquisition with some story significance and by moving them out of the realm of required class features (not completely accomplished, but much more true than before) he has the option to use more interesting and varied items.

I'm not able to perceive clearly what you mean by "story", here - but it seems to be essentially focussed around the aesthetics of the setting. This is precisely where I think artifacts win out - they are setting elements, under DM control, that form part of the current challenge or series of challenges. Mixing them up with Items is just a muddled fudge, to my mind. Items are character elements - permanently owned by the characters - and should thus be under player control. Does that mean they need to be limited by the system - well, yeah.

What the new system gives us, then, is a muddy mix of (i) common items that have to be limited (and arguably are limited too much) because they are character tools/elements controlled by the players, (ii) artifacts that are setting elements as they always were, and (iii) rare and uncommon items that are supposed to be "defining elements" of a player's character (that a player doesn't get to choose - WTF?) but are actually handled as setting elements under the DM's control. It's a horrible confusion, it seems to me.

As for the thing about artifacts. This is just terminology. A rare or uncommon item need not be labeled 'artifact'. The functional result is the same, an item which cannot be acquired casually and thus can be more story related. There is now a nice scale, common items that anyone of sufficient level can craft readily, uncommon items one might be able to craft and may come up in treasures in small numbers, rare items which are one-of-a-kind, and the most significant items of all being artifacts which primarily drive the story.

The terminology is important. Items are (semi-permanent) character elements, artifacts are setting elements. The new rares/uncommons are one of these masquerading as the other.

The old system simply lacked enough distinctions and put too much responsibility on the players, who are not in as good a position to judge story significance and are also motivated by other factors to naturally favor utility over anything else. Yes, bad DMs might use this system as some kind of stick against the players, but this is a classically disfunctional situation. The rules cannot fix that and it will manifest regardless of how items are handled. If you have an issue with allowing the DM even a modicum of control over the game I simply don't consider that a rules issue at all. Find a DM you can trust.

Of course DMs have some control over the game - all setting elements are theirs to manipulate. Items are not setting elements - artifacts are. That is the way I see the "old system" - and it's nicely clear and neat. The new system merely muddies that water with kludges that are neither one thing nor the other.