Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5453930" data-attributes="member: 27160">Hmm, this rules change is about the one alteration made with the &quot;Essentials&quot; wave that I really dislike.&nbsp; I understand the incentives, but I think it was poorly thought through and has been poorly implemented.&nbsp; For the first time I have decided as a DM not to use the 'official' rules, here.I think &quot;real purpose&quot; is a bit of a simplification, here.&nbsp; Incentives ranged, I believe, from a desire to reduce/remove onerous design constraints (&quot;don't design an item that screws up the balance&quot;) 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 &quot;polymorph&quot; spells (i.e. every time new items are added to the game, the Enchant Item ritual gets stronger).&nbsp; It also gives players one less obvious avenue to optimise (and obsessive optimisers overshadowing &quot;normal players&quot; is a problem unless the game is to spiral into elitist nerdism).The prices for the change are also many and varied, sadly.&nbsp; First is that the incentives in the system for meeting milestones and exceeding the &quot;five minute workday&quot; are reduced.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Second is that the load on the DM to consider the ramifications of item &quot;release&quot; into a game and design treasure with that in mind are increased.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; This is made harder in long campaigns because an item that is pretty innocuous at the level it is given out may enable a &quot;broken&quot; (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 &quot;uncommon&quot;).Overall, I regard this as a really poor return on investment.I really do understand your sentiment, here, but there is a major problem.&nbsp; Items do materially affect character power, and the standards of encounters, traps and so forth assume a certain level of character power.&nbsp; Changing the item distribution - and hence Character power - from game to game can lead to serious issues of player disorientation and &quot;assumption clash&quot;.&nbsp; There are several possible remedies:1) modify it so that items dont add materially to Character power2) ensure that the items available to characters in all games are in sum of roughly equivalent power3) arrange it so that there is a clear &quot;standard&quot; level of item power, and make deviations from this standard optional rules.The first strikes me as removing the &quot;fun&quot; from magic items.&nbsp; The second requires either free access to all items (i.e. the &quot;old&quot; rule) or a clear and accurate measure of the real power of every item to any specific character (a huge task to create).&nbsp; The third requires the same measure of item power as the second, but could allow the &quot;playstyle specific&quot; 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.&nbsp; As a fallback, the 'old' system of every item being createable and daily powers being controlled as a &quot;resource&quot; at least results in an &quot;economic&quot; maintenance of balance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5453930, member: 27160"] 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. 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 [I]some[/I] utility now that almost everything is officially "uncommon"). Overall, I regard this as a really poor return on investment. 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 [I]could[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification