Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5455403" data-attributes="member: 27160">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.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).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.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!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.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.</blockquote>

Verification